Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/05/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING September 5, 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 Session 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: 13:31:32 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 Dan Dugan 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 June 13, 2023; August 8, 2023; and August 15, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of June 6, 2023 and August 15, 2023. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention and Action Month. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Grant Application: Summer Food Service Program 2023 for YouthCity The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding. If awarded, the grant would fund daily snacks for youth participating in YouthCity 2023 summer programs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Ordinances: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Mixed Use 11 (FB-MU11), previously titled Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 or FB-UN3, as well as an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the FB-MU11 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. The new zoning district is being renamed FB-MU11 in anticipation of future related form-based zoning districts being created. 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis The Council will 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 8, 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 South 1600 East. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). The applicant is also seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7. Petitioner: Blaine Properties LLC, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment The Council will 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, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1. Grant: Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal The Council will consider approving a grant from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands (FF&SL) to the Division of Trails & Natural Lands. The FF&SL provided the City $50,000 from its Navigational Hazards Fund to support the Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal Project. The funds are not associated with a current grant application or award. 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, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 North and Annexation at Approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider a request for an annexation and zoning changes for properties located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane. The changes include: Annexation into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: •2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space •2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use •2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG- 2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State- owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124 & PLNPCM2021-01134. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Board Appointment: Library Board – Darell Schmick The Council will consider approving the appointment of Darell Schmick to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 4. Board Appointment: Library Board – Sariah Toronto The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sariah Toronto to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Turner Bitton The Council will consider approving the appointment of Turner Bitton to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6. Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Carlos Santos-Rivera The Council will consider approving the appointment of Carlos Santos-Rivera to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 2:00 p.m. on Friday, September 1, 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, June 13, 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, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Aaron Barlow – Principal Planner, Tim Cosgrove – Community Liaison, Daniel Echeverria – Senior Planner, Diana Martinez – Principal Planner, Kaitlyn Harris – Principal Planner The meeting was called to order at 2:16 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1 Work Session Items Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 1.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~ 2:00 p.m. 60 min The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023; Thursday, June 1, 2023; Tuesday, June 6, 2023; Monday, June 12, 2023 and Tuesday, June 13, 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 Jennifer Bruno reviewed the list of items the Council had expanded/increase budgets for and reviewed the potential motions for the Formal meeting. Council Members and Jennifer Bruno discussed: •The Straw Poll for salaries for legal staffing and where the funding was coming from to support the salary increases •Increase in Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funding •Potential motions and the contingencies included in each motion Council Members thanked Staff for a job well done on budget discussions and presentations given that helped run the City. Council Member Wharton would like to push for a more robust mural program in the future. 2.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:00 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2 Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Tim Cosgrove provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates •Ways to engage with the City found at: www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Thriving in Place – Public comment period closing June 26, 2023 •Mayor’s Community Office Hours updates/locations •Community Outreach Team ◦Digital Community Liaison – Zoe Stewart ◦Community Liaison – Alicia De Leon •June 2023 Event Schedule ◦Partners in the Park - 6/13/23 - Jordan Park ◦Neighborhood House Summer Celebration – 6/16/23 – Neighborhood House ◦Summer Film Series at Liberty Park -- Little Richard: I Am Everything – 6/16/23 - Liberty Park ◦Sugar House Rocks Concert Series – 6/16/23 – Monument Plaza ◦Utah Blues Festival – 6/16/23 – Galivan Center ◦Downtown Farmers Market – 6/17/23 – Pioneer Park ◦Bridging the Gap Workshop Series – 6/17/23 - Big Cottonwood Park / U of U CAP/IRC Building ◦SLUG Mag's Brewstillery – 6/17/23 – Artspace City Center ◦34th Annual Utah Juneteenth Freedom & Heritage Festival – 6/21/23 – Gallivan Center ◦Acoustic Music Strolls on Jordan River Parkway – 6/22/23 – Jordan River Parkway ◦Summer Film Series at Liberty Park – Marcel the Shell With No Shoes On – 6/23/23 Liberty Park ◦Utah Arts Festival 2023 – 6/23/23 – Library Square ◦SLC Track Club & Deseret News Spring Series 15K (Race 3 of 3) – 6/24/23 – Memory Grove Park ◦High Tea with a Twist – 6/24/23 – McCune Mansion ◦Downtown Farmers Market – 6/24/23 – Pioneer Park ◦Partners in the Park – 6/27/23 – Poplar Grove Park ◦Summer Film Series at Liberty Park – Godspeed, Los Polacos! – 6/30/23 Council Members welcomed Alicia and Zoe to the City. Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Homeless Resource Center (HRC) utilization June 5-9, 2023 •Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) locations/outreach/site rehabilitation •Resource Fair to be held at 900 South River Park – June 9, 2023 •Kayak Court to be held June16, 2023 – single location to be determined •Task Group was working on a site, funding and staffing for the Winter Overflow MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 3 Shelter this coming year Council Member Dugan expressed gratitude for the growth in the discussion/processes homelessness resources have gone through in the last year. 3.Informational: 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the 300 West Corridor and Station Area Plan which covers the blocks adjacent to 300 West between approximately 1000 South and 2100 South. The update of the plan will provide guidance on anticipated development in the area. The City was awarded funding from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) for the development of the small area plan. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the purpose of the proposal including: Daniel Echeverria presented the proposal including: •Project area •Background for the proposal •Project schedule •Request for Council feedback and direction Council Members, Nick Norris, Daniel Echeverria and Nick Tarbet discussed: •The public engagement process for the proposal and who would be involved in the discussions •Why zoning changes were included in the scope of work for the consultant and if that would be standard practice in the future •Coordination with other government entities on this project 4.Tentative Break ~ 3:35 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4 5.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 510 South 200 West ~ 3:55 p.m. 20 min The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property at 510 South 200 West from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Jason Boel, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 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 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the proposal including the location and purpose of the proposal. Diana Martinez presented the proposal including: •Project request to rezone property at 510 South 200 West from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District) •Downtown Building Height Ordinance - modifications to D-1 and D-2 – approved last week by the City Council •No development proposal at this time •The applicant has indicated possible residential/commercial mixed-use, but it is not known at this time •The Planning Commission voted unanimously to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for this zoning map amendment •Current language in the code regarding the D-1 zoning Brian Fullmer reviewed the timeline for the proposal. 6.Ordinance: Nonconforming Signs ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs. The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with City goals, supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The proposed changes would also allow for more flexibility for the maintenance, reuse, modification, and updating of existing signs. The changes would also clarify when the removal of such signs is required. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 5 Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 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 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the purpose of the proposal. Kaitlynn Harris reviewed the proposal including: •Definition of a nonconforming sign •How vintage signs and billboards would be regulated under the proposed changes •Current language in the code regulating nonconforming signs •Proposed changes to the code •City standards for electronic signs •Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed changes Council Members, Kaitlynn Harris, Nick Norris and Brian Fullmer discussed: •Lighting restrictions for signs ◦Lighting should be addressed in an ordinance for all signs and billboards and not only in the proposed ordinance •The option to create a Legislative Intent to address lighting for billboards and signs •Technology being used on the sign at Millcreek Commons •Definition of a vintage sign •Current language in the code for signage •Project timeline 7.Ordinance: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at Riverside Cottages ~ 4:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning for portions of property at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and other portions of these properties from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District), as well as amending the zoning of property located at 552 North 1500 West from R-1/7,000 to SR-3. In addition, the proposal would amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is located within Council District 1. Petitioner: Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 6 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the purpose of the proposal. Aaron Barlow presented the proposal including: • Project request: ◦ Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment (north) (PLNPCM2022-00674 and PLNPCM2021-01075) 552 North 1500 West & north portions of 1500 West, 1516 West, 1520 West, and 1522 West 500 North – R-1/7,000 to SR-3 Low-Density Residential to Medium Density Residential ◦ Zoning Map Amendment (south) (PLNPCM2021-01203) southern 110 feet (approximate) of 1500 West, 1516 West, 1520 West, and 1522 West 500 North – R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000 • What the SR-3 would change ◦ Lot Size ◾Smaller lots ◾2,000 square feet vs. 7,000 square feet ◦ Housing types ◾More options ◾Single-family attached (townhouses) ◾Two-family/duplexes ◦ Setbacks ◾Smaller rear- and side-yard setback • Master Plan Compliance ◦ Northwest Community Plan (1980, updated 1992) ◾Limit dense development in a single-family neighborhood ◦ Plan Salt Lake (2015) ◾Promote medium-density infill ◦ Growing SLC (2018) ◾Promote medium-density infill ◦ SR-3 district is an effective compromise • Neighborhood Character ◦ Primarily single-family detached with some dense infill ◦ Deep lots • Planning Commission having forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Council • Public feedback in opposition to the proposal • Planned Development Petition: ◦ Planned Development approval required due to: ◾Width of the lot facing 1500 West housing loss mitigation plan ◾Align property lines with proposed zoning boundaries ◾Additional standards must be met prior to development Bert Holland (Hoyt Place Development, LLC) spoke to the intention of the rezone and nature of the families that would be in the development. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Council Members, Bert Holland, Aaron Barlow, Nick Norris and Brian Fullmer discussed: • Access to the property for vehicles, pedestrians and if the traffic pattern would change with the development • Ensuring a walkway was kept between 500 North and Backman Elementary ◦ Existing walkway would not be affected by the development and an additional walkway was part of the proposed development • R-1/5,000 was to allow for more land to be developed on the SR-3 lots • The existing homes would be renovated and remain on the properties • Amenities such as trees and green space were part of the planned development • Ownership of the homes • The number of bedrooms that would be in the homes • Timeline for the proposal 8. & 1000 W 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West,1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low- Density Multi-Family Residential). The amendment is intended to allow the property owner to develop townhouses on the subject properties; however, no development plans have been submitted at this time. If the amendment is approved, the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the newly adopted RMF-30 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. The subject properties are located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Jordan Atkin, representing the property owner. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 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 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the purpose of the proposal. Kaitlynn Harris presented the proposal including: • Project site • Existing and proposed zoning • Planning Commission having forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Council Council Members, Amy Thompson, Kaitlynn Harris, Jordan Atkin (Applicant) and Brian Fullmer discussed: • If the units would be for rent or sale and how many units would be in the structures MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8 Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1549 S, 1551 S, 1565 S ~ 4:55 p.m. • The existing homes and if they would be demolished or remain • The neighboring project and how it would tie into the proposed project • Access to the property • Timeline for the proposal Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Council Member Mano thanked everyone for working through the budget process. 10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Cindy Gust-Jenson reported on the Redevelopment Agency fact-finding trip that Council Members would be attending in Pittsburg, PA, August 23 to 27, 2023. Cindy Gust-Jenson asked Council to notify Staff by Friday, June 16, 2023, if they would like to go on the trip. 11.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9 (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10 Meeting adjourned at 3:58 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, June 13, 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, August 8, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young The following Council Members were absent: Ana Valdemoros 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, Matthew Brown – Minutes & Records Clerk, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Zalmay Mallyar – Know Your Neighbor Resettlement Support, Roxana Orellana – Policy Advisor for Refugees & New Americans, JP Goats – Deputy Director Public Services, Julie Crookston – Deputy Director Public Services, Katherine Schnell – Mayor's Office Executive Assistant The meeting was called to order at 3:53 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:00 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 Katie Schnell provided information regarding: Community Engagement Highlights • Ways to engage with the City at www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Planning Department projects/events ◦ Adaptive Reuse Ordinance • Public Lands projects/events ◦ North Temple Boulevard: Madsen Park ◦ Glendale Regional Park Master Plan ◦ Liberty Park Playground ◦ Making the Emerald Ribbon • Arts Council ◦ West Side Art Project • Mayor’s Office ◦ August Community Office hours and locations • August 2023 City events Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Resource Center utilization data • Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation locations • Resource Fair to be held Friday August 11, 2023, at Library Square • Kayak Court to be held August 18, 2023, on the Jordan River • State of Utah 5-Year Homeless Strategic Plan – https://jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/homelessnessstrategicplan/pdf • Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) Strategic Plan • Salt Lake Valley ‘23-24 Winter Services Plan • Outdoor Resources Center (Sanctioned Camp Pilot) • Cooling station information MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2 2.Informational: Equity Update ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3 Roxana Orellana and Zalmay Mallyar presented the Equity update highlighting: • Welcoming week – September 8-17, 2023 ◦ Official calendar of all events will be available on SLCGov.com ◦ Welcoming Walk, Tree Planting and Dedication scheduled for September 14, from 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm at Washington Square • Welcoming new immigrants and refugees – please send welcoming messages to Roxana.Orellana@slcgov.com by August 28, 2023 Council Members asked for the information pamphlets to pass out to residents. 3.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow- up ~ 4:35 p.m. 60 min The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023; 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 4 Ben Luedtke reviewed the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) information including: • CIP Budget Book pages • New information since the last briefing • Potential funding scenarios for Council-identifed priority projects and how each project would be funded: ◦ #7 Livable Streets Program – new total would be $1,644,136 ◦ #21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail and Safety Improvements – for two driver feedback signs ◦ #22 Richmond Park Playground – combine with Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond funding for District Four ReImagine neighborhood parks ◦ #27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements – combine with Parks, Trails & Open Space Bond funds for Folsom Trail ◦ #32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 – fully funds the second phase ◦ #46 Safety Enhancements to Westside of Foothill Drive – for Blaine Avenue and 2500 East ◦ #57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements – fully funds the request • Attachment 10 regarding the Concrete Replacement 50/50 program (located in the Staff Report/Meeting Materials) Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: • The proposed funding scenario would spend the entire dollar amount allocated to CIP • The impact of funding on the projects and ensuring it was being used in the best way • Procedure for allocating funding for traffic calming and moving it toward a more data driven process rather than political • Creating a Legislative Intent for a data driven approach to traffic calming ◦ Staff will draft the Legislative Intent to put in place prior to the next round of CIP applications • Data in the Staff Report regarding other projects • If the 50/50 plan estimate properly reflected the homeownership rates in the districts ◦ Correlated to the household income rather than homeownership rates ◦ Differences in bid rates for the City versus the cost/bids residents were receiving ◾Differences may come from the City’s use of bonded contractors that guaranteed work in the public way and completed to City standards ◦JP Goates and Julie Crookston reviewed: ◾The 50/50 program ◾Funding ◾Material fees ◾ADA compliance regulations ◦ Funding for sidewalks in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) areas ◦ ADA compliance projects ◦ Importance of reviewing ways to repair and fund sidewalks while taking into account financial issues of residents MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 5 ◦ The difference in the requests and jobs completed in the 50/50 program ◦ How sidewalk damage was tracked and if residents were contacted with information regarding the programs to assist with sidewalk repairs ◦ Exploring a graduated income-based program to assist with sidewalk repair ◾Staff will return with information on potentially changing the policy to allow additional funding for sidewalk repair and the 100 percent CDBG program ◦ Dollar amounts for sidewalk repair per district ◦ How trees affected sidewalks and addressing those issues with Urban Forestry Division • Project #4 Transit Capital for for Frequent Transit Routes ◦ Cost and possible funding ◦ Working with Wasatch Front Regional Council on plans for the project 4. The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for Leavity, LLC., at 47 South Orange Street, #B1, from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Leavity LLC., is a wholesale sourdough bread bakery. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the retention of one current job. 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 15, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 - 6 Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Leavity LLC Written Briefing Written briefing only. No discussion was held. Standing Items 5.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report. 6.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-Jensen stated the Council Meeting on September 8, 2023, would start at 2:30 pm instead oft 2:00 pm due to the Council photograph session. 7.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; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 7 f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Closed Session Started at 4:56 PM Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Dugan, Puy, Petro, Wharton, Young, and Mano (online). City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Katherine Lewis, Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Andrew Johnston, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Allison Rowland, Ben Luedtke, Nick Tarbet, Tammy Huntsaker, Danny Walz, Kimberly Chytraus, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth Thompson, Whitney Gonsalez Fernandez, Matthew Brown, and Thais Stewart. Closed Session ended at 6:12 PM Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to enter into Closed Session for the purposes a strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; 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. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Young to end the closed session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros, Darin Mano Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 8, 2023 8 Meeting adjourned at 6:12 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ 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, August 8, 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, August 8, 2023 9 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, August 15, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, 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, Lorena Riffo Jenson – Economic Development Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Daniel Echeverria – Senior Planner, Tammy Hunsaker – Deputy Director of Community Services, Peter Makowski – Economic Development Manager, Joshua Rebollo – Mayor Executive Assistant, Tony Milner – Director of Housing Stability The meeting was called to order at 2:47 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2 Josh Rebollo provided information regarding: Community Engagement Highlights • Ways to engage with the City at www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Transportation ◦ Capitol Hill Traffic Calming ◦ 1000 West Intersection Improvement and Traffic Calming ◦ 600/700 North Reconstruction www.600northSLC.org • Redevelopment Agency ◦ City Creek Day lighting at Folsom Trail • Mayor’s Office ◦ August Community Office hours and locations • August 2023 City events Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Resource Center utilization data • Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation locations • Resource Fair was held Friday August 11, 2023, at Library Square • Kayak Court to be held August 18, 2023, on the Jordan River • Winter Services Plan ◦ 600 + beds, 24 hours a day/7 days a week operations ◾175 Homeless Resource Center (HRC) Flex beds ◾65 St. Vincent DePaul 7:00 pm-7:00am ◦ October 2023 to April 2024 ◦ Three cities – Emergency Shelter Beds ◦ MVP – Sandy ◦ VOA – Detox Expansion ◦ Code Blue Emergency Options ◾Below 15 degrees farenheit ◦ Working on Providers and Funding Council Members and Andrew Johnston discussed: • Mitigation funding for the neighborhoods hosting flex shelters • Options for the location of the flex shelter • Status of the City-based Code Blue initiative • If all beds would be 24/7 during the winter to keep people warm and off the streets • The number of beds in each shelter and if they made up the 600 bed count • Options for family housing • If the bed cap needed to be raised for the upcoming fall/winter seasons 2.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 North and Annexation at Approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane ~ 2:15 p.m. 30 min. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3 Annexation into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: • 2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space • 2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use • 2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State-owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124 & PLNPCM2021-01134. The Council will receive a briefing about annexation and zoning changes for properties located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane. The changes include: Nick Tarbet reviewed the proposal, including: • Annexation of about 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane which required designating a zone for each property within the area • The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: ◦ 2440 North Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space ◦ 2441 North Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed- Use ◦ 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space Daniel Echeverria reviewed: • Public outreach for the proposal • Policy questions as listed in the Staff Report (contained in the Meeting Materials) • Planning Commission’s negative recommendation • Planning Staff’s recommendation • Standards for review • Requested zoning and what was allowed under the proposed zones Council Members and Daniel Echeverria discussed: • Area transit services • Density should allow for radial movements in the area • Project could be positive for future generations • Protecting the Westside and ensuring additional noise did not become an issue • Potential services for residents • Area being a food desert • If the development offered adequate green space • Ensuring the proposed road interacted with the canal and Jordan River • Reasoning for the proposed zoning versus lower density Wade Budge, Lincoln Shurtz and Jason Boal (J Right Communities - Applicant) presented/addressed: • Council’s concerns for the facility • Intent of the proposal • Access to existing trails from the development • How changes in the proposal addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission • Potential development agreement Council Members, Daniel Echeverria, Wade Budge and Lincoln Shurtz discussed: • State funds given to the City for the project • Layout and use of the ground floor • If tools existed in the RMU zoning to ensure the project addressed the safety and security of its residents • Design needed to be reviewed to make it a livable development • Location of residential and business uses in the development 3.Informational: Capital Asset Plan Early Check-In for Policy ~ 2:45 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4 • Using economic filtration that would not pass the cost of the filters to the residents was important Guidance 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the process, goals, and prioritization criteria to create a Capital Asset Plan. It would prioritize projects over a five-year period to implement the City's visions from Council-adopted master plans. Prioritized projects would go through the annual open and competitive Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to receive funding. A Capital Asset Plan would help bridge the gap between 20-year master plan aspirations and the annual CIP process, such as identifying efficiencies of combining projects across departments and plans, tracking metrics for high-level policy goals, and aligning funding sources with eligible uses. Item not held. 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 3:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.1 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. 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 additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to address lane closures and sidewalk closures separately. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. Ben Luedtke and Mary Beth Thompson presented the budget amendment including: • Budget Amendment Number One includes ten proposed amendments, $2,139,398 in revenues and $14,892,993 in expenditures of which $250,000 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to five funds • Most expenses in this budget amendment were housekeeping items • The transmittal included a separate ordinance for Item D-2 that would correct a fee in the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) • The budget amendment and the CFS amendment would be listed as two separate items with two separate ordinances and voted on at a future Council formal meeting agenda • If all items were adopted the General Fund Balance (including Funding Our Future) would be projected at 11.38% which is $7,190,963 below the 13% minimum target • FY2024 annual budget had a projected Fund Balance slightly above 13% of ongoing General Fund revenues MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5 • Decrease from 13% to 11.38% was caused by an $8.5 million estimate of expense changes (e.g. prepaid expenses, accounts payable outstanding), actual amount could vary • Actual expense changes were pending confirmation by the annual financial audit – typically completed in December • Projected Fund Balance did not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year • Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration for additional information about the $8.5 million of estimated expense changes and whether the estimates might have changed since the annual budget deliberations in May and June Council Members, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Gust-Jensen and Ben Luedtke discussed: • The request not being an additional request as it was moving the funds forward that could not be appropriated the previous year • Fund Balance totals and how the new balance came about Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Lorena Riffo-Jensen and Peter Makowski discussed: • A-1: Donation for Northeast Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 Donation to the CIP Fund) ◦Straw Poll - Support for the donation to Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park in the amount of $218,000 to light both ball fields. Supported by all Council Members present. • A-2: One-time Additional Funding for Fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Events ($250,000 from General Fund Balance) ◦ Start dates for the program ◦ The look of the proposed barrier would be black bollards and white chain and street barriers would be a roll-able cement bollard ◦ Reasoning for the delay in this year’s program ◦ The longevity and maintenance of the bollards ◦ Impacts of the construction on 200 South and how it excluded some businesses as part of the program ◦ Cost of program funding ◦ What would be included in the activation and programing and if was an appropriate use of tax-payer money ◦ Benefits the program had on the City ◦ Program cost should decrease each year ◦ Economic Development Staff to present information on activation and programing via email or at a future meeting ◦ Infrastructure that would be added with the additional funding request and the reasoning for adding the infrastructure ◦ Time frame of the activations – 12:00pm to 2:00am, Friday and Saturday ◾Straw Poll - Support for funding the fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Initiative, holding the activation and programing funding until MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 6 more information could be given – in which Economic Development would like time to bring back information on the activation and programing – If the activation was not approved how would it effect the program- Whether or not fund the proposal as presented ◾Alternative Straw Poll – Support for approving the entire funding for the fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Initiative. Supported by Council Members Wharton, Valdemoros, Young, Puy and Dugan. Council Members Mano and Petro did not support the straw poll Follow-up items for Council: • Information on the activation of the streets and cost of the program • A study of the pedestrian mall to determine the benefit of the program • Details of the activation and programing including what feedback/data collection was being received • Feedback from businesses after investments were made in the neighborhoods Remaining budget items to be discussed at a later meeting. 5.Tentative Break ~ 3:45 p.m. 20 min. 6.Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis ~ 4:05 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s public benefit analysis for a project that would provide new student housing at the University of Utah. The public benefit analysis was performed to potentially justify impact and permit fee waivers and refunds paid by the Ivory University House, L3C, a low-profit limited liability company. 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. Allison Rowland, Mary Beth Thompson and Blake Thomas presented the analysis including: • 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 was currently under construction at 434 South Mario Capecchi Drive was being developed by Ivory University House L3C • The public benefit analysis was performed to assess whether Salt Lake City could/should waive impact and permit fees, as well as providing refunds for fees the project had already paid • The public benefit analysis concluded that “While the project was not income restricted, it would be rent restricted and would address critical affordable housing needs of students” • The impact fee amount requested to be waived/refunded would total just over $2.4 million MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7 • 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 was to 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 Council Members, Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas and Allison Rowland discussed: • The amount of funding Ivory University House would be donating as scholarships over the next ten years • The background of the waiver and why it was not conducted at the beginning of the process • If the residents of the development would be scholarship winners or if who would be using the facility • If not for the subject agreement when would impact fees be paid – at issuance of the permits, this was a refund of those fees Analise Wilson (Ivory University House L3C) reviewed the status of the company and the operations agreement dictating all profits must go to a scholarship fund for students, and the rental/housing assistance program that would be funded through the student program. Council Members and Analise Wilson discussed: • Housing assistance programs • Definition of a Salt Lake City resident • Who qualified for the scholarships 7.Informational: Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds Follow-up ~ 4:35 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on unallocated U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program income funds from the Community Development Block Grant or CDBG and Home Investment Partnership programs, among others. The briefing will include an overview of projects and programs based on the Council's earlier policy guidance, the next steps for use of the funds, and areas needing further Council policy feedback. Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview of the proposal. Tammy Hunsaker and Tony Milner presented the information including: • Accumulated funds • Proposed Funding Allocations ◦ HUD Program Income ◦ Moving Forward – Best Practices & Transparency ◦ Next Steps – HUD Funding ◦ HUD Timeline Requirements • Proposed Allocations – Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ◦ Proposed Allocations – HOME MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 8 ◦ Non-Restricted Program Income ◦ Moving Forward – Best Practices & Transparency ◦ Next Steps – Non-Restricted Funds ◦ Proposed Allocations – Non-Restricted Tenant & Homeowner Loan Fund (Revolving) ◦ Proposed Allocations – Non-Restricted – One Time Allocations • Questions for the Council ◦ Supportive of Administration’s proposed funding allocations ◦ Supportive of establishing a tenant and homeowner revolving loan fund Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Tony Milner and Tammy Hunsaker discussed: • Changing the name from the Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) Renter Rehab Program to the NOAH Rental Rehab Program • Timeline for approving the amendments • Process of approving the applications • Additional details of the tenant and homeowner loan fund would be brought to a future meeting for review • Next steps for the proposal 8.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board: Elizabeth Hanna ~ 5:20 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Elizabeth Hanna prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. Item not held. Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. 10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9 Item not held. 11.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to enter into Closed Session as the RDA Board and City Council for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, and 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. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Closed Session started at 5:15 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10 Council Members in Attendance: Council/Board Members Dugan, Young, Petro, Puy, Mano, Wharton and Valdemoros City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Lindsey Nikola, Andrew Johnston, Katherine Lewis, Sara Montoya, Kimberly Chytraus, Paul Nielson, Allison Parks, Danny Walz, Tammy Hunsaker, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Allison Rowland, Ben Luedtke, and Cindy Lou Trishman Closed Session ended at 6:00 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Puy to exit Closed Session. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11 Meeting adjourned at 6:00 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, August 15, 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. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and the Salt Lake City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Formal Session on Tuesday, June 6, 2023. The following Board Directors/Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano The following Board Directors/Council Members were absent: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton 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, Danny Walz – Redevelopment Agency Chief Operating Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Sam Owen – Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst Council Member Mano presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 1 LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Board/Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.LBA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City 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) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comments Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to cloose MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 2 the public hearing and refer the item to a future meeting for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass C.LBA ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Councilmember Petro, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adjourn the Local Building Authority meeting and reconvene as the Redevelopment Agency. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. D.RDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and refer the item to a future meeting for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comments E.RDA ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adjourn the MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4 Redevelopment Agency meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. F.CITY COUNCIL OPENING CEREMONY: 1.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of April 4, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Petro to approve the Formal Minutes for April 4, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass G.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Allison Rowland gave a brief overview of the proposal. Georgina Griffith Yates spoke to the programing available for women at the shelter. 2.Ordinance: New Five-Year Housing Plan, Housing SLC The Council will 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. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). Allison Rowland gave a brief overview of the proposal. Lance Spencer spoke to the cost of housing, expressed support for the proposed programs but it would not help the overall problems with housing in the city. Kseniya Kniazeva thanked Council for all the hard work on the housing issues, asked Council to help provide deeply affordable housing, sanctioned campgrounds and other options for housing the citizens of Salt Lake City. Kristina Robb thanked Planning Department Staff for the work on the proposal and expressed excitement for the next steps for affordable housing in Salt Lake City. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a later date. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7 Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 3.Ordinance: Salt Lake School District Signs The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning text of Section 21A.46.052 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to pole signs on school properties. Public and private schools are located in various zoning districts around the City, and not all of the zoning districts permit freestanding pole signs. The signs are used to educate the community about activities at the school. Petitioner: Paul Schulte representing the Salt Lake City School District, Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-00190 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comment. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 4.Resolution: Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2023 for Financing the Construction of the New SLC International Airport The Council will accept public comment for a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of one or more series of Airport Revenue Bonds, series 2023, for the purpose of financing certain Capital Improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport. The Council's action includes authorizing the execution of a supplemental indenture, a bond purchase agreement, and other documents as required. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCAirports. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 9, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 and Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Items G5-G12 will be heard as one public hearing. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to continue the public hearing to June 13, 2023 due to a noticing error. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Sam Owen gave a brief overview of the proposal. Jay Larson talked about tone of voice the speakers were using. 5.Grant Application: Community Project Funding Fiscal Year 2023 – 200 South Transit Corridor Phase 3 The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Transportation to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. If awarded, the grant would fund transit signal priority, high visibility signage, and pavement markings to increase the capacity of the 200 South corridor to accommodate twelve Utah Transit Authority (UTA) bus routes providing roughly 1,100 bus trips per day for existing local routes and new regional routes serving South Davis County and the City’s Westside. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6.Grant Application: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Capacity Building Grant – YouthCity Fairpark 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 salary, wages, and benefits for two full-time and ten MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 9 seasonal/hourly positions. The grant would also fund snacks used in youth programming, cell phones, fuel for vans, rent, staff background checks, and training. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 7.Grant Application: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Capacity Building Grant – Fairpark Family Learning 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 salary, wages, and benefits for two full-time and five seasonal positions, and snacks used in adult education programs. The grant would also fund computers, laptops, iPads, chairs for the Fairpark Family Learning Center (FFLC) Technology Center, cell phones, rent, staff background checks, training, and software licenses. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 8.Grant Application: Victims of Crime Grant – Salt Lake City Prosecutor Victim Advocates The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the City Attorney Office to the Utah Office for Crime Victims. If awarded, the grant would fund two victim advocate positions, continue the Victim Advocate funded by the 2021- 2023 Victims of Crime Grant (VOCA) award, and funding for a second victim advocate. Also included in the request is training with travel, office furniture, and an annual software subscription. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 9.Grant Application: Recreation Trails Program Grant – Jordan River Water Trail Tree and Debris Removal The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Lands to the Utah Department of Natural Resources. If awarded, the grant would fund the removal of dead and obstructing trees, branches, and debris from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safety and accessibility for paddle boat navigation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 10.Grant Application: Violence Against Women Grant – Salt Lake City Prosecutor Victim Advocate The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the City Prosecutor to the Utah Office for Crime Victims. If awarded, the grant would fund one victim advocate position. This position will provide services and resources to victims of sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and domestic violence as their cases move through the criminal justice system. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 11 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 11.Grant Application: Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant – Police Department Crime Lab Accreditation Fee 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 Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 12.Grant Application: Clean Energy to Communities Expert Match Grant – Training from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Energy and Environment to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. If awarded, the grant would fund short-term technical assistance from experts with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to build its staff capacities to use public data sources and tools to quantify emissions reductions and other benefits associated with renewable energy resources. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 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, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12 Ordinances listed below (G13 – G24) are associated with the implementation of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Salt Lake City, including the Library Fund, for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. All ordinances will be heard as one public hearing. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and refer items G-5 through G-12 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the proposal. Kristina Robb asked Council to support the violence against women grant (Item G10) and spoke to the demographic the grant would support. 13.Ordinance: Adopting the Budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 14.Ordinances relating to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 City Budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for Salt Lake City, Utah, excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 13 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 15.Ordinance: Adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 16.Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance amending various fees and fee information set forth in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 14 17.Ordinance: Compensation Plan for All Non-represented employees of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for all non-represented employees of Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 18.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of an MOU between Salt Lake City and AFSCME for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1004, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 15 19.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the International Association of Firefighters for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating the necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters Local 81, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 20.Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Association for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 16 21.Ordinance: Accessible Parking Space Violation The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend sections of the Salt Lake City Code to adjust penalties for accessible parking space violations to better correspond with similar penalties described in the State of Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 22.Ordinance: Board Member Employee Status The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would clarify status of members appointed to Salt Lake City Boards and Commissions who receive compensation for their service. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a 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 - n/a Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 17 23.Ordinance: Past Due Account Receivable Fees The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to past due accounts receivable fees and incorporating references to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). 24.Ordinance: Removal/Bagging of Parking Meters The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to removal of parking meters and incorporating references to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD 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 - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 18 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. Terry Marasco spoke to funds allocated for projects on the Westside, the need to make funding available for projects throughout Salt Lake City, the need for the city to be unified as well as understand the issues on the Westside need to be addressed. Jim Webster spoke to the Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) funding for the Miller Bird Park, the lack of funding of the proposed CIP grant, a stadium on the East bench for the University of Utah was not appropriate and property should be used for a park. Abdirizak Ibahm spoke to the need to fix the issues on the Westside of Salt Lake City and improve the area for the residence. Christopher Butler spoke to the proposed police budget, need to look at better options that are proven to stop crime at the source and expressed support for the civilian groups that were working with the police but funding for these programs should be removed from the police budget. Jay Larsen spoke to why he did not pledge allegiance to the flag. Roger Miller discussed issues with the Other Side Tiny Home Village and the need to follow similar projects that were fiscally responsible as this project was not financially responsible. Keseniya Kniazecva spoke to the funds being spent on the Police Department that should be spent on housing, people need housing not more policing and asked Council to focus on affordable housing. Kristina Robb spoke to alleyways throughout the city, the need to improve alleyways to help with traffic congestion when roads are being worked on, and asked Council to please consider informing constituents how these areas can be improved. Evan Sugden spoke to E-bikes and asked for a portion of the funding to be used for security options/parking for bikes. Judi Short spoke to the time Council had spent on housing over the year, the displacement of people with construction projects and the lack of funding to start a tenant relocation project, please review the budget to find money for affordable housing and create development agreements to require 20% of affordable housing in new MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 19 apartment projects. Jack Ellefsen spoke to the need for improvements on 700 North and Riverside Drive specifically drainage, infrastructure and sidewalks as this has been an issue for many years and nothing had been done. Mavy Smith spoke about affordable housing and the lack of insulation used in the buildings causing people to need to apply for heat assistance. H.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance: Early Notification Text Amendment The Council will 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. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCEarlyNotificationOrdinance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, March 3, 2020; Tuesday, September 29, 2020; Tuesday, November 16, 2021; and Tuesday, April 11, 2023 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). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 20 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adopt Ordinance 23 of 2023, approving various changes to the Salt Lake City Code relating to early notification of the public and recognized community organizations for land use projects. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 2.Ordinance: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation Text Amendment The Council will 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 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) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 21 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to adopt Ordinance 24 of 2023, to 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. Further move to adopt a legislative action initiating a petition to study bird- friendly glass and provide recommendations to the Council on best practices for its use. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 3.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes 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) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adopt Ordinance 25 of 2023, amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2022-23 only for items as shown on the motion sheet. A-1: Additional Funding for the Cultural Core ($291,000 from Salt Lake City’s Cultural Core Surplus Fund) A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Rescope Change ($823,548 from CIP) A-5: Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks) A-6: Open Space Property Acquisitions (Trails) ($300,00 from Impact Fees) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 22 A-7: Recapture Ont-time Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act Funds ($209,552 Rescope from $200,000 of City Administration and $9,552 from VOA’s Homeless Outreach Program) A-8: Steiner Aquatics Center Roof Replacement ($1.38 million from General Fund Balance) A-10: Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials ($35,000 from General Fund Balance) A-12: Impact Fee Plan Consultant Contract Amendment ($27,000 Total; $9,000 Each from Fire, Parks, and Police Impact Fees) A-13: Flood Mitigation ($1 Million Total; $736,275 from General Fund Balance and Recapturing $263,725 of Unused NBA Allstar Game Activation Funding) A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement ($14,603,080 from ARPA) Note the $4 million to the RDA’s Westside Community Initiative was adopted on May 16 D-2: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements ($17,118 from General Fund) D-3: Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land Fund – Land Purchase near RAC ($395,442 from Parks Impact Fees and $500,000 back to Surplus Land Fund) D-4: Fire Impact Fee – Fee payment for Excess Capacity ($2.2 million of Fire Impact Fees of Which $1.7 million to the CIP Fund and $500,000 to the General Fund) D-5: Fire Training Center ($499,533 from General Fund to CIP Fund) D-6: Fisher Mansion Carriage House Impact Fee Reimbursement ($100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to CIP Cost Overrun Account) D-7: Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus ($129,688 from CIP Fund to Surplus Land Fund) D-8: Police Impact Fee – Unclaimed Refunds ($237,606 from Impact Fees to Police Impact Fees) D-9: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP ($25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund) D-10: Difference Between $4.3 Million Grant Adopted in Budget Amendment No.5 and the Actual $4.22 Million) ($78,560 from Misc. Grants) E-1: School-Age Quality 22 Grant (FY 22-25) ($780,000 from Misc. Grants (Funding and Award Title Correction)) E-2: School-Age Quality Summer Expansion FY22-23 ($373,338 from Misc. Grants) (Correction) G-1: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA – Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program ($115,472 from Misc. Grants) AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adopt Ordinance 25 of 2023, amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget including the employment staffing document for item A-15 as shown on the motion MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 23 sheet. A-15: ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund External Developer ($10 Million from ARPA) Further move that funding for item A-15 is a contingent appropriation subject to Council approval of a term sheet, and the adoption ordinance shall be updated to reflect this condition. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass I.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. No questions 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.) Council Member Mano reviewed the rules of decorum. Steven Lemmon spoke to the statue of the mermaid at the Peace Gardens, the need to repair and provide security for the statue. Christopher Butler spoke to the Mayor’s comments about George Floyd’s death and the need to stop throwing funding at the police as they were not the answer to the issue. Kseniya Kniazeva spoke to the need to protect people and provide sanctioned campgrounds. Cindy Cromer spoke to the fire on 200 East, zero setbacks on the property next to the building (The Randy) and how setbacks affect the safety/views of surrounding properties. J.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. K.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. L.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at Riverside Cottages The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for portions of property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and other portions of these properties from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 24 District), as well as amending the zoning of property located at 552 North 1500 West from R-1/7,000 to SR-3. In addition, the proposal would amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is located within Council District 1. Petitioner: Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owners. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021- 01203, and PLNPCM2022-00674 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Monday, June 12, 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 - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2.Ordinance: Rezone at 1549 South, 1551 South, 1565 South, and 1000 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West,1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi- Family Residential). The amendment is intended to allow the property owner to develop townhouses on the subject properties; however, no development plans have been submitted at this time. If the amendment is approved, the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the newly adopted RMF-30 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The subject properties are located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Jordan Atkin, representing the property owner, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00733 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Monday, June 12, 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 - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 25 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 510 South 200 West from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Jason Boel, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01108. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 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 - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4.Ordinance: Nonconforming Signs The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs. The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with City goals, supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The proposed changes would also allow for more flexibility for the maintenance, reuse, modification, and updating of existing signs. The changes would also clarify when the removal of such signs is required. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00984 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 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 - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.10) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 10) for Fiscal Year 2022-23. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 26 3.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 510 South 200 West discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Board – Melissa Greis The Council will consider approving the appointment of Melissa Greis to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7.Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission – Jennifer Mayer-Glenn The Council will consider approving the appointment of Jennifer Mayer-Glenn to the Human Rights Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 8.Board Reappointment: Housing Advisory and Appeals Board – Daniel Gaffin The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Daniel Gaffin to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for a term ending December 31, 2027. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 27 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, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 9.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple The Council will set the date of Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located 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 Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00810. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/WestTempleRezone. 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 - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve items L1-L8 from the consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve item L9 from the consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Alejandro Puy MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 28 RECUSED: Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton Final Result: 4 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano recused himself for item L9. Council Member Petro called for the motion and the vote. M. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:10 pm Council Minutes Approved: RDA Minutes Approved: LBA Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ Redevelopment Agency Chair Alejandro Puy _______________________________ Local Building Authority 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, RDA, and LBA meeting held Tuesday, June 6, 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, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, June 6, 2023 29 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, August 15, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young 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, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano 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 9, 2023; June 1, 2023; and June 6, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of April 18, 2023, and June 13, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Puy to approve work session minutes from May 9, 2023; June 1, 2023 and June 6, 2023 and formal minutes from April 18, 2023 and June 13, 2023 AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Grant Application: Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police Department to the State of Utah – Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. If awarded, the grant would fund Police overtime, training, and computers. The grant project period will be 12 months beginning July 1, 2024. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 15, 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, August 15, 2023 2 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to close the public hearing and refer Item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comments C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment The Council will 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 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 46 of 2023, to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano clarified that the current proposal had the amendments as discussed in the last Work Session. Cindy Gust-Jenson stated the updates had been made in the current Staff Report. 2. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects The Council will 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3 project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Resolution 23 of 2023, adopting the Capital Improvement Program project-specific allocations for Fiscal Year 2024 as shown in Exhibit A Funding Log (contained in the Meeting Materials) AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. No questions at this time. 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.) Council Member Mano reviewed the rules of decorum. Katie Pappas spoke to the warehouse development in the Northwest Quadrant, the amount of vacant warehouses in the area, upcoming negotiations with the Inland Port for the traffic impact study and asked the Council to help mitigate the impacts of the Inland Port. Cindy Cromer spoke to the RMF-30 zoning changes, lack of green space, fire in Central City near 300 South damaging the”Pink House”, the number of vacant units considered as boarded buildings and moving these structures into use. Bernie Hart spoke to the Crimes Against Children Grant stating the City needed to ensure the funding given to the Police Department was used effectively and brought about results. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4 F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Leavity LLC The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan for Leavity, LLC., at 47 South Orange Street, #B1, from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Leavity LLC., is a wholesale sourdough bread bakery. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the retention of one current job. 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 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 47 of 2023, approving a $100,000 loan for Leavity, LLC at 47 South Orange Street, B#1, from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) . AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5 Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m to accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. 2. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board: Elizabeth Hanna The Council will consider approving the appointment of Elizabeth Hanna to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 15, 2023 6 3. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Petro to approve the Consent agenda. . AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:25 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, August 15, 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, August 15, 2023 7 JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 2023 NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, September is known nationally as “Suicide Prevention Month;” and WHEREAS, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, suicide is the 9th leading cause of death among adults in Utah, and the leading cause of death for Utahns aged 10 – 24 years old; and WHEREAS, also according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Utah averages 651 suicides per year; and WHEREAS, on average, more than 48,000 lives are lost from suicide in the United States each year, which averages to about 132 suicides per day; and WHEREAS, every life lost directly affects the victim’s family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and community; and WHEREAS, mental health and suicide prevention services are accessible and available through the Salt Lake County Health Department by calling 1-800-273-TALK (8255) to be connected to a skilled, trained counselor at a crisis center in your area, anytime, 24/7; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City values those who work daily to help better the lives of others through their professions in mental health care, education, emergency services, and many more. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City recognize the month of September 2023 as National Suicide Prevention Month in Salt Lake City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Salt Lake City encourages all residents to familiarize themselves with mental health education and treatment resources and recognize how a healthy mind can help us better care for ourselves, our families, and our communities. Adopted this _____ day of September, 2023 __________________________ ______________________ Erin Mendenhall Darin Mano, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five __________________________ ________________________ Victoria Petro, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District One Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two ______________________________ ____________________________ Chris Wharton Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four __________________________ __________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Item B1 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Sept. 5, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 9/5/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No None.Summer Food Service Program 2023 The funds will refund the City for snacks purchased for youth who participated in the YouthCity 2023 summer programs. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$11,000 Utah State Board of Education administer- ing U.S. Dept. of Agriculture funding Department of Community & N-hds Division of Youth & Family Svcs. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Ann Garcia, Sandee Moore Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com CC: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Blake Thomas, Brent Beck, Tammy Hunsaker, Kim Thomas, Liz Rich FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: April 17, 2023 SUBJECT: Summer Food Service Program 2023 for YouthCity Summer Program - Time Sensitive - FUNDING AGENCY: Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding GRANT PROGRAM: Summer Food Service Program 2023 REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $11,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Community and Neighborhoods | Division of Youth and Family Services COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: April 14, 2023 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides Full-Time Positions □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □ Match Required □ In-Kind Services and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Division of Youth and Family Services requested $11,000 to provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in YouthCity 2023 summer programs. 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:September 5, 2023 RE: Rezone & Text Amendment: Fleet Block PLNPCM2019- 00277 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. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: September 5, 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 Public Hearing 3: Sept 5, 2023 Potential Action: TBD Work Session Summary During the July 18 briefing, the council discussed the updates Planning staff made to the proposed ordinance based on Council direction. Ultimately, the Council expressed support for the updates, including separating the text amendment from the zoning map amendment and holding a public hearing. The hearing is set for September 5, 2023. Planning staff said they are would like to change the name for the proposed FBUN3 zoning district because they are planning additionally zoning districts that will be in the FBUN umbrella. The updated ordinance includes the new designation that is Form Based Mixed Use 11 (FB-MU11). Additionally, the Council discussed the disposition strategy presented by the Administration and expressed support for the proposed site plan that was presented. The following information was provided for the July 18 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. 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) Page | 2 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. 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. Page | 3 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. •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 Page | 4 Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal Exhibit A Proposed Location of Public Spaces •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: Page | 5 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) The three development sites will be marketed competitively through either an RFQ or RFP process. Page | 6 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. • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. Page | 7 • 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. •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 Page | 8 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 | 9 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 | 10 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 | 11 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 | 12 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 | 13 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 | 14 •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 | 15 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 | 16 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 | 17 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 | 18 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? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 11/17/2020 15:47 Laurel Clayson laurel.clayson@gmail.com Public Comment: Ordinance: Fleet Block Zoning Amendments Council Members, I am a constituent here in Salt Lake City and a member of the community. I live between Liberty Park and the Fleet Block. I strongly oppose the rezoning of this block. As you know, the Fleet Block is home to a collection of murals which honor those killed by police violence. The murals have served as a gathering space for the community since the first one was painted. In this space, people pray, protest, mourn, collect donations, and meet with each other. The community has planted flowers in this space and beautified the entire block. Because of all of this, I believe this block is more beneficial and important to the community as-is, than it would be as a "redeveloped" block of offices or apartments. This space does not need redeveloping as it is safe, pleasant, and community-oriented as-is. Thank you for your time. I hope you will put the needs of the current community over the money of developers. Laurel Clayson 10/6/2020 13:19 Cameron Cockburn cameronacoburn@gmail.com Fleet block change Happy Tuesday all, Writing in to simply say I'm in favor of the rezoning of the formerly in-use fleet block that is no long in use by the relocated fleet. Cheers, Cameron Cockburn Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 4/14/2021 10:25 Anonymous Constituent anonymous@slcgov.com The caller wanted to leave a comment with the Council regarding the homeless encampment in front of the murals at the Fleet Block. He was upset to wake up and to find over fifty police officers preforming a camp abatement on such a cold and wet morning. Furthermore, he believes that the money used to clean up the camps could have gone to something better. He walked out onto the sidewalk near the area and said he was confronted by three police officers who looked down upon him for being a concerned citizen. He says he understand this is a lose lose situation for all involved but is concerned about the City's priorities. 4/7/2021 13:46 Larry Framme lframm01@yahoo.com Please consider the potential of adding a park in the redevelopment of the Fleet Block. Any rezone that jeopardizes this option of being on the table in the future, I am not in support of. I live on 800 W. 900 S. Thanks for taking my comment into consideration. Sincerely, Larry Framme3/2/2021 8:49 Tim Dwyer tim@fisherbeer.com Greetings Salt Lake City Council Members, Following the recent discussions on the Fleet Block Development, We, the Granary District Alliance, would like to submit the attached letter for your consideration. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to engage with the council regarding moving forward with a community facing development at Fleet Block. Please consider the important points in our letter and let us know how we can participate in the ongoing dialog about what is best for our neighborhood and the tremendous opportunities for our community that exist with the development of the Fleet Block. On behalf of the board of GDA, Thank you all for your time and consideration of the attached letter. We would gladly continue this discussion at a council meeting or work session. Feel free to reach out and let us know what the next steps are and how we at the Granary District Alliance can participate in the process. We look forward to working with you on an exciting project at the very core of our district. Best regards, Tim Dwyer GDA Board Member *See Corresponding Attachments* 2/10/2021 11:46 Calvin Dittmore calvin.dittmore@gmail.com fleet block rezone As someone who lives in the glendale area I drive past the fleet block everyday. I would like to keep the public land zoning of the block and utilize it to honor the citizens killed by police officers. Building more unaffordable housing would disgrace the good work being done currently with the murals. I propose another free water station, a warming station for our unsheltered community (see examples from cities like Chicago) and potential public space opportunies for landscape art or things like a pickleball court. Housing prices will continue to rise as our population grows here in Utah. to create nature and public oriented spaces is the right move for our city as gentrification will naturally take effect on the westside. In conclusion: Adjust the block in a way to keep honoring people killed by police. Create a space for public recreation and outreach. Thank you Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 4/23/2021 16:40 Aleyzia Grant galeyzia@gmail.com Good afternoon , I'm Aleyzia Grant and I've looking into fleet murals downtown I read on line that you guy's were thinking about tearing it down but I've been looking into that building for quite some time and want to bring it your guys attention and who ever else I may have to talk to about turning that into a non profit organization a boys and girls club that I would run something to give back to the community with different resources to help different people in need I truly think it would be a beautiful idea and would appreciate it if you guys took that into consideration thank you in advance! 4/22/2021 15:02 Matthew MURPHY matt.murphy1377@gmail.com Central Ninth - Future Green Space Good Afternoon, As we continue to see future developments in the Central Ninth Neighborhood, can we please consider additional greenspace to our neighborhood. Reasons for greenspace: 1. We are seeing 1000s of new units, specifically micro units - so residents will naturally be looking to get outside. I can't imagine spending your whole day in a 300sq ft flat. 2. Many units are dog-friendly - we are seeing excess dog waste all throughout the area 3. Climate change - hotter summers... shade would be nice to have 4. Covid and future pandemics - people want and need outdoor space 5. Work from home - many people need an escape outdoors close to home - protect our mental health 6. Make people proud of our neighborhood Potential opportunities: 1. Fleet Block - hybrid of new commercial and greenspace or just a park! 1. Avenues has great parks, Sugarhouse has plenty of parks, why not us? Liberty Park is great, but there is always room for more. 2. Protecting Jefferson Park 1. So many neighbors and residents are using and loving this very small area. Primarily a dog park, but we need spaced for kids, recreation, etc 3. Remove West Temple exit to 80 - pipedream, but would be an amazing way to link BallPark to C9. 4. 900 South improvements - great start! Given the zoning in our area, we are becoming a dumping ground for micro units, short term hotels and other projects that other neighborhoods would never accept. I think providing greenspace would be a great compromise. Thank you -Matt Murphy 4/15/2021 10:37 Anonymous Constituent anonymous@slcgov.com This caller wished to remain anonymous. He called in to express is frustration with the camp abatements in front of the Fleet Block murals. He was disappointed to see police and health officials clearing the camp. He understands that things are being done but believes that it is not enough and the barriers are to high right now for the homeless to get help. He states that he tries to do his part by bringing individuals food when he can. He is also upset with the County Health Department and believes they are lying about the way camp abatements are being conducted. He has lived in Salt Lake for most of his life, but is finding it more and more difficult to call it home. He would like more money put into this issue instead of giving it to developers and the police. He is asking someone on the Council to speak up about the issue. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 2/15/2022 9:52 Michael Mejia mfmejia@gmail.com FW: (EXTERNAL) In support of Arts Council’s staffing request Dear Councilmember Valdemoros, My name is Michael Mejia and I serve on the Salt Lake Art + Design Board for District 4. I am writing you today to ask for your support of the Arts Council’s request for additional staff positions in Budget Amendment 6. I understand that many Departments within Salt Lake City are struggling with needs for staffing support, and you have many staffing requests in this budget amendment for consideration. It is a challenging position to be in and I appreciate your consideration and service to our community. * Many of the Arts Council’s programs have grown over the last few years including the creation of the Living Legacy Video Series and Finch Lane Flash Projects, maintenance responsibilities for the newly passed percent for art ordinance, new City Arts Grants categories and an ever increasing volume of requests and grants, participation in multiple City stakeholder and advisory groups and initiatives such as Fleet Block and Gentrification Mitigation, and increased efforts with equity, inclusion, and community outreach. More simply put, the Arts Council staff have been asked to do more with flat staffing since 2012. * In 2019 the Mayor’s Advisor on Arts & Culture full-time position was eliminated with all of the project and policy responsibilities of this position being added to the responsibilities of the Arts Council’s Executive Director as well as management of the Cultural Core project. * The Arts Council leverages City investment by raising 30-35% of all operating and programming expenses from sources outside of the City budget. * Additional staff would also serve the purpose of stabilizing qualifying expenditures of the organization to leverage critical grant funds from the prestigious Salt Lake County Zoo, Arts, and Parks grant program. * The Arts Council works diligently to continue to find additional funding opportunities through grant writing and development. One recent success is that the Arts Council is just one of 66 awardees nationally and the only awardee in the state of Utah to receive ARPA funding to sub-grant to our community from the National Endowment for the Arts. The $500,000 in funding will go directly to our local artists and arts organizations aiding in a more swift and equitable economic recovery than what might have otherwise been possible. This increases the City’s impact. As outlined in the Mayor’s plan from 2020 to 2021, we have been strategically working on the “stabilization of the 1/27/2022 16:54 Marcus Cazier mcazier@gmail.com Fleet Block represents a once-in-a-generation chance to do something amazing for Salt Lake City: Creating a new park. The $2M earmarked for additional improvements to Pioneer Park could be redirected to build a park for the residents of the booming Granary and Central Ninth neighborhoods. The park could include a space to memorialize the murals, and continue to act as gathering for social causes. It could have several walls dedicated to outdoor art, with different artists being invited to paint them over and over. We need housing and business spaces. But we also need green space to keep our city beautiful. Fleet Block is a blank canvas. Let's create something beautiful on it. Thanks, Marcus Cazier Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 10/4/2022 13:31 Danae Villarreal danaevillarreal@gmail.com Fleet Block Rezone Hi there! SLC needs a permanent food truck park. Building one in the Fleet Block would be a great way to support many small businesses at once. Especially if park/green space are included in the rezone. Thanks for considering! 11/23/2022 10:08 Bret Webster bretwebs@gmail.com Comment on fleet block The murals are quite precious. I can't imagine any plan forward that wouldn't include some way to preserve them and honor them and maintain such a space for the community. 11/23/2022 10:09 Leverett Woodruff lkwoodruff@gmail.com Public Comment Regarding the Proposed Rezone of Fleet Block Good evening, I would like to submit a comment regarding the proposed rezone of Fleet Block. I want to thank Council Member Fowler for noting during the Work Session today that in order to retain community trust, the Council must uphold promises that have been made to the families of those who are memorialized in the murals. I urge the Council to center the expressed concerns and wishes of those families in any plans to redevelop Fleet Block. I especially urge you to incorporate preservation of the murals into any proposals for what to do with the block. I am disheartened to read that "the walls where the murals were painted are hard to save because of the material" in the official information at https://fleet-block-rezone-slcgov.hub.arcgis.com/. I would think that with the technological advances in building and engineering today, a way to preserve the murals could be found. Please include preservation methods for the murals in any RFP you may issue about redeveloping the block. I also support the suggestion made during the Work Session today that the RFP include requirements that potential partners have strong social justice/community partnership/diversity, equity and inclusion credentials, above and beyond what would be required in a normal RFP. Anyone who works on redeveloping this block must be committed to respecting and making manifest the community's wishes about what to do with the space. Fleet Block is sacred to many community members, and its powerful purpose as a place to mourn, come together, share emotions, and heal must be maintained in any future plans for the block. Thank you. -- Regards, Levy Woodruff 12/14/2022 15:42 Jeffrey Mccarthy wwilliams19@gmail.com Fleet Block Rezone - A plea for greenspace Hello SLC Councilmembers, I live one block from the fleet block and fully support the rezone of the property--if it can guarantee the green space currently in the plan. Our neighborhood is in dire need of green space. The best block to walk by my house is around Mark Miller Toyota because the sidewalks are cleared, they have green parkstrips for dogs, and their lighting means I feel safe walking at night. It's pretty sad when the best walking is around a car dealership. It would be wonderful to have the park currently slated for the NE corner of the Fleet Block, across from Fisher Brewing. Thank you for thinking of our neighbor's walkability, safety, and community as you make these zoning decisions. Sincerely, Whitney McCarthy 12/16/2022 13:00 Ira Hinckley ihinckley@gmail.com Fleet Block Murals Hi Darin, Regarding recent discussions over the murals in your district: My request for the fleet block mural graffiti is that they are torn down and placed in the dump where they belong. How would you feel driving by this shameful display, if you were the victim of one of these criminals and now they were being celebrated and honored with attention. What a slap in the face! This uninvited graffiti is also a slap in the face to our hard working, dedicated Law Enforcement Officers who see that this city places more value on criminals than the trauma they endure while protecting our city. It needs to go. Now. > Regards, > Ira Hinckley > Resident Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 11/3/2022 15:36 Aleyzia Grant leyziaaboo@icloud.com Fleet Block Property I am Aleyzia Grant and I am emailing you in regards to see how I could speak my opinion on the Fleetrock property I know it may be closed right now but I would love to share my idea of wanting to take this beautiful and turn it into so place that gives back to the community it would mean a lot hope to hear from you soon! Sent from my iPhone10/4/2022 13:31 Danae Villarreal danaevillarreal@gmail.com Fleet Block Rezone Hi there! SLC needs a permanent food truck park. Building one in the Fleet Block would be a great way to support many small businesses at once. Especially if park/green space are included in the rezone. Thanks for considering! 7/11/2022 16:18 Alan Hardman a_e_hardman@hotmail.com Homeless place of safety Mayor and Council Members, The old Fleet building on 300 West between 800 and 900 South seems like a reasonable place to encourage homeless to camp. The water utilities and restrooms could be enhanced with minimal cost and the lot could be divided into simple 'camp sites' with spray paint. Trash receptacles can be spread throughout and major cleaning could be done weekly (it would be cheaper than what the Health Dept has to do now). Even if the City had to provide some oversite and policing it would be better than the emergency reports that currently come from neighborhoods' concerns. And the homeless would have a relatively safe place with water and restrooms. Has anyone looked into trying this? thanks, Ellie Hardman 3/29/2022 16:14 Aleyzia Grant galeyzia@gmail.com Fleet block property GoodMorning Im emailing you in regards to your fleet block property that you guys have I'm inlove with this building and been looking into how to go about trying to start a non profit organization to give back to the community I think that would be a beautiful spot for it with a great meaning to the world with this building I would want to make it a place of love and giving back to the people I would start off with free resources , hygiene , work shops etc as well having boy and girls activities for the kids to be able to just enjoy give people hope letting them know there is a way for change no matter what situation your in it would be my pleasure to hear back have a great day! Aleyzia 2/25/2022 9:39 Sage Sagers sagesagers@gmail.com Don't rezone Fleet Block. The murals there are important to the community as it creates a space to remember and honor lives lost by police brutality. If for some reason it must be rezoned, I suggest that the murals be saved and displayed after rezoning or relocated entirely. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 12/28/2022 9:19 Deborah Hunt huntdebo@gmail.com A resource for documenting Fleet Square Honorable Councilor, I feel these murals are essential treasures of Salt Lake City history. I understand the need to develop, and appreciate the efforts taken to include family members and community in moving forward. I am remembering the impact of visiting the Gantt museum in Charlotte, NC during the democratic national convention of 2012. It housed a huge exhibit of Tavis Smiley's America I Am. https://www.ganttcenter.org/ Today, coincidentally, I was perusing Facebook's Events and saw this coming up with Dr. France Davis. Choosing Love Over Hate <https://www.facebook.com/events/838313464145366/?acontext=%7B%22event_action_history%22%3A%5b %7B%22surface%22%3A%22home%22%7D%2C%7B%22mechanism%22%3A%22discovery_top_tab%22%2C%22 surface%22%3A%22bookmark%22%7D%5d%2C%22ref_notif_type%22%3Anull%7D> . I followed a link to this collection <https://campusguides.lib.utah.edu/c.php?g=1219670&p=8921920> at the U's Marriott Library. Although this collection documents Utah's Black History, it would be interesting to see whether they would be inclined to partner with the city to digitize and document the murals at Fleet Square. It started, as I understand, with a black man's - George Floyd - murder, and grew from there to memorialize people in our city who died by police shootings. I love our police department and think our chief is doing a great job with community outreach and training of officers. It must be hard for the city to reckon with the times when people are killed by police, under any circumstance. It's a delicate thing, yet I don't believe we can forget because we can always do better. I love that the council and mayor remember that these folks who died were loved ones and they were good, had stories, and potential that was cut short. Thanks for listening. Please let me know if you are able to make progress on this. Let me know if I can help in any way. Paz y luz, Deborah Esquibel Hunt 3/30/2023 12:21 Leverett Woodruff lkwoodruff@gmail.com Preserve the murals and create a community resource space at Fleet Block Good evening, I’m writing to ask that any future rezoning or redevelopment of Fleet Block preserve the murals that memorialize lives lost to police brutality. The murals are a sacred space of healing for those whose loved ones are remembered there. The city should respect this profoundly important use of the space by so many in our community. I would also like to suggest that one potential use for part of Fleet Block is a community center that has green space and a community produce garden outside and recreation space, like a basketball or pickle ball court, inside, as well as restrooms with showers and laundry facilities that could be used by anyone in the area who needed it, including our unsheltered neighbors. The center could also include a library, clothes closet, and space for local businesses to have pop up shops. Another helpful feature would be private rooms and regularly scheduled time that community members could meet with social workers, mental health counselors, harm reduction teams, and legal aid attorneys. Please consider dedicating part of Fleet Block to meet the needs of Salt Lakers for a place to connect with their community and get basic needs met. Thank you, Levy Woodruff 7/18/2023 12:00 Kaitlin Wilson kaitlin.wilson@students.svu.edu SLC Police Brutality Murals Hello, Due to illness in my family, I'm unable to attend the formal meeting for this agenda. I want to make sure my comments are taken into consideration as well. These murals not only help to keep these victims of police brutality alive through memory, they remind us that there are changes that desperately need to be made so we have an equitable justice system. I will be deeply disappointed if the decision is made to essentially erase the history of police brutality instead of learning and growing from it. Thank you for your consideration, Kaitlin Wilson Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 7/18/2023 15:14 Leverett Woodruff lkwoodruff@gmail.com Comment on Fleet Block proposed rezone Good afternoon, I have reviewed the Mayor’s Office proposal regarding the Fleet Block zoning and disposition strategy, and would like to offer the following comment. I have previously written to comment that the Administration and Council should prioritize the wishes of the families whose loved ones are portrayed in the Fleet Block murals when it comes to any redevelopment of this property. I want to reiterate how important it is that these families guide the redevelopment process. As noted in the most recent communication from the Mayor’s Office, the city vacated Fleet Block in 2010 and left it with various levels of environmental contamination. It was the families and loved ones of those portrayed in the murals who restored the site to beneficial use for the community by painting the murals, planting garden boxes before each mural, and installing benches and resource boxes for food, water, and other necessities for unsheltered Salt Lake citizens. It is these families and their community who continually maintain the site by mowing, weeding, and picking up trash. They do this because the site is a sacred space of healing for them and of outreach to our neighbors experiencing homelessness. I urge you to listen to the input of these families about the future of Fleet Block. Any redevelopment must prioritize saving the murals. They should be the main feature of the public space proposed for the site. I also urge that any housing proposed for the site be required to be deeply affordable, or affordable to Utahns whose incomes do not exceed 30% of Area Median Income. Far too often, what is called “affordable housing” is not affordable to most of those who need it. The solution to homelessness is housing, and if we want this site to benefit the community, there are few more beneficial or urgent projects than housing our neighbors who need it most. The Administration’s update states that the City will “involve underrepresented communities in the development process” for Fleet Block. The City has a responsibility to include the Murals families on any committees or other bodies that make decisions going forward. Please give these families the voice they are owed, because they uplifted this space to honor their loved ones whose lives were lost to state-sanctioned violence. Thank you. Levy Woodruff 7/21/2023 15:44 Rae Duckworth messageraeduck@gmail.com 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 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 7/21/2023 15:46 Sean McDermot backtoschool427@yahoo.com 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 7/21/2023 15:50 Jackie Daniels-Brown jackiedb53@gmail.com 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 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 7/21/2023 15:52 Jennifer Jackson jljackson1984@gmail.com 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 7/31/2023 17:00 Claudia Rasmussen claudia.rasmussen1@gmail.com 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 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-MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict) An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB- MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict 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- MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the FB- MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 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 text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.22.010. That Section 21A.22.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.22.010: ZONING DISTRICTS: 1 In order to carry out the purposes of this title, Salt Lake City is divided into the following zoning districts: Section Reference District Name A. Residential Districts: 21A.24.020 21A.24.030 21A.24.040 21A.24.050 21A.24.060 21A.24.070 21A.24.080 FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District 21A.24.090 21A.24.100 SR-2 (Reserved) SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District 21A.24.110 21A.24.120 R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.130 21A.24.140 21A.24.150 RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.160 21A.24.164 21A.24.168 21A.24.170 21A.24.180 RB Residential/Business District R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District RO Residential/Office District B. Commercial Districts: 21A.26.020 21A.26.025 21A.26.030 21A.26.040 21A.26.050 21A.26.060 21A.26.070 CN Neighborhood Commercial District SNB Small Neighborhood Business District CB Community Business District CS Community Shopping District CC Corridor Commercial District CSHBD Sugar House Business District CG General Commercial District 2 21A.26.078 TSA Transit Station Area District C. Form Based Districts: 21A.27.040 21A.27.050 21A.27.060 FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District FB-MU Form Based Mixed Use District D. Manufacturing Districts: 21A.28.020 21A.28.030 M-1 Light Manufacturing District M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District E. Downtown Districts And Gateway Districts: Downtown Districts: 21A.30.020 21A.30.030 21A.30.040 21A.30.045 D-1 Central Business District D-2 Downtown Support District D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District Gateway Districts: 21A.31.020 G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District F. Special Purpose Districts: 21A.32.020 21A.32.030 21A.32.040 21A.32.050 21A.32.052 21A.32.054 21A.32.056 21A.32.060 21A.32.070 21A.32.075 21A.32.080 21A.32.090 21A.32.100 21A.32.105 21A.32.110 21A.32.120 21A.32.130 RP Research Park District BP Business Park District FP Foothills Protection District AG Agricultural District AG-2 Agricultural District AG-5 Agricultural District AG-20 Agricultural District A Airport District PL Public Lands District PL-2 Public Lands District I Institutional District UI Urban Institutional District OS Open Space District NOS Natural Open Space District MH Mobile Home Park District EI Extractive Industries District MU Mixed Use District 3 G. Overlay Districts: 21A.34.020 21A.34.030 21A.34.040 21A.34.050 21A.34.060 21A.34.070 21A.34.080 21A.34.090 21A.34.100 21A.34.110 21A.34.120 21A.34.130 21A.34.140 21A.34.150 H Historic Preservation Overlay District T Transitional Overlay District AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District LO Landfill Overlay District CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District RCO Riparian Corridor Overlay District Northwest Quadrant Overlay District IP Inland Port Overlay District H. Character Conservation Districts: 21A.35.010 Purpose SECTION 2. Enacting the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.060. That Section 21A.27.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Form Based Districts: FB-MU Form Based Mixed Use Subdistricts) shall read and appear as follows: SECTION 21A.27.060: FB-MU FORM BASED MIXED USE SUBDISTRICTS A. Subdistricts: 1. Names: The following subdistricts can be found in the form based mixed use district: a. RESERVED. b. FB-MU11, Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict: This subdistrict generally includes buildings up to 8 stories in height, with taller buildings up to 11 stories 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. B. Reserved. C. FB-MU11 Building Form Standards: 4 Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-MU11 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.060.C.1 Regulation for Building Form:Building Regulation Row House H F S 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. Front and Corner Side 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 Yard Setback be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). 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 U 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. Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work Use on 900 South 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 Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have Forms Per Lot 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. 5 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. 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.060.C.2 Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed UseBuilding Regulation 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 Minimum ground floor height 14’. Height F Front and No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public Corner Side right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility Yard Setback 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 S 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). Interior Side No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district Yard 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 The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following Use on 900 South uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. 6 E Ground Floor Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Dwelling Entrances 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 When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or Stepback 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 A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. 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 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-MU11 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.060.C.3 of this section. These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.060.C.3 Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: Location 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. 7 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. 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-MU11 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.060.C.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.060.C.4 Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone 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. 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- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU11 SC SE 8 Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title Adaptive reuse of a landmark building Alcohol: P P P P P P Bar establishment Brewpub Distillery Tavern Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area Winery P8 P8 P8 P8 P5 P8 P8 P5 P P8 P8 C8 C8 P8 P8 C8 Amphitheater, formal Amphitheater, informal Amusement park P P Animal Cremation service Kennel (Indoor) P P Kennel (Outdoor) Veterinary office Antenna, communication tower Art gallery C P P P P P P P P P P PP Artisan food production Artists loft/studio P3,5 P3,5 P P3,5 P3,5 Auction (indoor)P Auditorium P Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P P P P4,5 P P P P P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn Bed and breakfast manor Bio-medical facility Blacksmith shop (indoor) Blood donation center Botanical garden P4,5 P4,5 Brewery Brewery, small Bus line station/terminal Car wash Charity dining hall Clinic (medical, dental) Commercial food preparation Community garden Community recreation center Convent/monastery Convention center Crematorium P5 P5 C C P P P5 P P P P5 P P P5 P P P5 PP P P P P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P 9 center, child nonregistered home daycare registered home daycare or preschool P P1 P1 P P1 P1 P P1 P1 P P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Accessory guest and servants’ quarters Assisted living facility (large) Assisted living facility (limited capacity) Assisted living facility (small) Congregate Care Facility (Large) Congregate Care Facility (Small) Group home (large) Group home (small) Living quarters for caretaker or security guard Multi-family Residential support (large) Residential support (small) Rooming (boarding) house Single-family attached Single-family detached Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P P P C P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P C P P C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PP PSingle room occupancy P Two-family P Emergency medical services facility Equipment rental (indoor) Exhibition hall P P P P P P P C P P P P2 P P P P P P5 P P P Farmers’ market P P P P P Financial institution Flea market (indoor) Funeral home Gas station Government facility Greenhouse Health and fitness facility Home occupation Hospital P P P P P PP P2 P P P2 P P P2 P2 Hotel/motel P P P PHouse museum in landmark site Industrial assembly (indoor) Intermodal transit passenger hub Laboratory, medical related Library P P5 P P5 P P5 P Manufacturing, light (indoor) Meeting hall of membership organization 10 Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district Mobile food business Mobile food court Mobile food trailer Mobile food truck Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P P P P P P P PP Museum Nursing care facility Office Office and/or reception center in landmark site Open space Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking, commercial Parking facility, shared Parking garage C7 P7 P Parking, off site P P P P7 P7 P P5 P P P Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use Performing arts production facility Photo finishing lab Place of worship Plazas P5 P P P5 P P P P P Radio, television station Railroad passenger station Reception center P P P Recreation (indoor)P P P P Recreation (outdoor)P Research and development facility Restaurant P5 P P5 P P5 P P5 P Retail goods establishment Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area Retail service establishment Sales and display (outdoor) School: P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P College or university Music conservatory Professional and vocational Seminary and religious institute Public or private P P P P P P P P P P P P P5 P P P P P P P P Seasonal farm stand P P P Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) Social service mission Solar array P5 P5 P5 11 Storage, self Store, specialty Studio, art P6 P P P P P P P P Studio, motion picture Technology facility P P5P5 P5 P5 Theater, live performance Theater, movie Urban farm Utility, building or structure Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole Vehicle P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Automobile rental agency Automobile repair major Automobile repair minor Vending cart, private property Warehouse Welding shop (indoor) Wholesale distribution Wireless telecommunications facility Woodworking mill (indoor) P C P P P6 P C6 P P P P P P P 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.27.060.C.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. 12 TABLE 21A.36.020.C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed Type By the District Applicable Districts Chimney As required by local, State or Federal regulations All zoning districts Church steeples or spires No limit 16 feet All zoning districts Elevator/stairway tower or bulkhead All Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown, FB-UN2, FB-MU, RO, R-MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2 Districts Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district All zoning districts in which the flagpole is located or 60 feet, whichever is less. Conditional use approval is required for additional height Light poles for sport fields Maximum height of the zoning district All zoning districts that allow such as ballparks, stadiums, or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special sport field activities and soccer fields, golf driving ranges, and similar uses1 exception approval is required for any stadiums excluding parks less further additional height or if the lights than 4 acres in size are located closer than 30 feet from adjacent residential structures Mechanical equipment parapet wall 5 feet All zoning districts, other than the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and Open Space Districts 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. 13 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: Sign FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications A- frame sign P P P P Quantity Width 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. 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. 14 Placement On public sidewalk or private property. Obstruction Minimum of 8 feet must be free area maintained at all times for pedestrian passage. 2. Awning or Canopy Sign: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC 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. 15 Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance. Letters and Allowed on vertical portions of sign only. logos Location Private property or a public street. permitted 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. 3. Construction Sign: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Construction sign (see definition in this P P P P P Quantity 1 per construction site. Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-MU.chapter) Area Maximum of 64 square feet. Location Private property or a public street. permitted Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property. 4. Flat Sign: 16 Sign FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Type UN1 UN2 MU SC 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-MU. Height Area Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-MU. 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 5. Flat Sign (building orientation): FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Sign Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Flat sign P Quantity 1 per building face. (building orientation)Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. 17 Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 6. Marquee Sign: Sign FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Marquee sign P Quantity 1 per building. Width Height Area Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. May not extend above the roof of the building. 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. 7. Monument Sign: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Monument sign P Quantity 1 per building. Setback Height Area 5 feet. Maximum of 20 feet. 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 8. Nameplate Sign: 18 Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC 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. 9. New Development Sign: FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Sign Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications New Development sign P Quantity 1 per street frontage. 5 feet.Setback Height Area 12 feet. 200 square feet. 10. Private Directional Sign: 19 FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Sign Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications No limit.Private P P P P P Quantity Height Area directional sign (see definition in this Maximum of 5 feet. Maximum of 8 square feet. Restriction May not contain business name or logo.chapter) Location Private property or public street. permitted 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: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Projecting sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. 20 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 Private property or public street. Signs permitted 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: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Height Area Maximum of 2 feet. 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total.graphic) 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: 21 Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Quantity No limit.Public P P P P P safety Height Area Maximum of 6 feet. 8 square feet. sign (see definition in this Projection Maximum of 1 foot.chapter) Location Private property or public street. Signs permitted 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: Sign FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- Type UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Real estate sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Height Area Maximum of 12 feet. 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-MU. 22 Location Private property or public street. Signs can permitted face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 15. Window Sign: Sign Type FB- FB- FB- FB- FB- UN1 UN2 MU SC SE Specifications Quantity 1 per window.Window sign P P P P 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: 23 District Standard (Code Section)FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-FB-SC FB-SE MU11 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 70 70 70 70 70Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 15 601 15 601 15 601 15 601 15Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 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 15 75 15 75 30 75 30 75 30Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 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 X X X X X X XLighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X2 24 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 40 X X 40 X X 40 X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X X X X X X XMinimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X X X XHeight transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) 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. Amending the text of Table 21A.44.040-A in Section 21A.44.040 of Salt Lake City Code. That Table 21A.44.040-A in Section 21A.44.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 25 (Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 26 TABLE 21A.44.040-A: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF STREET PARKING: DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Land Use Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context All zoning districts not listed in another 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, RB, SNB, CB, CN, D-2, MU, TSA-T,D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB- SC, R-MU R-MU-35,R-MU -CSHBD1, CSHBD2 context area FB-SE, SSSC Overlay Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.7 RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living 1.5 spaces perArtists’ loft/studio 1 space per DU 0.5 spaces per DU No Minimum No Minimum No MaximumDU Manufactured home Mobile home Single-family (attached) Single-family (detached) All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces 2 spaces per DU 1 space per DU Single-family cottage development building form 1 space per DU 2 spaces per DU Twin home All Contexts: 4 spaces, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces 1 space per DU No MinimumTwo-family 27 Studio: No minimumStudio and 1 bedrooms: 1 space per DU, 2+ bedrooms 1.25 space per DU All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU; 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Studio and 1+bedrooms: 1 space per DU 1 bedroom: 0.5 space per DuMulti-family No Minimum 2+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Group Living Assisted living facility 1 space for every 8 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for every 6 rooming units; plus 1 space for every 4 DU; See Table Note A 1 space for every 6 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for every 4 rooming units; plus 1 space for every 3 DU; See Table Note A No Minimum No MaximumNursing care facility Congregate Care Facility (large) 1 space for each family, plus 1 space for every 4 individual bedrooms, plus 1 space for every 2 support staff present All Contexts: 1 space per bedroom plus 1 space for each support staff present No Minimum No MinimumCongregate Care Facility (small) 3 spaces per facility and 1 space for every 2 support staff present Group home 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 6 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A All Contexts: 1 space per 3 persons design capacity; See Table Note A No MinimumResidential support 1 space per 2 persons design capacity 1 space per 3 persons design capacity 1 space per 4 persons design capacity All Contexts: 1 space per 1 persons design capacity Dormitory, fraternity, sorority No Minimum No Minimum1 space per 2 guest rooms 1 space per 3 guest 1 space per 4 guest rooms roomsRooming (boarding) house No Maximum 28 0.25 spaces per unitShared housing Table Notes: 0.5 spaces per unit No Minimum No Maximum A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Maximum Parking AllowedAll zoning districts not listed in another 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, RB, SNB, CB, CN, D-2, MU, TSA-T,D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB- SC, R-MU Land Use R-MU-35,R-MU -CSHBD1, CSHBD2 context area FB-SE, SSSC Overlay PUBLC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CIVIC USES Community and Cultural Facilities Art gallery Studio, Art Exhibition hall Museum 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum 29 Crematorium Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child Homeless resource center Library 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Maximum Community correctional facility 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Community recreation center Jail Government facility Social service mission and 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area charity dining hall 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area No Minimum No Minimum No Minimum No Maximum No Maximum 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle Municipal service use, including city utility use and police and fire station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle Club/lounge Meeting hall membership organization 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 4 persons design capacity 1 space per 6 persons design capacity 1 space per 8 persons design capacity No Minimum No MaximumConvent/monastery 30 Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 4 seats in main assembly areas1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 5 seats 1 space per 6 seats Funeral home in main assembly area in main assembly area No Minimum No Minimum Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No maximum 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 500 sq. ft, All Contexts: 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Place of worship Fairground whichever is less See Table Note B No Maximum All Contexts: 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Philanthropic use See Table Note B See Table Note BZoological park Ambulance service Cemetery Plazas Park No Maximum No Minimum Open space 31 Educational Facilities 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, College and university and library area, plus 1 space per 6 seats in and library area, plus 1 space per 10 seats in assembly areas assembly areas K-12 private K-12 public Elementary or Middle: 1 space per 20 students design capacity High Schools: 1 space per 8 students design capacity Dance/music studio Music conservatory Professional and vocational All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) No Minimum 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Seminary and religious institute 32 Healthcare Facilities 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Clinic (medical, dental)4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.Blood donation center Hospital No Minimum Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity All Contexts: 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity 1 space per 3 patient beds design capacityHospital, including accessory lodging facility Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking AllowedLand Use General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context 33 All zoning districts not listed in another 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, RB, SNB, CB, CN, D-2, MU, TSA-T,D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB- SC, R-MU R-MU-35,R-MU -CSHBD1, CSHBD2 context area FB-SE, SSSC Overlay COMMERCIAL USES Agricultural and Animal Uses Greenhouse Kennel Pound 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.Veterinary office Cremation service, animal 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Minimum Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger Poultry farm or processing plant Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Raising of furbearing animals 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Slaughterhouse Agricultural use Community garden Farmer’s market Grain elevator Pet cemetery Stable Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No Maximum No Minimum Stockyard Urban farm Botanical garden See Table Note B 34 Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium Theater, live performance seats in assembly 1 space per 4 All Contexts: 1 space per 3 seats in1 space per 6 seats 1 space per 8 seats No Minimumin assembly areas in assembly areasareas assembly areasTheater, movie Amphitheater Athletic Field See Table Note B Stadium Tennis court (principal use)2 spaces per court Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per court or laneNo MinimumBowling2 spaces per lane Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No Maximum Convention center All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Swimming pool, skating rink or natatorium 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Health and fitness facility Performing arts production facility Reception center No Minimum2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Recreation (indoor) Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre)1 space per designated camping or RV spot No MaximumAmusement park See Table Note B See Table Note BRecreation (outdoor) Food and Beverage Services 35 Brewpub Indoor Transit, Urban Center, and Neighborhood Center Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Restaurant tasting/seating area Indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor No MinimumOutdoor tasting/seating area: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Tavern tasting/seating area All Contexts: Outdoor tasting/seating area: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Office, Business, and Professional Services Check cashing/payday loan business Dental laboratory/research General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Financial institution Research and laboratory facilities Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Office (excluding medical and dental clinic and office) Urban Center and Transit Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 36 Retail Sales & Services Photo finishing lab Electronic repair shop Furniture repair shop Upholstery shop Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Minimum Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.Radio, television station Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No MinimumStore, Convenience General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 37 Auction, Indoor Store, Department Fashion oriented development Flea market (indoor) Flea market (outdoor) Store, Mass merchandising Store, Pawn shop Transit Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center and Neighborhood Center Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Store, Specialty Retail goods establishment General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail service establishment Store, Superstore and hypermarket Store, Warehouse club Transit and Urban Center Contexts: up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Up to 100,000 sq. ft: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Up to 100,000 sq. ft: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Retail shopping center over 55,000 sq. ft. usable floor area No Minimum Above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.5 spaces per Above 100,000 sq.Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: Up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.ft: 1.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 38 Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Lodging Facilities All Contexts: 1.25 spaces per guest bedroom Bed and breakfast 0.5 spaces per guest bedroom1 space per guest bedroom No Minimum All Contexts: 1.5 spaces per guest bedroomHotel/motel 39 Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle Auction 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum No Maximum Automobile part sales Automobile and truck repair sales/rental and service Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area, plus 1 space per service bay Manufactured/mobile home sales and service 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area plus 1 space sales/leasing/office 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service No Minimum per service bay area plus 1 space per service bay Truck repair sales and rental (large) 40 Car wash Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Car wash as accessory use to gas station or No Minimum convenience store that sells gas General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Gas station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Bus line yard and repair facility Impound lot 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 space per commercial fleet vehicleLimousine service Taxicab facility No Minimum No Maximum Tire distribution retail/wholesale 41 Adult Entertainment Establishments 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,0000 sq. ft.Sexually oriented business Table Notes: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Maximum Parking AllowedAll zoning districts not listed in another 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, RB, SNB, CB, CN, D-2, MU, TSA-T,D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB- SC, R-MU Land Use R-MU-35,R-MU -CSHBD1, CSHBD2 context area FB-SE, SSSC Overlay TRANSPORTATION USES Airport Determined by Airport Authority No MaximumHeliport 42 Bus line station/terminal Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Intermodal transit passenger hub Railroad, passenger station No Minimum Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 1 space per 150 Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking average daily passenger boardings Railroad, repair shop Truck freight terminal 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Minimum No MaximumRailroad, freight terminal facility No Minimum INDUSTRIAL USES Manufacturing and Processing Artisan food production Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. of production office/retail area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail No MinimumBakery, commercial Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 43 Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor) Processing center (outdoor) Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) Blacksmith shop Bottling plant Brewery/Small Brewery Chemical manufacturing and/or storage Commercial food preparation Distillery Drop forge industry Explosive manufacturing and storage 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office No Minimum No Maximum Food processing Heavy manufacturing Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste Industrial assembly Jewelry fabrication 44 Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Manufacturing and processing, food Paint manufacturing Printing plant Processing center (indoor) Recycling 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Sign painting/fabrication Studio, motion picture Welding shop No Minimum No Maximum Winery Woodworking mill Collection station Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing No minimumExtractive industry Refinery, petroleum products Storage and Warehousing Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility No minimum No maximumBuilding materials distribution 45 Flammable liquids or gases, beating fuel distribution and storage Package delivery facility Warehouse Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale No minimum No minimum No maximum business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) Wholesale distribution 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, 2 spaces per 1,000 All Contexts: 1 space for every 15 storage units Storage, self plus 1 space per 30 storage units sq. ft. of office 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area Contractor’s yard/office Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution Storage (outdoor) Storage and display (outdoor) No Minimum No Maximum Storage, public (outdoor) 46 PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC UTILITY USES Utility: Building or structure Antenna, communication tower Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone Large wind energy system Solar array No Minimum No MaximumUtility: Electric generation facility Utility Sewage treatment plant Utility: Solid waste transfer station Utility: Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole Wireless telecommunications facility ACCESSORY USES Accessory Dwelling Unit See Section 21A.40.200: Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory guest and servant’s quarter All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU1 space per DU No Minimum No Minimum Living quarter for caretaker or security guard Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Maximum 47 Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. employees General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Warehouse, accessory Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title No Minimum Heliport, accessory Reverse vending machine No Maximum Storage, accessory (outdoor) TEMPORARY USES 48 Mobile food business (operation in public right- of-way) Mobile food business (operation on private property)No minimum, unless required by temporary use permit or as determined by the Zoning Administrator No MaximumMobile food court Vending cart, private property Vending cart, public property Farm stand, seasonal Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 49 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Table 21A.44.080-A in Section 21A.44.080 of Salt Lake City Code. That Table 21A.44.080-A in Section 21A.44.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Required Vehicle Stacking Spaces), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 50 TABLE 21A.44.080-A: REQUIRED VEHICLE STACKING SPACES: Use General Context Neighborhood Center Urban Center Context Transit Context Context All zoning districts no RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-D-2, MU, TSA-T,D-J, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB-SC, R- MU listed in another context area MU-35, R-MU-45, SR- CSHBD1, CSHBD2 3, FB-UN1, FB-SE, SSSC Overlay Car Wash, Self-Service Car Wash, Automated Food and Beverage Service Uses 3 spaces per bay or stall 2 spaces per bay or stall 4 spaces per bay or stall 5 spaces per service lane 3 spaces per service lane 3 spaces per bay or stall 4 spaces per service lane 3 spaces per service laneOther Uses 51 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Subsection 21A.46.125.B.3.d of Salt Lake City Code. That Subsection 21A.46.125.B.3.d of the Salt Lake City Code (Vintage Signs), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: d.Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-MU11, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 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)APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office August 30, 2023Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By:_______ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Ordinance adopting FB MU11 zoning (final) 52 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 2023 3 4 (An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 to create the FB-MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict) 6 7 An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB- 8 MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor 11 Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to 12 create the FB- MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that 13 subdistrict, and to apply the FB- MU11 Form Based Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict to the “fleet 14 block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West 15 Streets pursuant to 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 (“City Council”) on said 18 petition; and 19 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 20 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 21 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 22 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.22.010. That 23 Section 21A.22.010 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Districts) shall be, and hereby is 24 amended to read and appear as follows: 25 21A.22.010: ZONING DISTRICTS: 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 26 In order to carry out the purposes of this title, Salt Lake City is divided into the following zoning 27 districts: 28 Section Reference District Name A.Residential Districts: 21A.24.020 FR-1/43,560 Foothills Estate Residential District 21A.24.030 FR-2/21,780 Foothills Residential District 21A.24.040 FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District 21A.24.050 R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District 21A.24.060 R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District 21A.24.070 R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District 21A.24.080 SR-1 and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District 21A.24.090 SR-2 (Reserved) 21A.24.100 SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District 21A.24.110 R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District 21A.24.120 RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.130 RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.140 RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.150 RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential District 21A.24.160 RB Residential/Business District 21A.24.164 R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District 21A.24.168 R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District 21A.24.170 R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District 21A.24.180 RO Residential/Office District B.Commercial Districts: 21A.26.020 CN Neighborhood Commercial District 21A.26.025 SNB Small Neighborhood Business District 21A.26.030 CB Community Business District 21A.26.040 CS Community Shopping District 21A.26.050 CC Corridor Commercial District 21A.26.060 CSHBD Sugar House Business District 21A.26.070 CG General Commercial District 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.26.078 TSA Transit Station Area District C.Form Based Districts: 21A.27.040 FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District 21A.27.050 FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District 21A.27.060 FB-MU Form Based Mixed Use District D.Manufacturing Districts: 21A.28.020 M-1 Light Manufacturing District 21A.28.030 M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District E.Downtown Districts And Gateway Districts: Downtown Districts: 21A.30.020 D-1 Central Business District 21A.30.030 D-2 Downtown Support District 21A.30.040 D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 21A.30.045 D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District Gateway Districts: 21A.31.020 G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District F.Special Purpose Districts: 21A.32.020 RP Research Park District 21A.32.030 BP Business Park District 21A.32.040 FP Foothills Protection District 21A.32.050 AG Agricultural District 21A.32.052 AG-2 Agricultural District 21A.32.054 AG-5 Agricultural District 21A.32.056 AG-20 Agricultural District 21A.32.060 A Airport District 21A.32.070 PL Public Lands District 21A.32.075 PL-2 Public Lands District 21A.32.080 I Institutional District 21A.32.090 UI Urban Institutional District 21A.32.100 OS Open Space District 21A.32.105 NOS Natural Open Space District 21A.32.110 MH Mobile Home Park District 21A.32.120 EI Extractive Industries District 21A.32.130 MU Mixed Use District 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT G.Overlay Districts: 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District 21A.34.030 T Transitional Overlay District 21A.34.040 AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District 21A.34.050 LC Lowland Conservancy Overlay District 21A.34.060 Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District 21A.34.070 LO Landfill Overlay District 21A.34.080 CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area Overlay District 21A.34.090 SSSC South State Street Corridor Overlay District 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District 21A.34.110 DMSC Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District 21A.34.120 YCI Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay District 21A.34.130 RCO Riparian Corridor Overlay District 21A.34.140 Northwest Quadrant Overlay District 21A.34.150 IP Inland Port Overlay District H.Character Conservation Districts: 21A.35.010 Purpose 29 30 SECTION 2. Enacting the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.060. That Section 31 21A.27.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Form Based Districts: FB-MU Form Based Mixed Use 32 Subdistricts) shall read and appear as follows: 33 SECTION 21A.27.060: FB-MU FORM BASED MIXED USE SUBDISTRICTS 34 35 A. Subdistricts: 36 1. Names: The following subdistricts can be found in the form based mixed use 37 district: 38 a. RESERVED. 39 b. FB-MU11, Mixed Use 11 Subdistrict: This subdistrict generally includes 40 buildings up to 8 stories in height, with taller buildings up to 11 stories 41 allowed through the design review process. Development regulations are 42 based on types of buildings and differ between building types as 43 indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of uses that include 44 commercial, technical, light industrial, high density residential, and 45 other supportive land uses. 46 B. Reserved. 47 C. FB-MU11 Building Form Standards: 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 48 Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations 49 for the FB-MU11 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 50 51 1. Row House Building Form Standards: 52 53 TABLE 21A.27.060.C.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 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, 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. 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 54 55 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form 56 Standards: 57 58 TABLE 21A.27.060.C.2 59 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. 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. 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 60 61 62 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-MU11 63 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.060.C.3 of this section. These are in 64 addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. 65 66 TABLE 21A.27.060.C.3 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. 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: 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. 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 67 68 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-MU11 69 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.060.C.4 of this section. These regulations 70 are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. 71 72 TABLE 21A.27.060.C.4 73 74 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve 75 construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply 76 with any specific building form regulation. 77 78 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That 79 Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 80 and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 81 appear as follows: 82 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM 83 BASED DISTRICTS: 84 85 Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any Fform Bbased 86 Ccode Zzoning Ddistrict. 87 Legend:C=Conditional P=Permitted 88 Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional 89 Permitted Uses By District Use FB-U N1 FB-U N2 FB- MU11 FB- SC FB- SE 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 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. 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 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 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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) 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 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 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 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 Welding shop (indoor)P Wholesale distribution C6 Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P Woodworking mill (indoor)P 90 91 Qualifying provisions: 92 1. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 93 2. Subject to sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 94 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 95 4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 96 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 97 administrative rules. 98 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 99 6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or 100 conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 101 7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.060.C.3. 102 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related 103 Establishments", of this title. 104 105 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That 106 Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance 107 With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 108 appear as follows: 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 109 C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are 110 allowed as indicated in tTable 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. 111 112 TABLE 21A.36.020.C 113 HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS 114 Note: 115 1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties 116 and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 117 118 119 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That 120 Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based 121 Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 122 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By Tthe 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-MU, 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 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 123 124 The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning 125 districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. 126 127 A. Sign Regulations Ffor Tthe Form Based Code Districts: 128 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning districts are intended to 129 provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 130 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code 131 zoning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All 132 other regulations in this chapter shall apply. 133 B. Sign Type, Size Aand Height Standards: 134 1. A-Frame Sign: 135 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. A- frame sign P P P P 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. 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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. 136 137 2. Awning Oor Canopy Sign: 138 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per window or entrance. Width Equal to the width of the window. Awning or canopy sign P P P P P Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 139 140 3. Construction Sign: 141 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per construction site. Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-MU. Area Maximum of 64 square feet. Construction sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property. 142 143 4. Flat Sign: 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications 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-MU. Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-MU. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage. Flat sign P P P P Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 145 146 5. Flat Sign (building orientation): 147 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per building face.Flat sign (building orientation) P Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 148 149 6. Marquee Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications 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. Marquee sign P 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. 150 151 7. Monument Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per building. Setback 5 feet. Height Maximum of 20 feet. Monument sign P Area 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 152 153 58. Nameplate Sign: 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 154 155 156 157 9. New Development Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per street frontage. Setback 5 feet. Height 12 feet. New Development sign P Area 200 square feet. 158 159 610. Private Directional Sign: 160 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Nameplate sign P P P P P Area Maximum of 3 square feet. 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 5 feet. Area Maximum of 8 square feet. Restriction May not contain business name or logo. Private directional sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P 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. 161 162 711. Projecting Sign: 163 164 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. 21 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. 165 166 812. Projecting Parking Entry Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications 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. Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign graphic) P P P 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. 167 168 913. Public Safety Sign: 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 6 feet. Area 8 square feet. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P 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. 169 170 104. Real Estate Sign: 171 172 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Height Maximum of 12 feet. Real estate sign P P P P Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-MU. 23 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. 173 174 115. Window Sign: 175 176 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- MU FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Quantity 1 per window. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Window sign P P P P Area Maximum of 25% of window area. 177 178 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Table 21A.37.060.G of Salt Lake City Code. That 179 Table 21A.37.060.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Form Based Districts), shall be, and hereby is 180 amended to read and appear as follows: 181 182 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT District Standard (Code Section)FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB- UN3MU11 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 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 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 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 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 183 Notes: 184 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the 185 following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 186 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 187 3. For buildings with street facing facades over 100' in length, a minimum of 30% of the 188 façade length shall be an “active use” as defined in Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. Except 189 for the rowhouse building form, residential units shall not count as an “active use” toward 190 the 30% minimum. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: 191 a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall 192 consist of non-residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 193 b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade 194 shall consist of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 195 c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. 196 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 197 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Table 21A.44.040-A in Section 21A.44.040 of Salt 198 Lake City Code. That Table 21A.44.040-A in Section 21A.44.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 199 (Minimum and Maximum Off Street Parking), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 200 appear as follows: 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 201 TABLE 21A.44.040-A: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF STREET PARKING: DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement Maximum Parking Allowed General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Land Use All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35,R-MU - 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE, SSSC Overlay D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3FB- MU11, FB-SC, R-MU Vehicle Stacking and Drive-Through Facilities: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.6 Outdoor Sales/Display/Leasing/Auction Areas: See Subsection 21A.44.040.A.7 RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living Artists’ loft/studio 1.5 spaces per DU 1 space per DU 0.5 spaces per DU No Minimum No Maximum Manufactured home Mobile home Single-family (attached) Single-family (detached) 2 spaces per DU Single-family cottage development building form 1 space per DU 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces Twin home Two-family 2 spaces per DU 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces, not including recreational vehicle parking spaces 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Multi-family Studio and 1 bedrooms: 1 space per DU, 2+ bedrooms 1.25 space per DU Studio and 1+bedrooms: 1 space per DU Studio: No minimum 1 bedroom: 0.5 space per Du 2+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU; 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Group Living Assisted living facility Nursing care facility 1 space for eachevery 6 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for eachevery 4 rooming units; plus 1 space for each every 3 DU; See Table Note A 1 space for eachevery 8 infirmary or nursing home beds; plus 1 space for eachevery 6 rooming units; plus 1 space for eachevery 4 DU; See Table Note A No Minimum No Maximum Congregate Care Facility (large) 1 space for each family, plus 1 space for every 4 individual bedrooms, plus 1 space for every 2 support staff present No Minimum Congregate Care Facility (small) 3 spaces per facility and 1 space for every 2 support staff present No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per bedroom plus 1 space for each support staff present Group home Residential support 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 6 persons design capacity; See Table Note A 1 space per 4 persons design capacity; See Table Note A No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 persons design capacity; See Table Note A Dormitory, fraternity, sorority 1 space per 2 persons design capacity 1 space per 3 persons design capacity 1 space per 4 persons design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 1 persons design capacity 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Rooming (boarding) house 1 space per 2 guest rooms 1 space per 3 guest rooms 1 space per 4 guest rooms No Minimum No Maximum Shared housing 0.5 spaces per unit 0.25 spaces per unit No Minimum No Maximum Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 202 203 204 DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Land Use All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35,R-MU - 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE, SSSC Overlay D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3FB- MU11, FB-SC, R-MU Maximum Parking Allowed PUBLC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CIVIC USES Community and Cultural Facilities Art gallery Studio, Art 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum All Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Exhibition hall Museum Crematorium Daycare center, adult Daycare center, child Homeless resource center Library 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Community correctional facility Community recreation center Jail 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Maximum Government facility Social service mission and charity dining hall 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area No Minimum No Maximum Municipal service use, including city utility use and police and fire station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per service vehicle No Minimum No Maximum Club/lounge Meeting hall membership organization 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 8 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 10 seats in main assembly area No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area Convent/monastery 1 space per 4 persons design capacity 1 space per 6 persons design capacity 1 space per 8 persons design capacity No Minimum No Maximum Funeral home 1 space per 4 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 5 seats in main assembly area 1 space per 6 seats in main assembly area No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 4 seats in main assembly areas 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No maximum Place of worship 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 8 seats or 1 space per 400 sq. ft., whichever is less 1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 500 sq. ft, whichever is less No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Fairground See Table Note B No Maximum Philanthropic use See Table Note B All Contexts: 1 space per 3.5 seats or 1 space per 200 sq. ft., whichever is greater Zoological park Ambulance service See Table Note B Cemetery Plazas Park Open space No Minimum No Maximum Educational Facilities College and university 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. office, research, and library area, plus 1 space per 10 seats in assembly areas K-12 private K-12 public Elementary or Middle: 1 space per 20 students design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT High Schools: 1 space per 8 students design capacity Dance/music studio Music conservatory Professional and vocational Professional and vocational (with outdoor activities) Seminary and religious institute 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Healthcare Facilities Clinic (medical, dental)4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. All Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Blood donation center 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Hospital Hospital, including accessory lodging facility 1 space per 3 patient beds design capacity 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 2 patient beds design capacity Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 205 206 207 DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Land Use All zoning districts not listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35,R-MU - 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, FB-SE, SSSC Overlay D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3FB- MU11, FB-SC, R-MU Maximum Parking Allowed COMMERCIAL USES Agricultural and Animal Uses Greenhouse Kennel Pound Veterinary office Cremation service, animal Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Poultry farm or processing plant Raising of furbearing animals Slaughterhouse 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No Maximum 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Agricultural use Community garden Farmer’s market Grain elevator Pet cemetery Stable Stockyard Urban farm No Minimum No Minimum No Minimum No Minimum Botanical garden See Table Note B Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium Theater, live performance Theater, movie 1 space per 4 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 6 seats in assembly areas 1 space per 8 seats in assembly areas No Minimum All Contexts: 1 space per 3 seats in assembly areas Amphitheater Athletic Field Stadium See Table Note B Tennis court (principal use)2 spaces per court No Minimum Bowling 2 spaces per lane No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per court or lane Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: No Maximum Convention center Swimming pool, skating rink or natatorium 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Health and fitness facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Performing arts production facility Reception center Recreation (indoor)3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. sq. ft.per 1,000 sq. ft. Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre)1 space per designated camping or RV spot Amusement park See Table Note B Recreation (outdoor)See Table Note B No Maximum Food and Beverage Services Brewpub Restaurant Indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Tavern Indoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.; Outdoor tasting/seating area: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Outdoor tasting/seating area: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit, Urban Center, and Neighborhood Center Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor tasting/seating area General Context: 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. indoor tasting/seating area All Contexts: Outdoor tasting/seating area: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Office, Business, and Professional Services Check cashing/payday loan business Dental laboratory/research facility 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Financial institution Research and laboratory facilities Office (excluding medical and dental clinic and office) 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center and Transit Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail Sales & Services Photo finishing lab Electronic repair shop Furniture repair shop Upholstery shop No Minimum 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Radio, television station 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Store, Convenience 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Transit and Urban cCenter Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Auction, Indoor Store, Department 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Transit Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Fashion oriented development Flea market (indoor) Flea market (outdoor) Store, Mass merchandising Store, Pawn shop Store, Specialty Retail goods establishment Retail service establishment Store, Superstore and hypermarket Store, Warehouse club ft. Urban Center and Neighborhood Center Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Retail shopping center over 55,000 sq. ft. usable floor area Up to 100,000 sq. ft: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Up to 100,000 sq. ft: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Above 100,000 sq. ft: 1,.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 1.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: Up to 100,000 sq. ft.: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., above 100,000 sq. ft.: 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1.5 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Lodging Facilities Bed and breakfast All Contexts: 1.25 spaces per guest bedroom Hotel/motel 1 space per guest bedroom 0.5 spaces per guest bedroom No Minimum All Contexts: 1.5 spaces per guest bedroom Vehicles and Equipment Vehicle Auction 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum No Maximum Automobile part sales Automobile and truck repair sales/rental and service Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service (indoor) Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area plus 1 space per service bay 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area plus 1 space per service bay No Minimum All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of indoor sales/leasing/office area, plus 1 space per service bay 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) Manufactured/mobile home sales and service Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service Truck repair sales and rental (large) Car wash Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells gas No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Gas station 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Minimum General Context: 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Bus line yard and repair facility Impound lot Limousine service Taxicab facility Tire distribution retail/wholesale 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 space per commercial fleet vehicle No Minimum No Maximum Adult Entertainment Establishments Sexually oriented business 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum All Contexts: 5 spaces per 1,0000 sq. ft. Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 208 209 210 DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet Minimum Parking Requirement General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit Context Land Use All zoning districts not RB, SNB, CB, CN, R-MU-35,R-MU - 45, SR-3, FB-UN1, D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-1, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, Maximum Parking Allowed 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT listed in another context area FB-SE, SSSC Overlay FB-UN3FB- MU11, FB-SC, R-MU TRANSPORTATION USES Airport Heliport Determined by Airport Authority No Maximum Bus line station/terminal Intermodal transit passenger hub Railroad, passenger station Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking No Minimum Urban Center and Transit Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 1 space per 150 average daily passenger boardings Railroad, repair shop Truck freight terminal 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft., plus 1 space per fleet vehicle generally stored on-site No Minimum Railroad, freight terminal facility No Minimum No Maximum INDUSTRIAL USES Manufacturing and Processing Artisan food production Bakery, commercial 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Neighborhood Center and General Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of production area, plus 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office/retail Automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor)No Minimum No Maximum Processing center (outdoor)No Minimum No Maximum Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor)No minimum No Maximum Blacksmith shop No minimum No Maximum Bottling plant No minimum No Maximum Brewery/Small Brewery No minimum No Maximum Chemical manufacturing and/or storage No minimum No Maximum Commercial food preparation No minimum No Maximum Distillery No minimum No Maximum Drop forge industry No minimum No Maximum Explosive manufacturing and storage No minimum No Maximum Food processing No minimum No Maximum Heavy manufacturing No minimum No Maximum Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste No minimum No Maximum Industrial assembly 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of office No minimum No Maximum 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Jewelry fabrication No minimum No Maximum Laundry, commercial Light manufacturing Manufacturing and processing, food Paint manufacturing Printing plant Processing center (indoor) Recycling Sign painting/fabrication Studio, motion picture Welding shop Winery Woodworking mill 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Collection station Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing Extractive industry Refinery, petroleum products No minimum No Maximum Minimum No Maximum Storage and Warehousing Air cargo terminals and package delivery facility Building materials distribution No minimum No maximum Flammable liquids or gases, beating fuel distribution and storage Package delivery facility No maximum 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Warehouse Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) Wholesale distribution No minimum Storage, self 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area, plus 1 space per 30 storage units 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office All Contexts: 1 space for every 15 storage units Contractor’s yard/office 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area No minimum All Contexts: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office area Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution Storage (outdoor) Storage and display (outdoor) Storage, public (outdoor) No Minimum No Maximum PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC UTILITY USES Utility: Building or structure Antenna, communication tower Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone Large wind energy system Solar array No Minimum No Maximum 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Utility: Electric generation facility Utility Sewage treatment plant Utility: Solid waste transfer station Utility: Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole Wireless telecommunications facility ACCESSORY USES Accessory Dwelling Unit See Section 21A.40.200: Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory guest and servant’s quarter Living quarter for caretaker or security guard 1 space per DU No Minimum All Contexts: 4 spaces per DU Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.No Minimum No Minimum Maximum Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees No Minimum Transit and Urban Center Contexts: 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Center Context: 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. General Context: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Warehouse, accessory Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title Heliport, accessory Reverse vending machine Storage, accessory (outdoor) No Maximum TEMPORARY USES Mobile food business (operation in public right- of-way) Mobile food business (operation on private property) Mobile food court Vending cart, private property Vending cart, public property Farm stand, seasonal No minimum, unless required by temporary use permit or as determined by the Zoning Administrator No Maximum Table Notes: A. Facilities that are (a) occupied by persons who’s right to live together is protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, and that (b) occupy a building originally constructed for another residential use shall have the same parking requirements as the residential use for which the building was constructed. B. Parking requirements to be determined by the transportation director based on considerations of factors such as estimated facility use, vehicle traffic to the facility, transit use to the facility, potential traffic congestion, and likelihood of overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 212 213 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Table 21A.44.080-A in Section 21A.44.080 of Salt 214 Lake City Code. That Table 21A.44.080-A in Section 21A.44.080 of the Salt Lake City Code 215 (Required Vehicle Stacking Spaces), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as 216 follows: 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT TABLE 21A.44.080-A: REQUIRED VEHICLE STACKING SPACES: General Context Neighborhood Center Context Urban Center Context Transit ContextUse All zoning districts no listed in another context area RB, SNB, CB, CN, R- MU-35, R-MU-45, SR- 3, FB-UN1, FB-SE, SSSC Overlay D-2, MU, TSA-T, CSHBD1, CSHBD2 D-J, D-3, D-4, G-MU, TSA-C, UI, FB-UN2, FB-UN3MU11, FB-SC, R-MU Car Wash, Self-Service 3 spaces per bay or stall 2 spaces per bay or stall Car Wash, Automated 4 spaces per bay or stall 3 spaces per bay or stall Food and Beverage Service Uses 5 spaces per service lane 4 spaces per service lane Other Uses 3 spaces per service lane 3 spaces per service lane 217 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 218 219 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Subsection 21A.46.125.B.3.d of Salt Lake City 220 Code. That Subsection 21A.46.125.B.3.d of the Salt Lake City Code (Vintage Signs), shall be, 221 and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 222 d.Be relocated to a new site for use as a piece of public art, provided that the 223 original design and character of the sign is retained, or will be restored, and it 224 advertises a business no longer in operation. Vintage signs may only be relocated 225 for use as public art to sites in the following districts: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, G-MU, 226 CSHBD1, CSHBD2, FB-UN2, FB-UN3FB-MU11, FB-SC, FB-SE, TSA. 227 228 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 229 first publication. 230 231 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 232 2023. 233 ______________________________ 234 CHAIRPERSON 235 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 236 237 ______________________________ 238 CITY RECORDER 239 240 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 241 242 243 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 244 245 ______________________________ 246 MAYOR 247 ______________________________ 248 CITY RECORDER 249 (SEAL) 250 251 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 252 Published: ______________. 253254 Ordinance adopting FB MU11 zoning (legislative) 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 Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland, Policy and Budget Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: RESOLUTION: IVORY UNIVERSITY HOUSE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. 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 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 tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards Budget Analysts DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number One FY2024 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. A-1: Donation for Northeast Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 Donation to the CIP Fund) A-2: One-time Additional Funding for Fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Events ($250,000 from General Fund Balance) A-3: Funding Impact Fees and Permit Fees Refund to Ivory University House ($754,483.23 from General Fund Balance and $1,648,715 from Impact Fees) D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $511,001 Non-departmental General Fund budget to the appropriate department budgets) D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) Change (Budget Neutral) D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope (Budget Neutral - $1,359,130 in the CIP Fund) D-4: Reallocate Bond Funds from 1700 East to 2100 South Reconstruction ($1.5 Million Reallocation in CIP Fund) D-5: Rescope Bridge Rehabilitation Funding as Local Match to Federal Funding for Rebuilding Three Bridges over the Jordan River ($6,348,507 in the CIP Fund) D-6: Occupied Vehicle Mitigation Team Allocation (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $45,000 in Public Services to the Fleet Fund and IMS Fund) D-7: Fleet Vehicle Purchases Re-appropriation ($14,424,993 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet Vehicle Replacement Fund) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: September 5, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number 1 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Amendment Number One includes ten proposed amendments, ($2,139,398) in revenues and $14,892,993 in expenditures of which $250,000 is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to five funds. Most expenses in this budget amendment are housekeeping items found in section D. The transmittal included a separate ordinance for item D-2 that would correct a fee in the Consolidated Fee Schedule or CFS. The budget amendment and the CFS amendment will be listed as two separate items with two separate ordinances and votes on a Council formal meeting agenda. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance (including Funding Our Future) would be projected at 11.38% which is $7,190,963 below the 13% minimum target. The FY2024 annual budget had a projected Fund Balance slightly above 13% of ongoing General Fund revenues. The decrease from 13% to 11.38% is caused by an $8.5 million estimate of expense changes (e.g., prepaid expenses, accounts payable outstanding). This is shown in the Fund Balance projections table on page three of this staff report. The actual expense changes are pending confirmation by the annual financial audit which is typically completed in December. The Finance Department does an expense change projection each year using a conservative approach (estimates expenses on the high-end). The actual amount could vary from the $8.5 million estimate. Historically the amount has ranged from approximately $4 million to $8 million. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the fund balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. Those amounts are confirmed by the annual financial audit. Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration for additional information about the $8.5 million of estimated expense changes and whether the estimates may have changed since the annual budget deliberations in May and June. Two Straw Poll Requests The Administration is requesting straw polls for two items: A-1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 to the CIP Fund), and A-2 Funding for fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Initiative ($250,000 from the General Fund Balance). Additionally, the Council may wish to note that item A-3 is a request to refund Impact and Permit Fees for the Ivory University House which has a separate briefing and staff report. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Project Timeline: Set Date: August 15, 2023 1st Briefing: August 15, 2023 Public Hearing: Sept. 5, 2023 2nd Briefing: Sept. 5, 2023 Potential Action: Sept. 19, 2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments As this is the first budget amendment of the new fiscal year, there are no revenue projection updates to report at this time. Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment that reduces revenue by ($2,139,398) and new expenses of $14,892,993. The amendment proposes changes in five funds, with no increases in FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $250,000 from the General Fund balance. The proposal includes ten initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 7/20/23. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $273,684 More than two years away - Parks $16,793,487 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,304,485 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items (Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Donation for Northeast Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 Donation to the CIP Fund) The Council approved $300,000 of parks impact fees in FY2023 CIP to add four light poles and structures to the northeast ballfield at Riverside Park (the red marker in the below map). There are currently three baseball fields used by the leagues and a fourth practice field. This would be the first city-owned baseball field to receive lighting. The City received a donation of $218,000, which will allow the northwest ballfield to also be lit by the project. The total project budget would be $518,000. Straw Poll Request: The Administration requested a straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the entire project. A-2: One-time Additional Funding for Fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Events ($250,000 from General Fund Balance) The Council approved $500,000 in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023 for downtown street enhanced activation over the 2023 summer. The Council re-appropriated the funds in the FY2024 annual budget and expanded the scope to include open streets events in the fall. This item is requesting an additional $250,000 for a total budget of $750,000. The additional funding would be used to purchase street infrastructure (e.g., bollards, Trax barriers, and parking signs) instead of renting it. The street infrastructure would be stored by the Streets Division when not in use. The Administration stated the street infrastructure would be available for other special events to use. The open streets event this fall would be shorter than the versions held over the summer the past few years. The events would be run for eight weeks instead of 15 weeks and not include Thursdays. The events would still be on Main Street from South Temple to 400 South. Main Street would be closed from Noon to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays. The events this fall would have enhanced activation and programming on every block including a “street market.” During the annual budget, the Council discussed how the end of temporary pandemic regulations made holding the open streets events more difficult such as permitting price and timing flexibility and loosening of outdoor dining and retail rules. The Administration stated a new permit was created to facilitate temporary extensions of premises during open streets events. Another adjustment is that the Economic Development Department is applying for the special event permit which includes taking on liability as the permit holder. The Downtown Alliance will continue to provide event management and support services. Policy Questions: ➢Calendar Year 2024 Open Streets Funding Needs – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to coordinate funding and timing of potential downtown Open Streets events in 2024 and potential implementation of a permanent pedestrian mall on Main Street. A study is currently underway to provide options for creating a Main Street pedestrian mall downtown. The study results are expected to be available next year. The study website is available at https://open-main-street- deagis.hub.arcgis.com/ ➢Larger Activation and Programming Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the larger activation and programming budget ($185,000 instead of $45,000) could be used for and what differences the public could see downtown. ➢City-owned Street Infrastructure Available to Other Special Events – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the street infrastructure would be made available to other special events such as whether a first-come first served approach is used, and would the cost be at fair market rental values or discounted. ➢Permitting Changes and Liability – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether there are legislative changes to City Code or policies that could further facilitate open streets events. The Council may also wish to ask whether the event budget should include a line item for liability since the Economic Development Department is taking on that potential cost as the permit holder. ➢Coordination with 200 South Reconstruction Project – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the 200 South street reconstruction project could be an impediment to the fall open streets events as currently envisioned. A-3: Funding Impact Fees and Permit Fees Refund to Ivory University House ($754,483.23 from General Fund Balance and $1,648,715 from Impact Fees) A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and impact fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This amount consists of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits Analysis be approved by the Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be accounted for by showing negative revenue for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded. Staff note: This item is scheduled to have a separate Council briefing and staff report. The Administration transmitted a public benefits analysis separately from this budget amendment. The below tables are copied from the public benefits analysis showing a breakout of the impact fees and permit fees by type. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None) (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $511,001 Non-departmental General Fund budget to the appropriate department budgets) This is a follow up housekeeping item from the adopted annual budget which included a $511,001 line item for salary adjustments based on the negotiated Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees or AFSCME local union. The proposal is to move the $511,001 out of Non- departmental and into the six department budgets with AFSCME represented employees. There wasn’t enough time between the conclusion of negotiations and Council adoption of the annual budget to include this breakout in the FY2024 Key Changes spreadsheet. AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175 AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158 D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) Change (Budget Neutral) Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a higher rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk and lane closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate fee applied to each. Staff note: The below table is a red lined version showing the proposed corrections to the Consolidated Fee Schedule. The transmittal included a separate ordinance for this amendment to the CFS. The budget amendment and the CFS amendment will be listed as two separate items and votes on a Council formal meeting agenda. D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope (Budget Neutral - $1,359,130 in the CIP Fund) The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two-part, with roadway reconstruction and utilities. This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public safety, and basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park." The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for private development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer line was installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own expense. After the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to move forward with this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required. The Engineering Division provided the following potential project timeline for the rescoped project. It’s important to note that construction could extend into 2025 pending resolution of permit complexities related to working adjacent to the Jordan River: -Fall 2023 – Advertise RFQ for Design Consultant -Winter 2023 / 2024 – Project Design -Spring 2024 – Construction Bidding & Contracting -Summer to Fall 2024 potentially extending to 2025 – Construction D-4: Reallocate Bond Funds from 1700 East to 2100 South Reconstruction ($1.5 Million Reallocation in CIP Fund) Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to 2100 South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that support the delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East: -There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would likely damage the pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school layout. -Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway excavation shortly after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline. -The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety improvements necessary for a large school. -Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be completed without this adjustment. The Engineering Division provided the below table summarizing the total project funding and sources for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business District (700 East to 1300 East). Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid when exact costs would be known. Additional funding based on the current designs might be needed and would come to the Council in a future budget opening. Alternatively, elements of the project designs could be removed to stay within existing budget constraints. The Division is evaluating increased eligibility for transportation impact fees. Source Amount Original 2100 South Bond Amount $8,000,000 Impact Fees $660,410 or more Class C $814,027 minimum Remaining contingency from 300 West project that can be applied to 2100 South $850,000 2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000 Anticipated funding from 2023-2024 CIP $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 – the remainder goes to Virginia Street) Anticipated funding from BA1 $1,500,000 Total $14,874,437 Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table The project webpage is publicly available at www.2100southslc.org D-5: Rescope Bridge Rehabilitation Funding as Local Match to Federal Funding for Rebuilding Three Bridges over the Jordan River ($6,348,507 in the CIP Fund) The City anticipates receiving approximately $21.6 million to help rebuild three City bridges over the Jordan River at 650 North, 200 South, and 500 South. UDOT would serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design and construction of the bridges. The City would own and be responsible for maintenance of the rebuilt bridges. The first rebuild could begin in calendar year 2024 but is more likely in 2025. The funding is from the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s new Bridge Formula Program. Utah, like other states, are annually awarded funds over five years determined by a formula. The minimum annual award for every state is at least $45 million. The Federal funding goes through UDOT which ultimately selects and awards funding to individual projects. The Council approved $2,648,507 in FY2021 CIP to rehabilitate the bridges at 650 North and 400 South over the Jordan River. Inspections later determined the bridges should be fully rebuilt partly as a result of damage from the March 2020 earthquake and continued deterioration. $3.7 million was approved by the Council in FY2023 CIP for rebuilding the 650 North bridge. The combined $6,348,507 is proposed to be rescoped as local matching funds to the Federal funding. The 500 South bridge would be fully covered by $7.2 million of Federal funding. The 650 North and 200 South bridges have a 6.77% required local match for the $14.4 million grant which would be $974,880. This leaves a remaining budget of $5,373,627. The Engineering Division anticipates a significant amount of the $5.3 million would be needed to relocate public utilities. Private utilities are relocated at no cost to the City as a requirement of their franchise agreements. Utility relocations must be coordinated by the City before construction begins. This budget request includes that any remaining funding be used to rebuild the 400 South bridge over the Jordan River if any of the $5.3 million is remaining after the other three bridge rebuilds and public utilities relocations. Policy Questions: ➢Potential to Add Funding from the Public Utilities Department – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to estimate the cost of relocating publicly owned utilities as part of the bridge rebuilds and consider including funding in future Public Utilities budget proposals to leverage more funding sources and avoid potential General Fund subsidization of an enterprise fund. ➢New Amenities with Bridge Rebuilds – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the bridge rebuilds could bring new amenities to the impacted neighborhoods such as wider bridge decks, bike lanes, public art, lighting, traffic calming, etc. The 650 North bridge in particular would need to be coordinated with the upcoming 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project that will construct many improvements and new amenities. Note some of the improvements and amenities could be partially eligible for impact fee funding if they are growth related. ➢Timing Bridge Rebuilds to Minimize East-West Travel Disruptions – The Council may wish to discuss with the Council what options exist to spread out the bridge rebuilds so impacts to neighborhoods are less and what other mitigation resources could be helpful. Alternatively, there might be cost savings from combining multiple bridge rebuilds under a single contract. ➢Status of the City’s Other Bridges and Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the status of the City’s other bridges is, and what funding needs are anticipated in the coming years. D-6: Occupied Vehicle Mitigation Team Allocation (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $45,000 in Public Services to the Fleet Fund and IMS Fund) For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One-time and ongoing funds were placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one-time funding for items related to this team belongs in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund. D-7: Fleet Vehicle Purchases Re-appropriation ($14,424,993 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet Vehicle Replacement Fund) The Public Services Department is requesting the Council re-appropriate funds originally appropriated in FY2022 and FY2023 for vehicle purchases. These vehicles were unavailable to purchase before the end of FY2023 because of supply chain issues and limited ordering windows offered by vehicle manufacturers. The vehicles are still needed. If the re-appropriation is approved, then the vehicles would be ordered as soon as they become available. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Donations (None) Section I: Council Added Items (None) ATTACHMENTS (none) ACRONYMS AFSCME - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund FOF – Funding Our Future IMS – Information Management Services MOU – Memorandum of Understanding UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation Day Date Time Location Performer / Music/ Activation ENTIRE 7 WEEKS 239 S Main Street Check out Basecamp ENTIRE 7 WEEKS Exchange Place TreeHive Neon Structure above Sidewalk 6 / 7 Weeks 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main Friday September 15 1-8PM Up and Down Main Street The Blocks Scavenger Hunt 2-8pm 150 S Main Street Mural - ACTIVE PAINTING 2-8pm 260 S Main Street Mural - ACTIVE PAINTING 5-7PM 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 6-11pm Exchange Place Hip Hop Night at Disco Box OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 5-7pm Around Downtown Buskers for VSL Fice Gallery Neon Rodeo Eccles Theater Lions Den Live Saturday September 16 1-8PM Up and Down Main Street Liiingo Scavenger Hunt up and down Main Street 5-9PM 239 S Main Street SLAM Youth Music Concert featuring Little Moon 2:00 PM 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main (no DJ) 6-9pm Gallivan Main Entrance Thrift Jam Bus 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 2-8pm 150 S Main Street Mural - ACTIVE PAINTING 2-8pm 260 S Main Street Mural - ACTIVE PAINTING 12-5pm Gallivan Center Rock N Ribs Public Event OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND Fice Gallery Neon Rodeo Library Square Unity Block Party Day Date Time Location Performer / Music/ Activation Eccles Theater Lions Den Live Friday September 22 6-8pm David Keith Building "Selfie Day" 6-11pm Exchange Place Electronic and Bass Night at Discobox 2-8pm 150 S Main Street Mural - COMMUNITY PAINTING 2-8pm 260 S Main Street Mural - COMMUNITY PAINTING 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 6-10pm Gallivan Plaza Rina Sawayama - Twilight @ Gallivan 8-10pm All Over BUSKERS FOR VSL Doterra Convention TBD Eccles Theater Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat: In Concert Saturday September 23 6-8pm David Keith Building "Selfie Day" 2-5pm Main Street Sweet Streets Bike ride to Open Streets 2-5pm Exchange Place Mobile Bike Shop 2-8pm 150 S Main Street Mural - COMMUNITY PAINTING 2-8pm 260 S Main Street Mural - COMMUNITY PAINTING 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 12-10pm Gallivan Center Super Bloom Music Festival TBD Eccles Theater Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat: In Concert Friday September 29 2-10pm All down Main Street Urban Golf on Main 5-7pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 6-11pm Exchange Place Trap Night at Discobox 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center Day Date Time Location Performer / Music/ Activation OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 8:00 PM Eccles Theater Lewis Black Saturday September 30 2-10pm All down Main Street Urban Golf on Main 7-9pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 2:00 PM 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main 12-9pm Gallivan Center Afro Festival OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 7:30 PM Eccles Theater The Psychedelic Furs & Squeeze Friday October 6 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 5-7pm 229 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 6-11pm Exchange Place Throwback Jams at Discobox OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 6:30 PM Eccles Theater Encanto: The Sing-Along Concert Film Saturday October 7 12pm - 6pm Load in: 11am 200 S - 300 S Open Streets Art Market 12-6pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 9:30 PM Eccles Theater Taylor Tomlinson Friday October 13 7-10pm Gallivan Plaza Roller Skate Disco 5-7pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center Day Date Time Location Performer / Music/ Activation 6-11pm Exchange Place Noche Latina at Discobox OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND Eccles Theater Theater is dark (Equality Utah Allies load-in) Saturday October 14 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 2:00 PM 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main 6-9pm Gallivan Main Entrance Thrift Bus 7 - 10pm (Performances)Basecamp/ Gallivan Entrance Noche Latina OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 6-10pm Eccles Lobby/ Front Steps and into the Street Equality Utah Friday October 20 2-10pm All down Main Street Urban Golf on Main 5-7pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 6-11pm Exchange Place Girlpower at Discobox OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 7:30 PM Eccles Theater Wilco Saturday October 21 2-10pm All down Main Street Urban Golf on Main 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 5-7pm 239 S Main Street Live Music at Basecamp 2:00 PM 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN ON THIS WEEKEND 7:30 PM Eccles Theater Lovro Peretic 8:00 PM Eccles Theater Jonathan Van Ness Day Date Time Location Performer / Music/ Activation Salt Palace Platinum National Dance Competition Friday October 27 7-10pm TBD Larger Band/ 2 Day Performance 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 6-11pm Exchange Place Closing Night at Discobox Friday October 28 7-10pm TBD Larger Band/ 2 Day Performance 4-6PM City Creek Center Live Music at the Bridge at City Creek Center 2:00 PM 239 S Main Street Yoga on Main DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: RE-TRANSMITTING FY24 Budget Amendment #1 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $-754,483.23 $250,000.00 CIP FUND 218,000.00 218,000.00 CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND -1,648,715.00 0.00 FLEET FUND 0.00 1,461,793.00 IMS FUND 0.00 9,000.00 TOTAL $-2,185,198.23 $ 1,893,793.00 08/03/2023 08/03/2023 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 3, 2023 09:54 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24. Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available. The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 91,575,871 104,708,623 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 52,104,924 59,700,381 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%13.29%13.43% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 7,595,457 43,548,704 51,144,161 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.81%25.30%14.51%11.10%11.51% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483) BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 205,000 205,000 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 88,232,021 100,864,773 7,595,457 42,999,220 50,594,677 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%23.00%23.57%14.51%10.96%11.38% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 FY2024 Budget Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL FY2023 Budget Projected Fund Balance Projections The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $(2,185,198.23) in revenue and $1,893,793.00 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in 5 funds, with zero increases in FTEs. The proposal includes 10 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park CIP $218,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson The City will be receiving a donation for ball field sports lighting in Riverside Park. A budget of $300,000 currently exists for the project, but the quote for the cost of the lighting is $368,000 . The installation of the lighting could start around mid-September to mid-October. The Administration, understanding that public comment is necessary before an official vote, would like to request a straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the entire project. A-2: Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF $250,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt For questions, please include Lorena Riffo Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt, Mary Beth Thompson The Department of Economic Development (DED) is requesting additional funding for the Open Streets event on Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City this fall. Funding for infrastructure costs such as UTA Trax bollards, street maintenance, and no-parking signage will cost an estimated $250,000, and after including operations and activation costs by The Downtown Alliance totaling $500,000, the total costs exceed the $500,000 City Council allocated for the event. DED is requesting funding for these additional costs in the amount of $250,000 for Open Streets infrastructure, which is a one- time cost that will service the event for the year and for future Open Streets events. A-3: Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House GF ($754,483.23) CIP/Impact Fund ($1,648,715.00) Department: CAN & Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, Blake Thomas, Kimberly Chytraus, Katie Lewis, Randy Hillier, Mike Atkinson A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and impact fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This amount consists of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits Analysis be approved by the Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be accounted for by showing negative revenue for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations GF ($511,001.00) AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737.00 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson Update the AFSCME MOU allocations for fiscal year 2024. D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA $0.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a higher rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk and lane closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate fee applied to each. D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two -part, with roadway reconstruction and utilities. This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public safety , and basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park." The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for priva te development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer line was installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own expense. After the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to move forward with this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required. D-4: 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to 2100 South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that support the delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East: 1. There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would likely damage the pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school layout. 2. Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway excavation shortly after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline. 3. The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety improvements necessary for a large school. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 4. Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be funded without this request. D-5: Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services - Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen City Council previously approved $2,648,507 in FY21 for the rehabilitation of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River and the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. After the March 2020 earthquake, damage sustained to the 650 N bridge made it necessary to replace/reconstruct the bridge, and rehabilitation was no longer recommended. Subsequently, the City Council approved $3,700,000 in FY23 for the reconstruction of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River. The combined available CIP funding from FY 21 and FY23 for bridge replacements/rehabilitation is $6,348,507. City Engineering received notice from UDOT in early July 2022 that the following three (3) bridges were eligible for replacement with Federal Bridge Formula Program (BFP) funding: 1) 650 N bridge ov er the Jordan River, 2) 200 S bridge over the Jordan River and 3) 500 S bridge over the Jordan River. The Engineering Division received a letter from UDOT on June 29, 2023, that they would be proceeding with the approval of the proposed BFP funding for th e 650 N and 200 S bridges since no potential habitats were found for an endemic orchid, as previously suspected. The total approved project value for these two (2) bridge replacement projects is $14,400,000 which will require a 6.77% local match by Salt L ake City. The 500 S bridge BFP funding should be approved in August/September 2023 however no local match will be required since this bridge will be funded 100% by BFP funding. For these bridge replacements, UDOT will serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design and construction of the bridges. Additionally, the City is required to coordinate private and public utility relocations prior to the reconstruction of each bridge. Public utility relocation must be funded by the City. As a result, Engineering is requesting that the $6,348,507 in available bridge CIP funding from FY21 and FY23 be made available to pay for 1) 6.77% local match requirement and 2) any necessary public utility relocations (private utilities woul d be required to relocate their respective utilities under their respective franchise agreements at no cost to the City). Any remaining funding after the match and public utility relocation costs would be applied to the design and reconstruction of the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. D-6: Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF ($45,000.00) Fleet $36,800.00 IMS $9,000.000 Department: Public Services - Compliance Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One -time and ongoing funds were placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one -time funding for items related to this team belongs in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund. D-7: Fleet Encumbrances GF $1,424,993.00 Department: Public Services - Fleet Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen This is the Fleet encumbrance rollover for vehicles that were committed with the funds in FY23 or earlier but have not been received or completed. A detailed list of vehicles is included in the Backup Documentation Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Section I: Council Added Items Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 One-time - 2 Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF - 250,000.00 One-time - 3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - One-time - 3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House GF (754,483.23) - One-time - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Non Dept GF - (511,001.00)Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - 911 Dispatch GF - 104,175.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - CAN GF - 3,963.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Police GF - 55,928.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Justice Courts GF - 40.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Lands GF - 36,737.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Services GF - 310,158.00 Ongoing - 2 Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA - - Ongoing - 3 Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP - - One-time - 4 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP - - One-time - 5 Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP - - One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF - (45,000.00) One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS Fleet - 36,800.00 One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS IMS - 9,000.00 One-time - 7 Encumbrances - Fleet Fleet - 1,424,993.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Consent Agenda # Total of Budget Amendment Items (2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section I: Council Added Items Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF (754,483.23) 205,000.00 - - - Impact Fee Fund Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - - - - Fleet Fund Fleet - 1,461,793.00 CIP Fund CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS - 9,000.00 - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items (2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - - Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,917 (754,483.23) 447,760,433.77 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,149 6,044,149.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 32,498,750.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 38,702,171.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 8,919,917.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 400,000.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 (1,430,715.00) 28,277,571.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,038 (2,185,198.23) - - - - 1,766,728,839.77 Administration Proposed Council Approved 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 205,000.00 425,742,408.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825.00 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 132,752,815.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 384,681,671.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 24,952,672.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 14,726,016.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 1,461,793.00 31,887,825.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 9,000.00 30,532,167.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 26,614,153.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 287,250.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 25,779,253.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 33,658,558.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 218,000.00 35,678,387.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 3,169,767.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 1,893,793.00 - - - - 1,527,497,195.00 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 3 Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule) An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:_______7/28/23_____________________ By: ___________________________________ EXHIBIT A Public Way Obstruction Permits Short term (One Week) Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Sidewalk closure $98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Long term (1 month increments) Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Sidewalk closure $394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule) An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ EXHIBIT A Public Way Obstruction Permits Short term (One Week) Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane or sSidewalk closure $350$98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Long term (1 month increments) Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane or sSidewalk closure $1,400$394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 3, 2023 09:44 MDT) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Item B5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: Ordinance: Amendment to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 related to lane and sidewalk closure fees. MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: RE-TRANSMITTING FY24 Budget Amendment #1 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Hunt (801) 535-7926 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY24 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $-754,483.23 $250,000.00 CIP FUND 218,000.00 218,000.00 CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND -1,648,715.00 0.00 FLEET FUND 0.00 1,461,793.00 IMS FUND 0.00 9,000.00 TOTAL $-2,185,198.23 $ 1,893,793.00 08/03/2023 08/03/2023 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 3, 2023 09:54 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY24 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for FY24. Because of this budget amendment’s timing, there are no updates for Y24 projections available. The City has begun closing out the FY23 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#1. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 11.38%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 91,575,871 104,708,623 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 52,104,924 59,700,381 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%13.29%13.43% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 7,595,457 43,548,704 51,144,161 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.81%25.30%14.51%11.10%11.51% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - (754,483) (754,483) BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - 205,000 205,000 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - - - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 88,232,021 100,864,773 7,595,457 42,999,220 50,594,677 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%23.00%23.57%14.51%10.96%11.38% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 FY2024 Budget Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL FY2023 Budget Projected Fund Balance Projections The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $(2,185,198.23) in revenue and $1,893,793.00 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in 5 funds, with zero increases in FTEs. The proposal includes 10 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park CIP $218,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Sean Fyfe, Mary Beth Thompson The City will be receiving a donation for ball field sports lighting in Riverside Park. A budget of $300,000 currently exists for the project, but the quote for the cost of the lighting is $368,000 . The installation of the lighting could start around mid-September to mid-October. The Administration, understanding that public comment is necessary before an official vote, would like to request a straw poll to allow for the receipt of the contract for the entire project. A-2: Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF $250,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Roberta Reichgelt For questions, please include Lorena Riffo Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt, Mary Beth Thompson The Department of Economic Development (DED) is requesting additional funding for the Open Streets event on Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City this fall. Funding for infrastructure costs such as UTA Trax bollards, street maintenance, and no-parking signage will cost an estimated $250,000, and after including operations and activation costs by The Downtown Alliance totaling $500,000, the total costs exceed the $500,000 City Council allocated for the event. DED is requesting funding for these additional costs in the amount of $250,000 for Open Streets infrastructure, which is a one- time cost that will service the event for the year and for future Open Streets events. A-3: Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House GF ($754,483.23) CIP/Impact Fund ($1,648,715.00) Department: CAN & Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, Blake Thomas, Kimberly Chytraus, Katie Lewis, Randy Hillier, Mike Atkinson A Public Benefits Analysis has been transmitted to the Council pertaining to the refunding of building permits and impact fees to Ivory University House L3C. The total amount being refunded is approximately $2.4 million. This amount consists of $754,483 in building permit fees and $1,648,715 in impact fees. Should the Public Benefits Analysis be approved by the Council, a budget will need to be in place for the refunds to happen. This will be accounted for by showing negative revenue for both the Impact Fees and Permit Fees being refunded. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations GF ($511,001.00) AFSCME MOU Allocations – 911 Dispatch GF $104,175.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – CAN GF $3,963.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Police GF $55,928.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Justice Courts GF $40.00 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Lands GF $36,737.00 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 AFSCME MOU Allocations – Public Services GF $310,158.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson Update the AFSCME MOU allocations for fiscal year 2024. D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA $0.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Lisa Hunt Correction to CFS - Engineering Fees: During the FY24 budget, an increase in the engineering fee for lane closure was recommended by the administration. The intent was to separate the fee for sidewalk and lane closures, charging a higher rate for lane closures as justified by cost analysis. The increased fee was inadvertently applied to both sidewalk and lane closures. This correction will create a separate line item for these two types of closures with the appropriate fee applied to each. D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen The CIP application for "Three Creeks West - Roadways" includes only a single residential stretch of 1300 S, North of California Ave. that fronts ten residential properties and the Jordan River. This constituent application was two -part, with roadway reconstruction and utilities. This FY22-23 CIP request was submitted as follows: "Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along Jordan River and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park access, public safety , and basic sanitation, expanding on the success of Three Creek Confluence Park." The subsequent estimate did not fully account for new utilities, nor was it eligible for utilities, as improvements for priva te development (which the applicant would benefit from) are not paid for by the City. Furthermore, if the sewer line was installed the property owners fronting a new line would be required by the health code to tie in at their own expense. After the City engaged with the impacted property owners not all of them agreed. Therefore, we proposed to move forward with this application with a scope limited to roadway reconstruction. No additional funds are required. D-4: 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen Public Services Engineering and CAN Transportation are recommending moving the bond funds from 1700 East to 2100 South to supplement the expanded scope and community-desired elements. The following are reasons that support the delay in the funding for the construction of 1700 East: 1. There is a high likelihood that Highland High School will be rebuilt in the next few years, which would likely damage the pavement and result in some needed design changes to accommodate the new school layout. 2. Public Utilities is planning a potential storm drain upgrade that would require significant roadway excavation shortly after the original 1700 East reconstruction project timeline. 3. The remaining bond funding is not adequate to fully reconstruct the segment of roadway and safety improvements necessary for a large school. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 4. Certain elements of the desired 2100 South reconstruction project may not be funded without this request. D-5: Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP $0.00 Department: Public Services - Engineering Prepared By: Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen For questions, please include Josh Willie, Mark Stephens, JP Goates, Dustin Petersen City Council previously approved $2,648,507 in FY21 for the rehabilitation of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River and the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. After the March 2020 earthquake, damage sustained to the 650 N bridge made it necessary to replace/reconstruct the bridge, and rehabilitation was no longer recommended. Subsequently, the City Council approved $3,700,000 in FY23 for the reconstruction of the 650 N bridge over the Jordan River. The combined available CIP funding from FY 21 and FY23 for bridge replacements/rehabilitation is $6,348,507. City Engineering received notice from UDOT in early July 2022 that the following three (3) bridges were eligible for replacement with Federal Bridge Formula Program (BFP) funding: 1) 650 N bridge ov er the Jordan River, 2) 200 S bridge over the Jordan River and 3) 500 S bridge over the Jordan River. The Engineering Division received a letter from UDOT on June 29, 2023, that they would be proceeding with the approval of the proposed BFP funding for th e 650 N and 200 S bridges since no potential habitats were found for an endemic orchid, as previously suspected. The total approved project value for these two (2) bridge replacement projects is $14,400,000 which will require a 6.77% local match by Salt L ake City. The 500 S bridge BFP funding should be approved in August/September 2023 however no local match will be required since this bridge will be funded 100% by BFP funding. For these bridge replacements, UDOT will serve as the funding administrator as well as perform the design and construction of the bridges. Additionally, the City is required to coordinate private and public utility relocations prior to the reconstruction of each bridge. Public utility relocation must be funded by the City. As a result, Engineering is requesting that the $6,348,507 in available bridge CIP funding from FY21 and FY23 be made available to pay for 1) 6.77% local match requirement and 2) any necessary public utility relocations (private utilities woul d be required to relocate their respective utilities under their respective franchise agreements at no cost to the City). Any remaining funding after the match and public utility relocation costs would be applied to the design and reconstruction of the 400 S bridge over the Jordan River. D-6: Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF ($45,000.00) Fleet $36,800.00 IMS $9,000.000 Department: Public Services - Compliance Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen For FY24, Salt Lake City Council approved 3 new FTEs for homelessness mitigation. One -time and ongoing funds were placed in Public Services Compliance General Fund budget. Some one -time funding for items related to this team belongs in other funds, namely Fleet and IMS. This request is to move the funds to the appropriate fund. D-7: Fleet Encumbrances GF $1,424,993.00 Department: Public Services - Fleet Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For questions, please contact Dustin Petersen This is the Fleet encumbrance rollover for vehicles that were committed with the funds in FY23 or earlier but have not been received or completed. A detailed list of vehicles is included in the Backup Documentation Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Section I: Council Added Items Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Donation to CIP for Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 One-time - 2 Funding for Open Streets Initiative GF - 250,000.00 One-time - 3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - One-time - 3 Funding for Impact and Permit Fee Refund to Ivory University House GF (754,483.23) - One-time - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Non Dept GF - (511,001.00)Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - 911 Dispatch GF - 104,175.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - CAN GF - 3,963.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Police GF - 55,928.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Justice Courts GF - 40.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Lands GF - 36,737.00 Ongoing - 1 AFSCME MOU Allocations - Public Services GF - 310,158.00 Ongoing - 2 Consolidated Fee Schedule Change NA - - Ongoing - 3 Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope CIP - - One-time - 4 1700 E. to 2100 S. Project Budget Reallocation CIP - - One-time - 5 Bridge Projects Funding Rescope for UDOT Match CIP - - One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS GF - (45,000.00) One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS Fleet - 36,800.00 One-time - 6 Compliance Mitigation Team – Fleet and IMS IMS - 9,000.00 One-time - 7 Encumbrances - Fleet Fleet - 1,424,993.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Consent Agenda # Total of Budget Amendment Items (2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section I: Council Added Items Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF (754,483.23) 205,000.00 - - - Impact Fee Fund Impact Fee (1,648,715.00) - - - - Fleet Fund Fleet - 1,461,793.00 CIP Fund CIP 218,000.00 218,000.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS - 9,000.00 - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items (2,185,198.23) 1,893,793.00 - - - Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,917 (754,483.23) 447,760,433.77 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,149 6,044,149.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 32,498,750.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 38,702,171.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 8,919,917.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 400,000.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 34,894,979.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 (1,430,715.00) 28,277,571.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,038 (2,185,198.23) - - - - 1,766,728,839.77 Administration Proposed Council Approved 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #1 Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 205,000.00 425,742,408.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825.00 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 132,752,815.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 384,681,671.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 24,952,672.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 14,726,016.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 1,461,793.00 31,887,825.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 9,000.00 30,532,167.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 26,614,153.00 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 287,250.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 25,779,253.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 33,658,558.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 218,000.00 35,678,387.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 3,169,767.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 1,893,793.00 - - - - 1,527,497,195.00 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 3 Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule) An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:_______7/28/23_____________________ By: ___________________________________ EXHIBIT A Public Way Obstruction Permits Short term (One Week) Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Sidewalk closure $98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Long term (1 month increments) Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Sidewalk closure $394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Amendments to Lane and Sidewalk Closure Fees on the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule) An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be amended to separately address fees related to lane closures and sidewalk closures as shown in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees and fee information set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of ____________ 2023. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ EXHIBIT A Public Way Obstruction Permits Short term (One Week) Sidewalk Canopy $19 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $50 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane or sSidewalk closure $350$98 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane closure $350 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Long term (1 month increments) Sidewalk Canopy $79 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Dumpster/pod $198 Each, Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane or sSidewalk closure $1,400$394 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Lane Closure $1,400 Per Week (Construction barricades) 14.32.405 Signature: Email: Alejandro Sanchez (Aug 3, 2023 09:44 MDT) alejandro.sanchez@slcgov.com Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 MOTION 1 (optional legislative action) I move that we pass a legislative action requesting staff study a zoning text amendment which would consider amending all R-1 single-family zones. The study should include but not be limited to the following possible changes: •Consolidating of R-1/5,000, 7,000, and 12,000 into one zone, reducing the minimum lot size, removing, or reducing minimum frontage, easing flag lot standards, and allowing single-family attached housing in all zones. I further move that we initiate a separate study to consider zoning map amendments along collector and arterial roads to allow greater residential density and mixed-use developments. Motion 2 (Council Member Valdemoros’ suggestion) I move that the City collaborate with the County to get a better understanding of how City and County ordinances interact pertaining to lot subdivision process and update ordinances if needed to make sure both are consistent. I further move that we ask the administration to identify residential properties that are non-conforming lots within the City and create a streamlined process to legalize them. And recommended to the Council budgetary needs if a 3rd party is needed to help accomplish this. Motion 3 (Council Member Dugan’s suggestion) I move that we include in the legislative action language that the Council will hold a work session with the Administration on the scope of the study to include: 1. Alignment with Thriving in Place 2. Alignment with future land/water policy 3. Alignment with public transportation needs 4. Our vision of a walkable city MOTION 4 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. MOTION 5 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 BRIEFING AND PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE During the briefing, Planning staff reviewed the proposal and its history. They also discussed additional processes the petitioner would go through to construct a single-family home on the property should the Council approve the requested zoning map and future land use amendments. The petitioner addressed the Council and recognizes the lot is unique and is looking for a unique solution to add housing to the neighborhood. He stated he is following a process outlined by Planning staff. Council Members discussed potential neighborhood impacts of a home on the property. Concern was expressed about the lengthy process getting to this point, and that most people would not be able to go through it. During the discussion it was noted that a 1,000 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit or attached ADU with no size restrictions could be constructed on the property without the requested amendments. Nine people spoke at the public hearing expressing opposition to the proposal, and six were supportive. Those opposed cited concerns with setting a precedent that would allow similar zoning amendments, the proposal does not follow the area plan, parking concerns, and difficult fire department access to the proposed home. Those who support the plan noted the need for infill housing, this is a way to construct a home on a challenging lot, and housing needs have changed since the Sugar House Master Plan was adopted. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 18, 2023 Potential Action: September 5, 2023 Page | 2 The following information was provided for the July 18, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposed zoning map amendment for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in City Council District Seven, from its current R-1/7,000 (single-family residential) designation to SR-3 (special development pattern residential). The proposal also calls for amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan future land use map from low density residential to medium density residential. The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct a small custom or modular home for himself on the irregularly shaped lot. The surrounding zoning is R-1/7,000 except for the green shaded City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area shown in the zoning map below. SR-3 zoning is used within the interior portion of the block for a variety of housing types in scale with the area development character. This zoning designation was requested due to reduced lot width requirements and side yard setbacks. It is not typically found in this area of the city. Planning staff noted the following: “The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 2) A 2020 administrative interpretation by the City Planning Division determined the property did not meet requirements to be considered a legal complying lot. The petitioner appealed that decision to the City Land Use Appeals Hearing Officer who upheld the administrative interpretation. The petitioner is now seeking to amend the zoning and future land use maps to potentially construct a home on the property. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which twelve people spoke. Nine people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, expressed opposition to the proposal, and three people were supportive. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 6-5 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the proposal and shared why they voted to send a negative recommendation cited the property being an illegal lot and inappropriately sized to construct a home. Because the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Council Chair and Vice-Chair asked staff to request an ordinance from the Attorney’s Office which is included in the meeting materials. Planning staff also noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make the property a buildable lot. If the zoning and future land use map requests are approved by the Council, the petitioner would need planned development, preliminary subdivision, and final plat approval for the lot to be buildable prior to applying for permits to construct a house. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying future land use map amendment. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Note-the green shaded area is the City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to weigh the need for additional housing against changing the zoning designation to a zone with very different development standards from existing area zoning. 2.Does the Council think a development agreement limiting the number of dwelling units on the property to one would help ease neighbors’ concerns? 3.The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if residents who use the property to access their garages will be able to continue if the subject parcel is developed. If so, will that be through an easement? KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area which designates the properties in this neighborhood as low density residential. The plan calls for medium density residential to Page | 4 generally be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods and near neighborhood commercial zoning and business districts. Planning staff noted the property is referred to as a flag lot by the petitioner, but it does not comply with zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Sugar House Community Master Plan policy statements associated with flag lots do not support this amendment. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal generally does not align with goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Community Master Plan. They found the current R-1/7,000 zoning aligns with the future land use map. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. However, Planning noted the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. This would promote a dwelling unit on property that functions as a rear yard and has challenging access. Planning staff found the initiatives and goals in Plan Salt Lake do not support the proposed amendments. Consideration 2-Comparison of R-1/7,000 and SR-3 The table below compares the current R-1/7,000 and proposed SR-3 zoning. Primary differences include reduced lot sizes, and allowing single-family attached, twin homes, and two-family dwellings in SR-3. In addition, Planning staff found developing the subject property under current zoning is not permitted due to its configuration, access, lot width and the legality issues noted above. Based on the lot size and reduced square footage requirements under the proposed SR-3 zoning, Planning staff believes three dwelling units could be built on the property. However, Planning believes it would be difficult to fit more than one single-family dwelling on the property, which is the property owner’s stated intention. Potential density on the lot would be dependent on a subdivision and planned development to approve the illegal lot. R-1/7,000 SR-3 Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs Average height of other buildings Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face If no block face exists, 10 feet Side Setback Corner Setback 6 feet and 10 feet 6 feet Single-family detached: 4 feet Single-family attached: 4 feet when abutting a single-family detached zone, otherwise no yard required. Rear Setback 25 feet 20% of the lot depth but not less than 15 feet, no more than 30 feet. Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet Single-family detached: 2,000 square feet; Single-family attached: Page | 5 1,500 square feet; Two-family: 3,000 square feet. Lot Width 50 feet Single-family detached -Interior lots: 30 feet -Corner lots: 40 feet Single-family attached -Interior lots: 22 feet -Corner lots: 32 feet Two-family -Interior lots: 44 feet -Corner lots: 54 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%Single-family detached: 60% Single-family attached: 70% Consideration 3-Spot Zoning It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future map amendments are generally considered spot zoning. The requested SR-3 zoning differs significantly from the existing and established single-family residential zoning district. Analysis of Factors Attachment F (pages 51-53) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Zoning Map Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. The proposal is not consistent with Plan Salt Lake or the Sugar House Plan. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. General Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments generally support or has no appreciable on the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Zoning District Purpose The proposed map amendment would allow for medium density development, which would not be compatible with the existing scale of the neighborhood. The properties within this Page | 6 neighborhood primarily consist of R-1/7,000 zoning. The property owner is requesting development rights on a portion of the property that was illegally subdivided. The amendments are to accommodate a single-family dwelling and to legalize the subdivision. Staff believes that these amendments would be to relieve a hardship and would grant special privileges to this property owner. There has not been substantial change in public policy that would warrant the requested amendments. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed SR-3 zone will impose different development regulations than the R-1/7,000 district. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The map amendment doesn’t conflict with any overlays that affect the property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The City’s public facilities and services have adequate capacity to serve the additional dwellings that would be allowed with this rezone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, other than Planning staff’s recommendation to deny the proposals, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 5, 2022-Petitions submitted. • January 30, 2023-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Liz Hart. • February 24, 2023- o Routed for review. o Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council, and Downtown Alliance. o Notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. • April 17, 2023- Applicant and Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee meeting. • April 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, so no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. (As noted above, the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair requested an ordinance, which is included in the meeting Page | 7 paperwork.) • May 11, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-01138, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 01139. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2023 on applications submitted by Blaine Properties, LLC (“Applicant”), to rezone property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street (Tax ID No. 16-16-328-024) (the “Property”) from R- 1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01138, and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01139; and WHEREAS, at its April 16, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map of that plan. SECTION 3. 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: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 8, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property: PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD 0401BEG 152 FT S FR NE COR BLK 3, PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD; W61.25 FT; N 2 FT; W 122.5 FT; S 131.35 FT; E 33.75 FT; N 110.32 FT; E 150 FT; N 20 FT, M OR L TO BEG, TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S 4608-0466 6558* 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: May 11, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 1782 S 1600 E Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 801-535-7930 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance - No ordinance requested due to Planning Commission’s negative recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map and the Sugar House Plan Future Land Use Map for the property located at 1782 S. 1600 E., which is approximately .1743 acres (7,592 square feet) in size. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units per acre) and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R- 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. The map and plan amendment are necessary to accommodate a single-family structure on the subject property. The applicant identified SR-3 zoning due to the reduced lot width and side yard setbacks required for a detached single-family structure. Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2023 15:15 MDT)05/11/2023 05/11/2023 Zoning Map of the Subject Neighborhood The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment. The property history which is extensively discussed in a published administrative interpretation from 2020, outlines the history of the property. The determination relied on the prior Board of Adjustment decisions that identified the subject property as part of 1572 E Blaine Avenue. The full Administrative Interpretation can be accessed in the provided link, below. The applicant appealed the Administrative Interpretation to the Appeals Hearing Officer. The Appeals Hearing Officer agreed that the lot was illegally subdivided and upheld the Administrative Interpretation. The Appeals Hearing Officer decision can be accessed in the provided link, below. Due to the outcome of the Appeals Hearing, the applicant determined that the alternative route is to amend the zoning map and future land use map in order to pursue the construction of a single-family residence. It should be noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make this property a buildable lot. The applicable adopted plans include Plan Salt Lake, Sugar House Plan and Growing SLC. The plans are generally in conflict with the proposed amendments. The Sugar House Plan designated the properties as Low Density Residential to preserve and protect the older low density single- family neighborhoods. Medium Density Residential should primarily be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods, as well as near the neighborhood commercial zoning and business district. The plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Plan. Additionally, the R-1/7000 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 6 dwelling units per acre. 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. PUBLIC PROCESS: February 24, 2023 – The Sugar House Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. February 24, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. April 17, 2023 – Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNxTNHAkz34 beginning at 1:03. •Concerns with compatibility in the neighborhood. •Lack of current affordability of the existing rental housing. •Concerns of impacts to the neighboring property owners. •History of the property is in conflict with the proposal. •Requests that Salt Lake City require a consolidation to limit future requests. •Concerns with fire safety, due to the narrow access. •Support for the rezone for an additional unit. •A developed property is better than a vacant property. •The lot is illegal and shouldn’t be buildable. •Concerns with the precedent. •The legality of the lot shouldn’t impact whether it’s buildable. •It’s understandable that the current owners wouldn’t understand the items recorded on title. •Can the City afford to enforce rules that limit whether a property owner can building a home? The Planning Commission ultimately forwarded a negative recommendation with a 6-5 vote in favor of denial. The Planning Commission minutes are accessible in the link, below. Administrative Interpretation Records a)Administrative Interpretation published September 9, 2020 (Click to Access) b)Appeal of Administrative Interpretation published December 22, 2020 (Click to Access) Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITIONS: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 December 5, 2022 Petitions submitted January 30, 2023 Assigned to Liz Hart February 24, 2023 Routed for review. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to the Sugar House Community Council. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. April 17, 2023 Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee Meeting. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering the following petitions: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 – Blaine Properties LLC is requesting to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 S 1600 E. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. A. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01138): The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). B. Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01139): The applicant is seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. 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 Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 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 numbers: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139. 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. Original Petition 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Property Identification The subject parcel is a .17-acre property located at 1782 South 1600 East (the “Subject Property”) owned by Blaine Properties LLC (the “Applicant”). The Property is what would commonly be referred to as a “flag lot” in that its frontage (on 1600 east) is long and narrow with a more substantial rectangular portion at its southeast. The Property is recognized by the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office as Parcel 16163280240000. While identified as a distinct parcel in County records, Salt Lake City does not recognize the Property as such. The Subject Property is adjacent to another property owned by the Applicant (the “Blaine Property”). The Blaine Property is a .21-acre lot with a duplex. For purposes of land-use designation Salt Lake City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be one cohesive lot. Both Properties are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Salt Lake County Parcel Map. The Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow. The Blaine Property Highlighted in Red. Whether using the City’s designation as one unitary lot or the county’s designation as two distinct lots, it is clear the Subject Property is uniquely configured and irregular in the neighborhood. The Master Plan Amendment (“MPA”) and Zoning Map Amendment (“ZMA”) applications are expressly for the parameters of the Subject Property and do not include the Blaine Property. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Existing Uses and Conditions The Subject Property currently has three predominant uses: 1) It houses a 750 sqft shade structure and roughly half of a 1300 sqft accessory garage (the remaining garage footprint is located within the Blaine Property lot1), 2) It is used by residents of the Blaine Property to access the accessory garage, and 3) it is used as a vehicular access to another adjacent lot’s accessory garage2 (1580 E Blaine Avenue). Harkening to the “Flag Lot” descriptor, the “pole” is asphalted for vehicular passage and the “flag” contains the shade structure and is otherwise vacant and sodded. Purpose for the Amendment The MPA and ZMA are being proposed to provide a higher and better use for the Subject Property than is currently existing or could feasibly be arranged under the current R-1-7000 designation. The Subject Property is currently used for vehicular storage, accessing parking stalls, and quite frankly not much else. The vacant portion of the lot is unused by the owner or its tenants and its value as “open space” is negligible, in that it is surrounded by private properties and built features. The location, size, and shape of the Subject Property lends itself well for the construction of a modest single-family home. A small home on the lot would provide the applicant an opportunity to transform this unused space to one that shelters and houses one new family unit in a beautiful existing neighborhood. Though the applicant’s proposal is modest and reasonable on a property of this size and location, the execution of such a goal has been set back by various impediments in the city process and barriers created by zoning and master plan regulations. History of Impediments and Current Zoning Barriers The Subject Property is certainly unique and unprecedented within the area. Its current configuration is the result of a long history starting in 1919 when the original Progressive Heights subdivision was subdivided. In 1951 Progressive Heights was further subdivided which created three unique lots now known as 1572, 1580, and 1586 Blaine Avenue. Following the latest subdivision, the Subject Lot was issued a distinct Parcel Number in the same year. From 1951-1957, the Subject Lot was left vacant. On May 22nd, 1957, the Subject Lot was forfeited to Salt Lake County pursuant to a tax sale for failure to pay property taxes. In 1977, Salt Lake County sold the Subject Property under its separate Parcel #1616328024 to the then- owners of 1572 Blaine Avenue, namely, David T. and Dorothy L. Cates. In 1985 the Cates’ applied to build a garage on the Blaine Property to be used for the Duplex on the same property. The garage was ultimately built straddling the common property line of the Subject Property and the Blaine Property. There is no evidence that the Cates intended to merge the properties together by this encroachment. 1 The overlapping nature of the accessory garage structure’s footprint has been identified as a reason the City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be “merged” as a unitary lot. 2 There is no formal easement on record for this access. However, the Applicant does not contest this access, nor would a re-zone or subsequent development hinder this access. In the event a plat amendment is recorded the applicant would be in favor of memorializing the access as a recorded easement. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment In 1999, the then-owner Mark Huber applied for and received a permit to build a small single-family home on the Subject Lot. Within a week of being issued the building permit, neighbors upset about a new home being constructed adjacent to them, complained to the City, and requested a stop work order. The city subsequently issued the stop work order to review if the Subject Property was legally buildable. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the Subject Property specifications and zoning ordinances and determined that the Subject Property did not legally exist and first introduced the notion that the Subject Property and the Blaine Property were one lot. Huber then appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the Board of Adjustments (the “BOA”). In the July 19th, 1999 hearing, a contingent of neighbors who were opposed to the building of a home on the Subject Property were represented by an attorney. The attorney introduced the idea of a “lot merger” having occurred with the previous construction of the detached garage. After other public comment from neighbors opposed to any development, the BOA unanimously voted to uphold the administrative decision, not to recognize the Subject Property as an independent lot, and to restrict any development of a new single-family dwelling. To memorialize the BOA’s decision an Abstract of Findings and Order was recorded over the property to notice that the Subject Property “is not an independent lot and may not be developed with a new single- family dwelling”. This ruling by the BOA has since become a barrier to reimagining the Subject Property’s land-use and highest and best use. After the ruling Huber ceased his efforts to develop the Subject Property and did not submit an appeal to the BOA’s decision. Eventually, on February 25th, 2014 both the Blaine Property and the Subject Property were purchased by the applicant. Like Huber, the applicant recognized the Subject Property as an ideal opportunity for the development of a humble single-family home structure. The applicant reached out to Salt Lake City Planning Department to explore the possibility of seeking a land-use redesignation. It was at this point where the applicant became aware of the history of the site and the BOA decision of 1999. In an effort to unwind the decision the applicant requested an Administrative Interpretation to determine whether the Subject Property is a legal complying parcel and a buildable lot. On September 9th, 2020 staff determined that they were unable to evaluate whether the BOA made a legal or correct decision. Given that the BOA decision of 1999 was never appealed by Huber, staff found that the decision remains in effect and that the property could not be developed independently. On September 18th, 2020 the applicant submitted an Appeal of Decision before Planning and Zoning arguing that the BOA decision 1) should be available for review and appeal and 2) that the BOA decision was legally incorrect. This appeal went before the Salt Lake City Land Use Appels Hearing Officer who on December 22nd, 2020 issued his ruling to uphold the decision of the September 9th, 2020 Administrative interpretation. In his ruling the Hearing Officer was sympathetic to the first issue argued by the applicant, namely, that the 1999 BOA decision could be challenged and plausibly overturned. The officer also questioned his authority to overturn a decision by a BOA (that no longer exists). With the latest land-use decision rendered the applicant reached out to city planning staff to see what processes exist to revisit and petition the “non-developable” status of the Subject Property. Two options 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment were given 1) Appeal the decision to the Third District Court, or 2) Submit a MPA and ZMA to rezone the subject property. The applicant has elected to pursue option two with this application for MPA and ZMA. If this petition is granted the applicant will be required to submit a Planned Development (“PD”) and Preliminary Subdivision application before any development of the Subject Property. The applicant understands that the PD application could be run concurrently with the MPA and ZMA, however, due to monetary constraints, the applicant is electing to only petition the MPA and ZMA at this time. Description of the Proposed Use of the Property The property is tucked inside a typical single-family and two-family neighborhood. While lots in the neighborhood more or less conform to Low Density Residential R-1-7 zone characteristics there is a variety of housing types and massing in the area. The property is best suited for a small-scale single- family residence. While no design decisions have been made the property is of ample size to provide space for a small footprint custom or modular home structure. Reasons why the Present Zoning is not Appropriate for the Area The applicant does not dispute that the R-1-7 zone is appropriate for the area at large. For the vast majority of the neighborhood blocks the dimensional standards have efficiently distributed properties with a proper balance of living spaces and open spaces. The R-1-7 has proven to be a value to the community as a rule, but it is desperately lacking in usability for exceptions. The Progress Heights Second Addition subdivision is more than 70 years old, and its current lot configuration has changed immensely since its initial subdivision. While the plat has never been formally amended, lots have been combined and a midblock alleys have been vacated in what surprisingly has resulted in a fairly typical neighborhood residential pattern. Figure 2: Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment The only exception to a typical lot in the plat is the Subject Lot. Its peculiar historical circumstances have left this as the only “flag lot” and only “un-developable” building lot in the entire Progress Heights Second Addition Plat. Exceptions like this lot can be found in various historical neighborhoods throughout the city where development occurred before processes were more formalized and zoning as stringent. Where these unique parcels are of adequate size and dimension, they should not be blocked perpetually from development, but should rather be granted thoughtful consideration to see how they can be developed to their highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character. Thankfully the applicant has identified a city zoning designation that seems to address this exact exceptional situation. The SR-3 special pattern residential provides for lot, bulk and use regulations, including a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. This zone has been used liberally in the city to provide land-use to uniquely located properties where use of the surrounding zoning restrictions would render a site undevelopable. Figure 3: SR-3 Interior Block Examples Shown in Yellow The SR-3 is a designation that recognizes that unique properties should be given unique considerations and that “spot zoning” is not a pejorative but rather a tool for land-use efficiency. SR-3 is definitionally a different zone than its surrounding properties for the purpose of dealing with distinctive site location. Because the property is located midblock in a flagging composition it is petitioned that the lot be reclassified. The request is to amend the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Along with this, the requested zone change is from R-1-7000 to that of the SR-3 zone. Consistency with City Objectives Salt Lake City has made significant commitments to providing a broad array of responses to the housing shortage crisis. City master plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC: A Five Year Plan have clearly established objectives to increase housing where it makes sense and can be of minimal impact to the community. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Plan Salt Lake specifically supports, “Promot(ing) infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” (PSL pg.19), “Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options” and “Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate” (PSL pg. 21). By designating the property SR-3, a medium density zone, a property that has been restricted for development can be made viable to build a modest single-family home. Growing SLC seems to be speaking directly to the subject property when it reads “Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to add incremental density…” (GSL pg. 19) Growing SLC specifically addresses small courtyard cottages and bungalows as “Missing Middle Housing” and prioritizes “finding a place for these (missing middle housing) types throughout the city…”. This petition is in line with Growing SLC in “finding a place” for missing middle housing. Small infill opportunities such as that presented by the Subject Property should be considered individually to see if they can responsibly include more housing or development otherwise. The city’s current objectives are to eliminate certain barriers that have historically and reflexively been put upon properties that don’t fit neatly into usual neighborhood characteristics. “Exacerbating the housing crisis are local barriers to housing development. These barriers, such as density limitations, prohibitions on different types of housing, and other development regulations, have contributed in part to a general supply deficit and economic segregation” (GSL pg. 11). Conclusion Even a cursory review of the site conditions of the Subject Property indicate that it is clearly an appropriate site for a modest single-family residence. It is only in review of the existing zoning designation and the recorded Abstract of Findings that anyone would consider this lot “un-buildable”. To step back and consider this logic is to find that there are no physical and practical constraints but only legal and definitional constraints. The history of the Abstract of Findings shows that the reasons for the barrier to development were not only supported by but wholly introduced by an attorney representing a NIMBY contingent. The language that is memorialized in the Abstract of Findings has for many years obstructed any commonsense development of this infill lot. Fortunately, there is a method to restore a commonsense and higher and better use for the property. That is to redesignate the lot to the SR-3 zone. The zone recognizes that unique properties can be dealt with more nuance than would otherwise be available by simple consultation of the surrounding zoning limitations. The applicant recognizes that one new infill cottage home will have negligible effects on the housing crisis. However, it will also have no real negative effects on the neighborhood that it finds itself in. Rather it will provide one new home that can house one more family and be of an immense value to those who will one day live in it. The applicant implores the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to consider this Petition to redesignate the Subject Property from R-1-7000 to SR-3. EXHIBIT Public Comments in support of development on Subject Property from December 10th, 2020 Appeal of a Decision Hearing March 18, 2021 To whom it may concern; I’m writing to enter my comments into the appeal hearing for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in Salt Lake City. I own an investment property about a third a mile north on 1600 East and have been a Realtor for almost 30 years. I support the property owner’s petition to build a reasonable-sized, single-family home the flag-lot they own. Looking at the property it seems like a logical thing to do. We are greatly in need of additional housing and need far fewer non-food-producing plots that require costly irrigation and maintenance. The family has invested, and paid taxes in, this area for a long time and they’re really just looking to have each other nearby. I think that particular behavior should be supported whenever possible and natural. Thank you for your time and consideration, Melanie Soules Principal Broker Hard-Working Homes 4. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Publication Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Grace Sperry To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47:40 PM PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Dear Kelsey and Elizabeth, I had planned to attend this evening’s meeting but due to a recent death in my family, will not be able to do so. Therefore, I am writing to recommend that Anthony Arrassi’s request to build a single family home on his property be approved. I have watched over the years many unusual properties being approved for single family use or commercial use in the Westminster and Sugarhouse neighborhoods. A case in point would be the four homes recently built on the property at 2660 South Highland Drive. None of those homes are on more acreage than the Arrassi proposed home and all overlook the surrounding homes and all have very small driveways leading to the garages. All those homes are now benefitting the neighborhood and raising the value of the properties in the area. This new single family home would do likewise. Please grant this request for permission to build a new single family home at 1782 S. 1600 East, Salt Lake City, UT . Thank You, Grace Sperry Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council and Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Sub-Committee. Grace Sperry Board of Directors Adan Carillo Alessandro Rigolon Atticus Edwards Christian Harrison Jordan Atkin Matthew Morriss McCall Christensen Rosa Bandeirinha Staff Turner Bitton Executive Director 801-564-3860 turner@slcneighbors.org April 24, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division RE: Petition Number PLNAPP2020-00725 Dear Ms. Lindquist, It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors. SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors is a network of Salt Lake City residents working for affordable housing for all income levels through policies that are pro-housing and pro-tenant. We are writing in support of the proposed rezone request for the subject property. We believe that this rezone request is illustrative of unfair and inconsistent application of land use policy to restrict access to desirable neighborhoods such as Sugarhouse. We believe that it is absurd to defer to a master plan established 22 years ago to dictate the future of a property that could provide much needed housing in a highly desirable area of the city. We further believe that while the subject property is unique, it is deserving of a more valuable purpose than providing off street parking. Salt Lake City’s forthcoming Housing SLC plan and the Thriving in Place study provide two policy goals that we believ e support the development of housing on this unique lot. Specifically: 1) Housing SLC Goal Alignment #1: Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities for low to moderate income households. Based on the size of the subject property, the likelihood that the home constructed will be smaller means that it will likely be more affordable than other properties in the neighborhood. This provides an opportunity for lower income or first-time homebuyers to establish roots in the neighborhood. The construction of this type of infill housing promotes stability in the neighborhood and will make our whole city stronger. 2) Thriving in Place Alignment: Increase housing everywhere. The subject property also aligns with the findings of the Thriving in Place study which found that housing of all kinds is needed citywide. The existing master plan for the area was written at a time with significantly less pressure in the housing market than there is today. We believe that the master plan is detached from the current reality and that any reasonable reading of current city needs would indicate the need for infill housing such as this proposal. Most other master plans in the city call for infill housing and pointing to a document approved 22 years ago as a basis for a decision about future housing goals fails to address the significant need for more housing. Furthermore, to continue to allow the subject property to languish with no valuable purpose harms the future of the neighborhood. We encourage the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council as a matter of fairness and reflecting the significant need for new housing in Salt Lake City. While this proposal will not solve Salt Lake City’s housing crisis, it is indicative of how neighborhoods with significant resources can constrain the housing supply citywide resulting in areas with fewer resources bearing the brunt of a growing city. Sincerely, Turner Bitton Executive Director SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors NEOFITOS ARCHITECTS April 25, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Ms. Lindquist, My name is Angelo Neofitos. I’m an architect and entrepreneur in Salt Lake City. I’d like to express my strong support for Anthony Arrasi’s proposal located at 1782 South 1600 East. (PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNCPCM2022-01139) I like to keep up with development news in our city and when I heard about Anthony’s proposal I was really intrigued by the challenge it poses to Salt Lake’s ideas about development. This is a proposal that questions preconceptions and assumptions. Anthony’s intentions define the spirit of Salt Lake City and our city’s curiosity to break our notions of the past. We are a city experiencing tremendous change. We’re constantly hearing about rapid population growth, the lack of affordable housing and, most recently, about inflation taking over our daily lives. This is a moment in history where we have to become resourceful to survive. In 2014 the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a document titled “Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development”. In this document, the EPA explained the challenges and benefits it foresees facing infill land development in US cities. One of the challenges that the EPA describes is that, “Infill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process.” Salt Lake City cannot afford to let it’s citizens continue to struggle with antiquated zoning codes that promote notions and lifestyles of the past. By prescribing to zoning codes established over 25 years ago, Salt Lake City stands to encumber its future majority population. The EPA states that, “With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties and many sought their own home for the first time. As of 2012, this generation comprises the largest segment of the rental housing market. With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is larger than the baby boom generation. It will continue to grow with new immigrants because most arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.” Anthony is a member of this community and he wants to establish roots and become a homeowner in Salt Lake City, and contribute to everything our great city has to offer. This is not a time to let infill lots with any potential go to waste. What we choose to do with our resources during these critical moment in our economy and history will define our future. Our city and citizens must be resourceful in a time when land has become very scarce. Salt Lake City needs to ask itself when and why, its current zoning codes were established; and can it afford to enforce stale codes which do not meet our citizens needs? Sincerely, -Evangelos Neofitos Resource: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-06/documents/developer-infill-paper-508b.pdf 222 South Main Street 5th Floor - Salt Lake City UT 84101 +1 801.231.9978 • evangelos@neofitos.design • www.neofitos.design COMMENTS 1782 E 1600 South Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Dear Judy, My wife and I live on the 1500 block of E. Blaine Avenue and we want to voice our opposition to any change to the zoning currently in place. This means we are strongly opposed to changing the SR-3 zoning that would allow the current owner to build an additional home structure and / or an ADU. This zoning should stand: this property is one lot, not two, and further, setback and depth restrictions mean this is an unbuildable property. The property is not zoned for these uses and never has been. We purchased our home on this street because we wanted to live in a less dense neighborhood. The current owner of 1782 South 1600 East is seeking to increase density at the expense of the neighbors and neighborhood solely to benefit her own pocketbook. We've heard suggestions the owner wants to rezone to help 'increase the amount of affordable housing stock in the city'. You might ask her now much she charges for the rent on the ground floor unit of her duplex (it was $2700 per month last year) and ask her how much she is going to charge for next year (it's $2900 per month). Her previous tenant moved out because the rent became unaffordable. So, if she's really interested in providing affordable housing, she should be reducing the rent, not increasing it. Further, if she is indeed committed to more affordable housing, you might ask if she has created a mother-in-law apartment in her existing single family home--her current legal residence, and if she plans to build an ADU in the backyard of her current legal residence. That would be a starting point, not trying to wring more dollars out of an existing property that is in no way a "home" for her--it's purely something she considers as a commercial opportunity. Finally, this is the third time that this owner has sought to rezone the property, and the third time the neighbors have had to mobilize to speak out to prevent two or three houses being built on one lot. This is not a hardship case: it's purely an example of a selfish absentee landlord seeking to line her pockets at the expense of the neighbors who live in owner-occupied homes on Blaine Ave and on 1600 East. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer PS--one clarification: We are 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. Hal & Ingrid Previously, we had sent you the following email, below, in italics. Let us add in new, additional comments here (in regular font). 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. It also 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 planning commission 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 allowed, 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. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer To Whom it May Concern, I am writing this letter in support of the Arrasi family to build a modest home on the vacant lot of 1782 South 1600 East. As a lifelong resident of Wasatch Hollow, I can attest to the fact that this is a wonderful place to call home. The community is close-knit, the schools are excellent, and the amenities are plentiful. However, I also understand that the cost of living in this neighborhood has become increasingly expensive over the years. These increasing costs along with the scarcity of buildable land has made Wasatch Hollow, Progressive Heights and a majority of Sugarhouse become very difficult for many people to afford. As someone who inherited my childhood home and was fortunate enough to avoid the rising costs of living in the area, I understand how difficult it can be to find affordable housing in our community. This is why I fully support the proposed plan for the subject property. By doing so, the Arrasi family is not only creating an affordable home for their children but also providing an opportunity for others to potentially live in this neighborhood in the future. Lastly, from my discussions with the Arrasi family, I understand the home will be proportional in size to the lot, and the building design will compliment the surrounding homes using materials and colors that will blend in with the neighborhood. Furthermore, they have assured me that they will be mindful of the potential impact that the construction may have on the local environment, and will take steps to mitigate any negative effects. A modest home would not only provide an opportunity for affordable housing, but it would also help to maintain the character and charm of our neighborhood. Overall I believe a new home built will be a greater asset to the neighborhood than an unusable vacant lot. I want to express my support for the proposed project and wish the Arrasi family all the best with their plans. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Sincerely, Marley Bramble Wasatch Hollow Community Council Second Vice Chair Agentia Jan Thomas 04-19-23 Judy our concern is the width of the alley way for the access of emergency vehicles. According to existing standards, we understand the width is to be 22 foot wide, however the existing driveway entrance is only 19 foot 11 inches. This could limit the access for fire trucks, if the zoning is changed to SR3 and a house is built on the lot. Also adding a house or an AUD adds to the weekly issues of garbage pickup, where will the cans go in front of the Blaine Ave address? Another concern we have due to the ALLEYWAY being our access to our property for over 65 years the number of cars which will be going in and out at all hours. And in closing, we thought that a plan of what Blaine LLC is wanting to build on the lot would be shown. But all we have been told is it will be a modest home. From that description the zoning should not be amended to SR3. Thank you for all the many hours you work for the neighbor hoods in Sugarhouse. Regards, Dean and Jan Thomas 1580 Blaine Ave. Rebecca Davis Wed, Apr 19, 9:50 PM (12 hours ago) I am strongly opposed to the requested rezone from R1-7000 to SR-3 for the property located at 1782 S 1600 E. I own and live in the home west of this property - 1564 E Blaine. If the rezone is approved, the oversized garage that straddles the property line dividing 1572 E Blaine and 1782 S 1600 E will be demolished. That will create the problem of light pollution that will affect me and other neighbors to the west of me. The level of the rear of the 1572 E Blaine Ave lot was raised when the oversized garage was built. Lights from vehicles coming west down the driveway from 1600 East and turning north on the lot for parking will shine onto my back porch, into my living room, kitchen and backyard. The vehicle lights will illuminate four properties that slope downhill to the west from my property. The requested rezone is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The application for zoning amendment references language from Plan Salt Lake "Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options" (PSL pg. 19) and "Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate" (PSL pg. 21). Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex does not reflect a moderate density increase in housing. Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex is not a "small inflll opportunity" as described in the Zoning Amendment when it references Growing SLC - A Five Year Housing Plan 2018- 2022. This is a neighborhood of single family homes, several duplexes and a fourplex located at the bottom of Blaine Avenue next to 1500 E. Rezoning this one property as SR-3 sets a precedent that could negatively change the character of the neighborhood. As current owners sell their properties, new owners could request zoning changes from R1-7000 to build multiple dwellings on existing lots. Our neighborhood would never be the same. Its character would be destroyed. It would be a mistake to open the door to this possibility by approving the application for rezone to SR-3 at 1782 S 1600 E. Rebecca Davis 1564 E Blaine Ave SLC UT 84105 Wed, Apr 19, 9:55 PM (12 hours ago) Judi, The proposed change in zoning will impact seven homes that this plot of land touches. We bought our home two years ago, our understanding at that time was that the property to our back was a single lot, and if fitted in with the surrounding homes. There was maintained grass and a patio area for use by the occupants. During our two years in our property there have been multiple parties and BBQ’s in the patio area, with music late into the night. To say in the application that this is an undeveloped lot is inaccurate, there are facilities in place and they are used by the occupants. The application claims that the neighborhood has changed immensely. But in reality that claim is baseless if you consider the block on which they are planning to build. As the application clearly shows all the homes are built on large lots with facilities like garages, patio’s, vegetable gardens and grass. This applies equally to 1782 S 1600 E. I oppose the application as written. There is no plan on what the developer would do if the change in zoning was approved. There is also adequate provision within the current city ordinance that would allow the developer to expand the use of the land and meet the objectives of the application to provide an additional single family unit, with access from 1600 E. Regards, Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone Sent from my iPad Pro Denise Dubek Wed, Apr 19, 10:06 PM (12 hours ago) to Hello Judi, I am writing about the request by Blaine properties to re zone 1782 S. 1600 E. to SR-3. I urge the city to consider why this request is causing some stress and safety concerns for me and by the current neighborhood. As I have researched the request, I feel strongly that this potential change could create many safety hazards. The current driveway that leads to the property is too narrow for a large firetruck to drive down. General driveway standards in residential districts according to SLC.gov website regarding residential driveways, should have an approach of six (6) feet from abutting property lines and ten (10) feet from street corner property lines. In front and corner side yards, driveway approach widths shall not exceed twenty two (22) feet in SR-1 and SR-3 residential districts. This driveway doesn't meet this criteria. Due to the close proximity of the current homes in this neighborhood, a fire could easily spread to one of our homes, before a firetruck could get down the narrow, unmarked driveway. Also, where would trash bins get placed for pick up? The request to rezone and create an unwanted dwelling to be built in the middle of our current properties is just a bad consideration. I strongly oppose the request to rezone this property. Thank you for your understanding and for your willingness to consider my concern. Regards, Denise Dubek Property Owner 1792 S. 1600 E. SLC, Utah 84105 Elena Kondrashova Wed, Apr 19, 10:08 PM (12 hours ago) to me To Whom it May Concern, As relatively new Sugar House residents whose backyard backs directly to the Subject Property we were surprised to find out that there was a possibility of a separate lot existing in such an unusual and constrained configuration. The area in question seemed to be an organic extension of the Blaine Property and the two combined fit quite well with the neighborhood’s general layout. It is precisely this neighborhood’s unique characteristics that made Sugar House an attractive home for our family. This is a place with strong community ties, respectful, family friendly environment, modest home sizes and great historical heritage. All of the above are potentially threatened by the unscrupulous buildout. In fact, the applicant states the parcel should be developed to the “highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character.” We believe this is pertinent and already achievable through existing regulations that allow for construction of an accessory dwelling unit on the Subject Property. This view aligns well with the referenced Five Year Plan that seeks to increase housing while minimizing impact to the community. It is our experience that the immediate community is deeply troubled by the proposed amendment, concerned about the lack of concrete construction plans and potential profit prioritization above all else. Without definitive information on the subsequent construction post potential zoning changes we oppose the amendment. Regards, Elena Kondrashova & Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 andrea jimmie Wed, Apr 19, 10:51 PM (11 hours ago) to Judi.Short To Whom It May Concern, I have many concerns and issues regarding the possibility of rezoning the property but my biggest concern is a Firehazard. If there was an ADU what would happen if there was ever a fire? With the recent fire on 1100east and considering all the people who were forced to leave their homes, what would happen if something like that happened? There is not enough room for a fire truck and paramedic to come down that small side street and turn around safely. If the property is rezoned, the possibility of 6 rental units and people driving down the small street where my child plays, rides her bike, and walks her dog is a huge concern. Our neighborhood won't be safe anymore. There are too many unsafe people in the world and the government does nothing to protect our children. I had plans to live in this house for a long time and I never in my wildest dreams would have thought there could be a house or duplex built in my back yard , in between my home and the neighbors. I would no longer feel safe letting my child outside for the fact of the safety of playing outside is not safe due to possible traffic and the simple fact of privacy. It gives me anxiety and stresses me out with the possibility of having to move if that is approved. I'm a single mom and never had plans on moving out of this house. Do me a favor and walk into your back yard and imagine a duplex or building with multiple people living in that building living there. Ask yourself if that is something you would okay with and want for your neighborhood. Sincerely, Andrea Jimmie 1600 east resident Larry Wright Wed, Apr 19, 10:52 PM (11 hours ago) to me Dear Judi I met with Anthony Arrasi and Stephanie Arrasi (property owners requesting the zoning change to SR-3) this afternoon with Camille Thorpe to review their development plans for the lot. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information about future development and to discuss possible negative effects development would have to the neighbors. This lot shares property lines with seven property owners. We walked the property and talked about the height allowable for structures and the impact on the neighbors. We reviewed the setbacks for a structure and how that would affect the neighbors. We covered all the impacts that the neighbors has concerns about. I measured a tree up to 20' to provide a visual reference point for the neighbors so that they could imagine a structure at least that height overlooking their backyards. Anthony did not have a development plan established yet because of the expense, not even a hand drawing of the proposal of a single-family home showing some type of design features. Is it 1 or 2 stories? Is the plan for it to be a modern type home, bungalow, or a cottage style? I had no information to take back to the neighbors other than Anthony wants to build a modest single-family home. Anthony told us that, one way or another, a structure will be built on the property. It will be either a single-family home or a 1000 sq.foot ADU. The neighbors have a choice on which one. The city has deemed that this lot is one lot. Since the Arrasis provided no development plan to evaluate, I request that the planning committee deny the zoning request to change the current zoning from R-1-700 to SR-3. The city recently made changes to allow an ADU on a lot with a duplex already in place; this will adversely affect the neighbors. My property is two doors west of the lot in question, and its value will go down. So will the property values of all seven adjacent neighbors. Just because the city makes it possible to build an ADU on your property dosen't make it the right thing to do. Thanks Larry Wright Ann Wright Wed, Apr 19, 11:03 PM (11 hours ago) to Dear Judi, In regard to the property at 1782 S 1600 E, I would like to state that I oppose rezoning to SR-3. Because of the number of neighbors impacted by any development of this lot, I believe that an SR-3 zoning would give the property owners carte blanche to overdevelop the lot. This entire block is zoned R-1-7000, and anything that occurs on this property should reflect that. There should be more restrictions, not fewer, especially in regard to height specifications. Between this lot and the neighboring lot (to the west) there is a grade change 2 to 4 feet. Please consider the impact of a two story building with minimal setbacks upon that neighbor, not to mention the six other neighbors sharing property lines with the lot in question. To zone the property in question SR-3 would create the potential for future abuse in the event that the lot is resold. It could be developed any way the owner chose. Legally speaking, the lot could accommodate a duplex and an ADU. But that does not make it right. If you were to come walk the lot you could easily imagine the adverse impact of that sort of development on the adjacent homeowners. Please walk in our shoes. The following pattern keeps occurring in our city as the development boom continues: the developer makes a verbal commitment to honor a request for a height restriction, or a setback, a “modest bungalow or cottage,” but when the construction starts these commitments are abandoned. Suddenly, in a neighborhood of single-story dwellings, footings for a two-story structure appear, and the resulting structure throws shade on gardens, violates privacy, obstructs views, and lowers property values. Surely, the people who live in the neighborhood should have some say in the changes imposed on them by investors. Thank you, Ann Wright Dina D Dear Judi, My name is Dina DeWeerd and I reside at 1548 East Blaine Avenue. I am two blocks west of the proposed lot to be rezoned. My husband and I searched for three years for a great neighborhood, close to our jobs to raise our family. As we searched we saw an undesirable trend of investors buying and stacking as many homes possible on what was originally a single family lot. We chose not to purchase there. We were drawn to the charm of Sugarhouse and the R1-7000 zoning was a major factor in our decision to purchase this home in 2009 as we were no longer looking for a high density living situation. I am opposing the request to re-zone 1781 South 1600 East for the following reasons: The request to rezone one lot, is not keeping with the character of the neighborhood that is zoned entirely RI- 7000. The request to rezone, in hopes of building another home behind an investment property does not keep with the character of the neighborhood. Also, this lot has been declared unbuildable by the city in the past. The potential now for ADU’s to be added to the existing investment property and proposed new home, would not represent a moderate density increase in this area. May I ask you to please listen to the voices of the people who LIVE here and who's daily lives will be affected by the decisions of one owner who does not live in the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Dina DeWeerd camille thorpe 1:39 AM (8 hours ago) to , Larry, Rebecca (Thank you, Judi = ) Rezone request to SR-3 1782 S. 1600 Ea Camille Thorpe 1784 S. 1600 Ea Thank you for your consideration, If this were a simple case of “NIMBYISM”, the only owner who could claim it would be – me. My address is 1784 So. 1600 East and this is IN my backyard. But as you can also see there are concerns from seven (7) other neighbors who would be adversely impacted by a change to SR-3, and touching this lot, too. NIMBY is beyond all our backyards and becomes a question of dangerous precedent- setting for other neighborhoods in Sugarhouse. I encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to not approve this zoning change. Normally zoning changes are for an area, not just for one unique spot. Our neighborhood is not opposed to more neighbors. But we are opposed to having this small, unique lot setting precedence for the broader community. And what would the legal definition of a “modest bungalow” be anyway? That unknown factor of what could be built (and added upon) at 1782 S. 1600 East is another reason this neighborhood does not want a SR-3 zoning change. Another reason I am opposed to rezoning here is because it will require so many variance requests that there would be very little chance for governance on any changes. Both of the two-story structures Anthony has talked about are too tall. The ground has already been raised 4-feet. A one-story structure might be a solid compromise indicating that the owners have heard their neighbors, understood the neighborhood place, and appreciate that their current desires could detract from what makes Sugarhouse Sugarhouse. #Not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This zone change proposal could have long lasting effects on those who live here, and determine who will choose to live here, or not. Kind regards, Camille Thorpe | 8:30 AM (1 hour ago) to me Hi Judi – A few thoughts… +++ The applicant has not provided enough information about his intentions to enable his neighbors or the SHCC to form an opinion about the merits of the project. At our meeting on April 17, it became clear that neighbors were uncertain about plans for shared driveway easements, disposition of a large garage that crosses proposed new lot lines, and buildable area/setback/height requirements on the L-shaped lot that the applicant wishes to create. We recommend that the applicant: 1. Defer his review with the Planning Commission 2. Create a site plan of his vision for the two lots that meets the requirements of the proposed R3 zoning 3. Discuss this site plan with neighbors 4. Return to SHCC LUZ for further discussion Judi, As a neighbor in close proximity to the subject property, I am voicing my opposition to the proposed Zoning change for several reasons. The 4,815 sf lot is odd-shaped and a large portion would be un-buildable due to access constraints. With a width of SHCC Letter to PC 1782 Blaine Avenue.docx www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1 April 19, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCM2022-01083 and PLNPCM2022-01139 We received a request for a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for the parcel at 1782 South 1600 East. The property owner anticipates building a single-family dwelling on the property. The property is currently zoned R 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) and they wish to change it to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). This was one of five items on the SHCC Land Use Agenda April 17, with many people in attendance, approximately 6 from this neighborhood, including the petitioner. If the property is rezoned, then the petitioner can begin to design a building(s), which may or may not need to come back through the Planning Commission. We all know we have a group of housing plans coming before the Planning Commission and City Council which are intended to make it easier to develop additional housing for the citizens of Salt Lake City. This lot has been declared unbuildable twice before, but with the new SR-3 zone, may be able to fit in a dwelling of some sort. Part of the problem is the strange shape of the lot, and the difficulty of figuring out how to place a dwelling, while still having adequate access for fire and other neighbors who use either of these “alleys” to access their property. The current duplex on the parcel is not affordable, according to the neighbors, and they know building a new building will be very expensive, so the new units, whether it is one home or an ADU or a duplex, will by definition not be affordable. You can read the attached comments for more information about what exists on the lot currently, including a very large garage (24’ x 56’ according to the Salt Lake County Assessor) that is quite tall right on the property line, that is not well-maintained. There is a lot of animosity from the neighbors about this long-standing problem, and it seems they have not been able to communicate with the petitioners. We recommend that you have two options. Either you deny this request, or ask that the petitioner to develop plans with drawings and sign a development agreement that spells exactly what they will build in terms of one building or two, height and dimensions, and location on the parcel, before this goes to the City Council. We think this should include something that says what the rental cap will be, so as to meet the city’s goals of building more affordable housing. In addition you need to get the fire department to sign off on whether the driveways are adequate for them to get in and fight a fire. fewer than 47 feet, the required SR-3 setbacks would further limit construction. This would create a very different yard for the proposed dwelling, compared to the neighborhood at large. I do have additional concerns over emergency vehicle access with the narrow driveway, and a sharp turn to access the proposed dwelling. Especially during winters with high snowfall...There's nowhere to put the shoveled snow. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you for your public service. Craig Craig Schriber 1532 E. Blaine Ave, SLC 84105 Item C2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00026 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance with adjustments allowing drive-throughs at banks and pharmacies as a conditional use) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance with adjustments to allow drive-through facilities as a conditional use at new financial institutions, retail goods and retail services establishments, and prohibiting them for other business types in the Sugar House Business Districts CSHBD1 and CSHBD2. MOTION 2 (adopt ordinance prohibiting all drive-throughs) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance prohibiting all new drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business Districts CSHBD1 and CSHBD2. MOTION 3 (reject ordinance; this would mean drive-throughs continue to be allowed) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 5, 2023 RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00026 NEW INFORMATION In part based on public input, a Council Member asked about changing the ordinance to continue to allow drive-through facilities at financial institutions and pharmacies. It was noted that these businesses typically have significantly lower drive-through volume than food service businesses. In addition, some customers have mobility limitations making it difficult for them to enter buildings. Planning staff said allowing drive-throughs at these types of businesses while prohibiting them at new restaurants would prevent someone from utilizing a provision in City Code that allows changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. An example of that is a bank with drive-through facilities being converted into a restaurant or coffee shop and maintaining the drive-through. Permitted uses cannot be changed to nonconforming uses. If a majority of the Council is interested Council Staff can work on alternative language with the Attorney’s Office and Planning staff. PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Nine people spoke at the August 8, 2023 public hearing. Eight expressed general support for the current proposal or for allowing exceptions for financial institutions and pharmacies. One person, who is a business owner in the area, spoke against the proposal and referred to an email he sent to the Council. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. The following information was provided for previous meetings. 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: September 5, 2023 Page | 2 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 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. Page | 3 Existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division 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 Page | 4 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 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. Page | 5 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.) 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 Page | 6 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 Grant Project Additional Funding Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com EC: Department of Public Lands | Kristin Riker, Tyler Murdock, Tyler Fonarow FROM: Sarah Behrens DATE: July 28, 2023 SUBJECT: Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal FUNDING AGENCIES: Utah Division pf Forestry, Fire, & State Lands (FF&SL) GRANT PROGRAM: NA REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: Please see explanation below DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Lands | Division of Trails & Natural Lands COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: NA SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands provided the City with $50,000 from its Navigational Hazards Fund to support the Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal Project. The funds are not associated with a current grant application or award. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet DATE:August 15, 2023 RE: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Map Amendments Petitions PLNPCM2021-01124/01134 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: August 15, 2023 Set Date: August 15, 2023 Public Hearing: September 5, 2023 Potential Action: TBD ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about annexation and zoning changes for properties located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane (see map page 2). The changes include: 1. Annexation into Salt Lake City about 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: •2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space •2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use •2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space 2. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State-owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. The zoning of properties annexed into the city receive their zoning designation during that process. They do not go through the traditional rezone process. However, the annexation process includes substantial public outreach all along the way. Page | 2 This annexation and zoning amendments are not related to the Northpoint Small Area plan, a separate petition that the Council is also considering at this time. That petition is for an area north/west of I-215. Vicinity Map Page 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Proposed Project Description The applicant’s project overview is found in Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report. (It is also pulled out in this memo as Attachment A) It includes drawings of the draft site plan. They state the proposed plan would include the following: ▪11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height); ▪164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum); ▪Total density of 1,804 units; ▪Building coverage of 29%; ▪Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface ▪(775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces); Page | 3 Policy Questions ▪If the Council chooses to move forward with the annexation and zoning amendments, does the Council support including the eleven conditions outlined in the staff report in the final ordinance? ▪The Council may wish to ask the applicant if any of the housing units will be designated affordable or if they would be willing to consider including deed restricted affordable units in the development. ▪The Council may wish to ask if this project would be eligible for funds from the Westside Community Initiative. If yes, has the applicant talked with the Administration to see if that funding could help include public benefits into this development. ▪The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the City could more consistently inform developers of opportunity to participate in the Westside Community Initiative affordable housing program ▪The Planning Transmittal notes the North Access Road, which would provide circulation to Redwood Road, is planned by the City/State. • The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the status of the planning and funding for that proposed road. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation by a vote of 6 to 4. The Commission’s motion to recommend denial was based on the following: (Pages 2-3, Transmittal Letter) 1. The zoning map amendment, for the reason that it does not comply with the stated zoning goals of the small area master plan (Rose Park Small Area Plan). ▪the Commission’s motion refers to the Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) which has policies that call for the Open Space or Agricultural zoning in the future for the rezone and associated annexation property. The requested R-MU zone does not align with those specific zones. 2. The annexation, based on Plan Salt Lake and the access to open space are not met. And the 2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy points of emphasizing the value of transit-oriented developments and the livability of neighborhoods. ▪A Plan Salt Lake policy encourages access to parks and recreational spaces within a half mile of all residents. In its discussion, the Commission noted that despite the property being adjacent to the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), use of the RAC is generally restricted to organized groups, such as leagues, and future residents of the conceptual 1,800 dwelling unit development wouldn’t be able to freely use the facility. ▪Council “Housing Policy Statements” from 2016 that emphasize transit-oriented development and livability of neighborhoods, emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility, and proximity to services and address the livability of neighborhoods and concentrations of aging adults, and plan and implement strategies that will allow residents to Age in Place. The Planning commission did not offer any concerns about the proposed zoning designation for the state and City owned properties involved in the annexation. Planning Staff Recommendation Page | 4 Planning staff’s analysis found the application generally met applicable standards and recommended the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation with eleven conditions. Those conditions are outlined below. See pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission for the detailed list. 1.Traffic Impact Study Improvements – improvements noted in the traffic impact study are completed prior to any certificate of occupancy being issued 2.Rose Park Lane Improvement - The developer shall make all public right of way improvements for Rose Park Lane adjacent to the development, including but not limited to road widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping. 3.Sidewalk Improvements – sidewalk shall be installed adjacent to the site and offsite to provide a complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to the Regional Athletic Complex 4.Public Utility Improvements – comply with all public utility requirements 5.City Drain Usage – if development plans require discharge to city drains an offsite lift station may be required as determined by the Public Utilities Director 6.City Drain (canal) Setback – a 50’ setback from the city drain and no buildings or parking allowed within the setback 7.R-MU setback conflicts – Maximum front setback provisions of the R-MU do not apply where a greater setback is required along the city drain, or the freeway scenic landscape setback 8.Parking Requirement – must comply with the General Context minimum parking requirements in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance 9.Sound Attenuation – residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attenuation in sleeping areas and 25 dBs in other areas due to proximity to the freeway 10.State Park Adjacent Landscaping - The landscaped setback requirements of the “Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback” applied along the east property line where it is directly across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park Lane). The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the east property line. 11.State Park Noise Disclosure – provide a disclosure to future residents, tenants and owners regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHS recreation area 12.HVAC Filters: That air filters with a minimum rating of MERV 13, or equivalent, shall be used in all HVAC equipment. This applies to any replacement filters. (This is intended to reduce freeway pollution in resident's homes) 13.Construction Impacts: City Staff develop a condition to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties from construction activity on the 2350 and 2441 properties. (This was to help address a concern that construction activity would negatively impact a few residents toward the north end of Rose Park Lane and other users of the road - fugitive dust was one impact that we heard a lot about from residents with recent construction on 2200 West.) Key Concepts Identified in the Plan Page | 5 The zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building(s); therefore, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Even though there are draft plans pertaining to this project, it is not within the scope of the Council’s responsibility to review the plans. However, the plans for a proposed project can help the Council weigh options as they consider the annexation and zoning amendments. The Planning Commission staff report includes summaries for each of the zoning districts being considered: OS, AG and R-MU. They are included in this memo as Attachment B. Pages 7-13 of the Planning Commission staff report outline five key considerations that were evaluated by Planning staff. A short summary of each is provided below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis. 1. Plan Considerations for Zoning Designation/Zoning Amendment a.Planning staff found the proposed rezones to OS and AG are consistent with the Rose Park Small Area Plan. They also found the proposed rezone to R-MU Residential and low- intensity commercial uses are compatible with recreational uses like the Regional Athletic Complex. They also found other City plans support the proposed zoning amendments. See Attachment C for full analysis of compatibility with City plans. 2. Traffic Impact Study and Recommended Improvements a. The petitioner provided a traffic study that propose the following mitigation and improvements be made: i. Installation of I-215 interchange traffic lights and striping modifications (needed to support existing traffic prior to development coming in 2025) 1. This would support 200 units on the site. ii. Southbound left turn lane addition to the Rose Park Lane/I-215 access road intersection 1. This would support up to 500 units. iii. Installation of the North Access Road (provides circulation to Redwood Road and is planned by the City/State) 1. This would support the remainder of the units. b. Planning staff also recommends the following improvements be built to ensure the roadway can support the proposed development i. Widening of and improvements to Rose Park Lane that would be required for a subdivision, including curb, gutter, paving, striping, and utilities. The current roadway next to the property is roughly paved with asphalt and has no curb, gutter, or striping. ii. A pedestrian connection from the site to the existing sidewalk network at the RAC across the street. This will require a crosswalk across Rose Park Lane and sidewalk paving on the east side of Rose Park Lane and some along the development site. 3. R-MU Zone and Proposed Modification Conditions a. Planning Staff recommends the following be included as a conditions of approval: i. R-MU has no parking requirement. Staff proposes a parking requirement as a condition due to the current lack of transit accessibility. 1. “General Context” requirements would apply, same as most RMF zones ii. R-MU has a maximum front setback, conflicting with a proposed canal setback 1. Public Utilities is recommending a setback from the canal (City Drain) Page | 6 2. Staff proposes waiving the maximum front setback where it conflicts with canal 4. Freeway Proximity, Noise, and Pollution a. Planning Staff recommends the following be included as a condition of approval: i. A condition requiring noise attenuation improvements for any new buildings is being recommended due to the proximity to the freeway. ii. Special freeway landscaping will be required which can help mitigate pollution impacts of the freeway. iii. A requirement for a notice to residents/tenants/owners about potential noise from the OHV State Park is also recommended. iv. The freeway landscaping requirement is also proposed adjacent to the OHV State Park to reduce the potential for fugitive dust impacts to residents. 5. Alternative Zones and Uses for the Site a. The applicant originally proposed RMF-75. Planning staff was concerned about the lack of walkable services with a single use zone, R-MU requires commercial/retail on the first floor. Staff also considered the impacts of commercial or light industrial zones and found they would have a negative impact on the Regional Athletic Complex. Public Process Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the public process and public comments received during the process. (It is included as Attachment D of this memo.) •May 16, 2022: The Westpointe Community Council was sent the required 45-day notice for recognized community organizations. The notice asked for input from the organization and whether the organization would like the applicant to present at one of their meetings. • May 16, 2022: An online open house webpage was posted to provide additional information on the requests. A link as provided to the Westpointe Community Council and included in mailed notifications to nearby property owners. •May 17, 2022: Mailed early notifications were sent out to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the properties. •Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal included: o February 8, 2023 ▪Public hearing notice signs posted on the properties. o February 8, 2023 ▪Public hearing notice mailed. ▪Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 ATTACHMENT C: Applicant’s Narrative and Concept Plan 22 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION: •Acreage: 4.93 acres •Address: 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (the “Property”) •Current Zoning: Agricultural 2 Acre Minimum (AG-2) •Proposed Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75) 2.A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to annex in adjoining land from unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Annexation Property”)1 and have a single, integrated multifamily project located on the combined land. The requested rezone will facilitate the development of this project, and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates, among other things for both the Property and Annexation Property: •11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height); •164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum); •Total density of 1,804 units; •Building coverage of 29%; •Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface (775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces); •Parking coverage of 30%; and •Landscaping coverage of 41%. 3.REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA: •The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts: •North: N/A Unincorporated [Annexation Property (High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75)) upon completion of annexation and rezone)] •East: Open Space (OS) •South: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) separated by I-215 and Frontage Rd. •West: Business Park (BP) separated by I-215 •The Property is located within an agricultural area of the Rose Park Small Area Plan (adopted 2001), and other details therein are very limited. The Property is generally located within the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan (adopted 1992) but the exact location of the Property is not discussed within such Master Plan. The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan highlights the importance of eliminating use conflicts between adjacent properties. Multi-family residential housing does not conflict with the surrounding uses detailed above. Further, we intend to preserve open space and existing 1 The Annexation Property adjoins the Property to the north (2441 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116). The Annexation Property is approximately 17.21 acres. Applicant is simultaneously seeking to annex the Annexation Property into Salt Lake City with requested zoning of RMF -75. 23 4842-6277-7292 trees on the Property and the Annexation Property in accordance with the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. •A rezone of the Property would support business park uses in the area, if they develop in accordance with current zoning. The existing Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) to the east provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Multi-family residential housing will involve efficient use of the Property and Annexation Property and coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure. •A rezone of the Property and the Annexation Property will support nearby developments, including, without limitation, the RAC, and will provide infrastructure improvements for the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and others with respect to constructing and/or contributing to: (i) Sports Park Boulevard, (ii) the upgrade of the intersection of Sports Park Boulevard and Redwood Road, (iii) new water and sewer lines through Sports Park Boulevard, and (iv) a Salt Lake City drain bridge on or near the Property. The installation of Sports Park Boulevard and the upgrade of the aforementioned intersection will reduce traffic congestion on Rose Park Lane after RAC sporting events. The construction of new water and sewer lines and the drain bridge will facilitate development in the area generally. 4.PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED: •Property: Parcel Id. No. 08153010030000; AG-2 to RMF-75 •Annexation Property: Parcel Id. No. 08151000240000; Unincorporated to RMF-75 24 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN [See Attached] 25 20 21 23 54 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % PARKING ( T Y P ) 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 40'Rose P a r k L a n e C o u n t y Utah State Parks Jordan River OHV Park I-215 Sa l t L a k e C i t y Club House PLAYGROUND PERIMETER TRAIL GATHERING AREA FENCED DOG AREA PERIMETER TRAIL LAWN SALT LAKE DRAIN Pool HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 26 23 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN DWN 10% PA R K I N G ( T Y P ) 25' 40 ' Ro s e P a r k L a n e County U t a h S t a t e P a r k s Jo r d a n R i v e r O H V P a r k Salt Lake City N R E D W O O D R D JO R D A N R I V E R SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD Cl u b Ho u s e JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL P L A Y G R O U N D S A L T L A K E D R A I N Po o l HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 27 28 20 21 23 54 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % PARKING ( T Y P ) 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 40'Rose P a r k L a n e C o u n t y Utah State Parks Jordan River OHV Park I-215 Sa l t L a k e C i t y Club House PLAYGROUND PERIMETER TRAIL GATHERING AREA FENCED DOG AREA PERIMETER TRAIL LAWN SALT LAKE DRAIN Pool HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 29 23 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN DWN 10% PA R K I N G ( T Y P ) 25' 40 ' Ro s e P a r k L a n e County U t a h S t a t e P a r k s Jo r d a n R i v e r O H V P a r k Salt Lake City N R E D W O O D R D JO R D A N R I V E R SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD Cl u b Ho u s e JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL P L A Y G R O U N D S A L T L A K E D R A I N Po o l HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 30 31 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 ATTACHMENT F: Zoning District Information This attachment includes information sheets for the zone currently applied to the property within the City (2350 N) and the proposed zones for all of the properties. 1. AG-2, Agricultural Zoning District 2. OS, Open Space Zoning District 3. R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use Zoning District 4. Special Purpose Land Use Tables Showing Allowed OS and AG-2 Uses 5. Residential Land Use Table Showing Allowed R-MU Uses 45 AGRICULTURAL (2 ACRE MINIMUM) Zoning Diagram of Development Standards for Agricultural Uses AG-2 The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. ZONING REGULATIONS OVERVIEW Additional Regulations (21A.32.052) RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COVERAGE AGRICULTURAL USE RESTRICTIONS A residential structure shall not be located farther than two hundred feet (200') from the front property line. The surface coverage of the principal dwelling shall not ex- ceed eighty percent (80%) of the buildable area for residential uses of the lot. No feeding, grazing, or sheltering of livestock and poultry, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall be permitted within fifty feet (50') of an existing single- family dwelling on an adja- cent lot. Development Standards for Agricultural (AG) and Single-Family (SFD) Uses* (21A.32.052) LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT/CORNER SIDE YARDREAR YARD SIDE YARDSHEIGHT Min. 150'Min. 2 acres AG: No min. SFD: Min. 30' AG: No min. SFD: No min. AG: No min. SFD: Min. 35' AG: Max. 45' SFD: Max. 30' *Regulations vary by use. See ordinance for regulations for other uses. The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of land use. This matches the general pro- vision for all zones. Isn't the "nuisance impact" applicable to all zones really? 46 OPEN SPACE Zoning Diagram of Development StandardsExamples OS The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. ZONING REGULATIONS OVERVIEW Additional Regulations (21A.32.100) RECREATION EQUIPMENT PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES*LIGHTING LIMITS Recreation equipment heights are permitted to a height not to exceed eighty (80) feet when needed due to the nature of the equipment or for the use to operate safely, such as fences surround- ing golf course driving ranges. Heights for buildings or struc- tures for the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department that are not specifically exempt in section 21A.02.050 of this title, are ex- empt from the height restrictions in this zoning district provided the building or structure is deemed by the director of the public utilities department as critical infrastruc- ture necessary to provide specific utility needs to the public. • Lighting is installed in a manner and location that will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment when placed in areas with wildlife habitat, traffic safety or on surrounding properties and uses; • Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky; and • Light poles for outdoor uses, such as sports fields, amphithe- aters, and other similar uses may be permitted up to seventy (70) feet in height provided the lights are located a minimum of thirty (30) feet from a residential use and directed to reduce light trespass onto neighboring properties. *See ordinance for additional regulations regarding telecommunication structures. Development Standards (21A.32.100) LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT/CORNER SIDE YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARDSLANDSCAPE BUFFERS HEIGHT No min. No min. Min. 10'Min. 10', Min. 15' if site over 4 acres. Min. 10', Min. 15' if site over 4 acres. 10' next to single/ two-family zones, requires trees, shrubs, fence. Sites <4 acres: Max. 35', for height >20' yard setback increases 1' per 1' height. Sites >4 acres: Max. 45', for >30', yard setback in- creases 1' per 1' height. Up to 60' allowed through Design Review. The purpose of the OS Open Space District is to preserve and enhance public and private open space, natural areas, and improved park and recreational areas. These areas serve to provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation; provide contrasts to the built environment; preserve scenic qualities; protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, ridge lines, meadows, and stream corridors; preserve the capacity and water quality of the stormwater drainage system; encourage sustainability, conservation and renewable energy and provide pedestrian and bicycle transportation connections. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support this type of land use. This matches the general pro- vision for all zones. Isn't the "nuisance impact" applicable to all zones really? 47 The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed use character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high density, mixed use development. The standards for the district are intended to facilitate the creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access. RESIDENTIAL/ MIXED USE REGULATIONS SUMMARY FOR MULTI-FAMILY, NONRESIDENTIAL, OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Development Standards (21A.24.170) For Multi-family Residential & Mixed Uses LOT WIDTH LOT AREA FRONT/CORNER SIDE YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARDS LANDSCAPE BUFFERSHEIGHTSURFACE PARKING OPEN SPACE MIXED USE LIMITATION Min 50' No min. No min., max. 15' for 25% of facade length. 25% of lot depth, need not exceed 30' No min., min. 4 if provided. 10' next to single/two- family res- idential zones 75' max; non-res- idential limited to 45'.1 Located be- hind front line of the building or setback 30'. Min 20% of lot area, in- cludes yards, plazas, and courtyards Non-residen- tial use limited to first three floors. Design Standards GROUND FLOOR GLASS ENTRANCES MAXIMUM LENGTH OF BLANK WALLS BUILDING EQUIPMENT & SERVICE AREAS PARKING LOT LIGHT LIMITS PARKING STRUCTURES 40% glass & non-reflective, allows 5' of visibility into building, Min 1 entry for each street facing facade No blank walls over 15' long; must be bro- ken up by windows, doors, art, or architec- tural detailing. On roof or in rear yard. Sited to minimize visibility or screened and enclosed to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. If next to residential, light poles limited to 16' height, must be shielded, aimed down and lightproof fencing is required. Unattached parking structures shall be setback 45' from front property line or behind building. 1. Up to 125' is allowed through Design Review in the area generally between 200 and 500 East, and 150 South to 350 South. See ordi- nance for map. Zoning Diagram of Mixed Use Building Next to a Single/Two-Family ZoneDevelopment Examples R-MU The above information is a synopsis of the regulations. Please see the zoning ordinance for the complete regulations. Updated: 2/7/2023 48 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Use RP BP FP AG AG - 2 AG - 5 AG - 2 0 OS NO S A PL PL - 2 I UI MH EI MU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated else- where in this title P P P P P P P P20 P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C2 C2 C2 P2 Agricultural use C P P P P P P Air cargo terminals and package deliv- ery facility P P Airport P Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P12 C12 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Ambulance service (indoor)P P Ambulance service (outdoor)P10 P10 Amphitheater, formal P C Amphitheater, informal P P Animal: Kennel on lots of 5 acres or larger C P8 P8 P8 P8 Pet cemetery P4 P4 P4 P4 P4,5 Stable (private)P P P P Stable (public)P P P P Veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P C P P P P P21 P P C P P P Antenna, communication tower ex- ceeding the maximum building height in the zone C C P21 P P11 C C C Art gallery P P P P P P Artisan food production P24 Bed and breakfast P2 P P Bed and breakfast inn P2 P P Bed and breakfast manor P2 P P Bio-medical facility P23, 24 P23, 24 P23, 24 Botanical garden P P P P Cannabis production establishment P P P P P Cemetery P Clinic (medical, dental)P P P P P Commercial food preparation P24 P24 Community garden P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Updated 2/15/202349 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division UseRPBP FPAGAG - 2 AG - 5 AG - 2 0 OSNO S APLPL - 2 IUIMH EIMU Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated else- where in this title PPPPPPPP20PPPPPPPP Adaptive reuse of a landmark siteC2C2C2P2 Agricultural useCPPPPPP Air cargo terminals and package deliv- ery facility PP AirportP Alcohol: Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P12C12 Brewpub (more than 2,500 square feet in floor area) P12 Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C12 Ambulance service (indoor)PP Ambulance service (outdoor)P10P10 Amphitheater, formalPC Amphitheater, informalPP Animal: Kennel on lots of 5 acres or largerCP8P8P8P8 Pet cemeteryP4P4P4P4P4,5 Stable (private)PPPP Stable (public)PPPP Veterinary officePP Antenna, communication towerPPCPPPPP21PPCPPP Antenna, communication tower ex- ceeding the maximum building height in the zone CCP21PP11CCC Art galleryPPPPPP Artisan food productionP24 Bed and breakfastP2PP Bed and breakfast innP2PP Bed and breakfast manorP2PP Bio-medical facilityP23, 24 P23, 24 P23, 24 Botanical gardenPPPP Cannabis production establishmentPPPPP CemeteryP Clinic (medical, dental)PPPPP Commercial food preparationP24P24 Community gardenPPPPPPPPPPPPPP Use RP BP FP AG AG - 2 AG - 5 AG - 2 0 OS NO S A PL PL - 2 I UI MH EI MU Convent/monastery P P Data center P24 Daycare center, adult P P P P P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 P16 Dwelling: Accessory unit P P P P P P Assisted living facility (large)C P P Assisted living facility (limited capac- ity) P P P Assisted living facility (small)P P P Congregate care facility (large)C C C Congregate care facility (small)P P P Group home (large)C Group home (small)P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or secu- rity guard P P P C P P P P Manufactured home P P P Mobile home P Multi-family P P Residential support (large)C Residential support (small)P Rooming (boarding) house P Single-family (attached)P Single-family (detached)P P P P Twin home and two-family P Exhibition hall C P C P Extractive industry P24 Fairground C Farm stand, seasonal P P P P P P P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P Financial institution with drive- through facility P14 P14 Gas station P7 Golf course P24 P24 P24 Government facility C C P P P P P20 P C C C13 C P C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes C C Government office P P P P P P P P Heliport C C P P C C Home occupation P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 P17 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Updated 2/15/2023 50 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division QUALIFYING PROVISIONS Use RP BP FP AG AG - 2 AG - 5 AG - 2 0 OS NO S A PL PL - 2 I UI MH EI MU Hospital, including accessory lodging facility C P P Hotel/motel C C P P Hunting club, duck P Industrial assembly P24 P24 Jail C Jewelry fabrication P Laboratory, medical related P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Large wind energy system C C C C C C C P P Library P P P P P Light manufacturing C24 P24 Manufacturing, concrete or asphalt P15, 24 Meeting hall of membership organi- zation P P P P P Mixed use development P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations C C P P P P P C C C14 C P C Museum C P P P P P P Nursing care facility P P P Office P P P P P P P P Open space P P P P P P P P P9 P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parking: Commercial C Off site P P P P P C Off site (to support uses in an OS or NOS Zoning District) P Park and ride lot P C Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P Performing arts production facility P P Philanthropic use P P P P Place of worship P P P P P Radio, television station P6 P Reception center C22 C P P P P Recreation (indoor)C P P P P P P Recreation (outdoor)P P P P Research and development facility P24 P24 P24 P24 P24 Restaurant P7 P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P7, 14 P3 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Updated 2/15/202351 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Use RP BP FP AG AG - 2 AG - 5 AG - 2 0 OS NO S A PL PL - 2 I UI MH EI MU Retail goods establishment P7 P P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building P20 P Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees P P P P P P P P P Retail service establishment P School: College or university P P P K - 12 private P P P P K - 12 public P P P P Music conservatory P P P Professional and vocational P P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P C Small brewery C24 Solar array P24 P24 P19, 24 P24 P24 P24 Stadium C C C Storage, accessory (outdoor)P P P P Studio, art P Technology facility P24 P24 P24 P24 Theater, live performance C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 C15 Theater, movie C C Transportation terminal, including bus, rail and trucking P Urban farm P P P P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle, automobile rental agency P P Vending cart, private property P P Vending cart, public property P Warehouse P24 P24 Warehouse, accessory to retail and wholesale business (maximum 5,000 square foot floor plate) P Wholesale distribution P24 P24 Wireless telecommunications fa- cility (see Section 21A.40.090, Ta- ble 21A.40.090.E of this title) Zoological park P 52 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS QUALIFYING PROVISIONS 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. 3. When located on an arterial street. 4. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 5. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains. 6. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are com- patible with surrounding uses. 7. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.55 of this title. 8. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot. 9. Trails and trailheads with signage are subject to Section 21A.46.120, "Sign Regulations For Special Purpose Districts", of this title. 10. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 11. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 13. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan - major street plan: roadway functional classification map. 14. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 15. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 16. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 17. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 18. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equip- ment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife. 20. When customarily provided with the principal use and is accessory to the principal use. 21. New antennae and communication towers are allowed outside the telecommunication corridor in the OS Open Space District for public safety, public security or Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department purposes only. 22. Reception centers may be allowed in parks of 100 acres or more where the reception center is a subordinate use to the principal use of the property as a park. Reception centers are allowed in existing buildings, are limited to 1 reception center per park, and hours of operation are limited to park hours. Removal of existing recreation areas to accommodate the stand alone reception center use, including areas to accommodate parking for the reception center use, is not permitted. 23. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah De- partment of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 24. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. Updated 2/15/2023 53 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS Use RMF -30 RMF -35 RMF -45 RMF -75 RB R-MU -35 R-MU -45 R-MU RO Accessory use, except those that are otherwise spe- cifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8 C8 C8 P P P P P6 Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 C9 C9 Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C9 Animal, veterinary office C C C P P6 Art gallery P P P P P Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P3 P3 P3 P3 P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P Clinic (medical, dental)P P P P P6 Commercial food preparation P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Community garden P P P P P P P P P Community recreation center C Crematorium C C C Daycare center, adult C P P P P P P Daycare center, child C18 C18 C18 P P P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 P18 Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter Dwelling, accessory unit P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)C P P C P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)C P P P P P P P P Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)P P P P P P Dwelling, congregate care facility (large)C C C C C C C Dwelling, congregate care facility (small)C P P P P P P P P Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority Dwelling, group home (large)C C C C C1 4 C C C C1 4 Dwelling, group home (small)P P P P P15 P P P P15 Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P P P P Dwelling, multi- family P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, residential support (large)C C C C C1 6 Dwelling, residential support (small)C C P C C P P17 Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C P C C C P P Dwelling, single- family (attached)P P P P P P P P P Updated 2/15/202354 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division Use RMF -30 RMF -35 RMF -45 RMF -75 RB R-MU -35 R-MU -45 R-MU RO Dwelling, single- family (detached)P P P P P P P P P Dwelling, twin home and two- family P P P P P P P Financial institution P P P P6 Funeral home P P P P Governmental facility C C C C C C C C C6 Home occupation P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 Laboratory, medical related P21 P21 P21 P21 P21 Library C C C C C Mixed use development P1 P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private proper- ty) P P P Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire station C C C C C C C C C Museum P C P P P Nursing care facility P P P P P Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P P P P P6 Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P P P P Park P P P P P P P P P Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones) C C C C C Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P P P P P Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C C C C C Reception center P P P Recreation (indoor)P P P P P Research and development facility P21 P21 Restaurant P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility 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 School, music conservatory P C C P School, professional and vocational P C C P P6 School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C C C C C Seasonal farm stand P P P P P Studio, art P P P P P Technology facility P21 P21 P21 P21 Temporary use of closed schools and churches C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 C19 Theater, live performance C1 3 C13 C13 C13 C1 3 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS Updated 2/15/2023 55 Zoning District Overview - Salt Lake City Planning Division QUALIFYING PROVISIONS 1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office. 2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995). 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Reserved. 5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Build- ing additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review. 7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title. 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title. 9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 10. In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area. 11. Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot. 12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title. 13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 14. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 15. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 16. Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 17. Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor. 18. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 19. Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title. 20. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 21. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. Use RMF -30 RMF -35 RMF -45 RMF -75 RB R-MU -35 R-MU -45 R-MU RO Theater, movie C C C C C Urban farm P P P P P P P P P Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5, 7 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5 Wireless telecommunicati ons facility (see section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title) PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES - RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS Updated 2/15/202356 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 ATTACHMENT D: City Plan Policies The below are related policies from adopted City Master Plans. Each plan title is followed by a table where Staff has compiled related policies or discussion text from the associated plan. Some policies may not be directly applicable but have been identified in public or other comments and so have been included below. The plan policies related to growth and housing are applicable to the privately owned property that is intended for residential development. Staff has also included some policies related to recreational and open space uses that apply to the City/State properties. The Rose Park Small Area Plan policies related to the proposal are located in and discussed in Consideration 1. Salt Lake City Housing Plan Issues/Goals/Objectives Status in Relation to Proposal Discussion Housing Crisis Section Summary: The city is in an affordable housing crisis and if growth projections are correct, it will not improve unless bold and strategic measures are developed and enacted. Solutions must include using zoning ordinance to provide a mix of housing types in an effort to relieve the pressure put upon existing housing, creating sustainable and significant funding sources, preventing and diverting low income families from entering homelessness, and creating innovative housing for all income types. Consistent The zoning change would support additional housing in the City and relieve price pressures on existing housing. GOAL 1: Increase housing options: Reform city practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high- opportunity housing market Consistent Broad goal supports additional housing options to respond to housing needs and demand. Analysis regarding specific objectives/policies within this goal is noted below. Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city Consistent The proposed zoning change would add additional housing units to help increase the supply of housing in the City and reduce the price increase pressure on existing housing. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. Expanding this system of zoning with a focus on new residential and commercial development along transportation corridors will allow the private market to fill the Consistent This policy supports expanding zoning/regulations that support new housing, particularly along significant transportation routes. This property is located along a major transportation route (I-215), with very convenient access to that route. In the future, Redwood Road will also be quickly accessible from the development via a planned new direct 32 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 housing demand where the city needs it most. To ensure that the maximum potential of these regulatory changes is realized, the City will need to plan, design, fund, and construct the infrastructure that will be required to support the increases in residential density. This will require significant and targeted investment in multiple utility systems and other public improvements. Where possible, the City will seek public- private partnerships to fund the infrastructure improvements. road connection. The policy notes that there will likely be a need for significant infrastructure improvements. The improvements to support this development will likely occur from a mix of City/State funding (North Access Road) and private developer funding (all other improvements such as utilities). Goal 3: Equitable and Fair housing: Build a more equitable city Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city Plan Narrative: Salt Lake City should be a place where residents are not stifled in their housing choice, because certain neighborhoods are not conducive to their stage of life. The goal with this objective is to enable a diversity of housing types that responds to housing needs, allowing individuals to stay in their communities as their housing needs evolve. The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s demographic projections show a growing senior population statewide, and while we know from the housing market study that Salt Lake City’s percentage of seniors (10% of total population) is relatively low compared to other municipalities in the state, the City will begin anticipating the needs of a growing senior community. However, seniors are not the only population that is demanding a different type of housing. Across the country there are trends for micro housing, community style living, generational housing to accommodate aging parents, and intentional community and living space that co-exist (like a day care in a Senior Center). There is not one way to achieve life cycle housing, but infinite possibilities and it is the goal to engage the community in way that not only fosters the possibility, but Neutral/ Consistent While the developer’s concept plans only show multi-family residential development, the zone would allow a mix of housing types, including single-family residential, townhomes, mixed use, and multi-family development. However, this policy is primarily intended to ensure that other types of housing are available in existing neighborhoods beyond single- family residential. 33 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 creates policy that allows for the building. 2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy (Housing Policy Statements Adopted by the City Council) Policy Status Discussion 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; Neutral The proposal is not located within a highly urbanized area of the City. 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; Neutral The proposal does not involve commercial uses/local goods and services within a neighborhood. 3.Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of housing types and choices exist for all income levels, age groups, and types of households; Consistent The proposal would provide additional multi-family residential which meets a housing need in an area currently predominantly single-family. 4.Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; Consistent The proposal adds additional housing in the City outside of the currently developed residential areas. 5. Ensure that affordable housing is available in all neighborhoods and not concentrated in a few areas of the city; Neutral The proposal does not currently involve any “income restricted” affordable housing. 6. Emphasize the value of transit- oriented development, transit accessibility, and proximity to services; Not consistent The proposal is not currently served by a dedicated transit route. It is likely that at full build-out a transit route would be supported due to the number of residents in this location. 7.Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods; Neutral General statement that is not applicable to proposal. 8. Create an appropriate balance of rental and ownership opportunities in neighborhoods without jeopardizing an adequate supply of affordable housing; Neutral Any development on the site could be either rental or owner occupied. 9. Strongly incentivize or require the use of green building techniques and sustainability practices in public and private housing developments; Neutral/NA This pertains to creating new City regulations and does not apply. The proposal will have to comply with City ordinances and building codes related to sustainability practices and building techniques. 34 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 10. Examine the changing needs of Salt Lake City’s population, and develop and maintain reliable demographic information to support housing policy and residential development; Neutral/NA This is not directly related to this amendment. 11.Consider the needs of multi- generational households and ensure housing products are available to meet those needs. Neutral/NA The proposed concept plan does not address potential future specific unit types. 12.Address the livability of neighborhoods and concentrations of ageing adults, and plan and implement strategies that will allow residents to Age in Place. Neutral/NA This policy is aimed at ensuring a diversity of housing types in larger neighborhoods to allow residents to change housing types as they age, rather than in any one specific development. Plan Salt Lake Plan Salt Lake City is a City-wide master plan. This master plan is broad and not property specific. The following list includes excerpts of the narratives and policies from the plan regarding growth, housing, and parks and recreation. These are also further discussed in Consideration 1. Policies Status Staff Discussion Growth/ (Discussion excerpt) Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. 2. Encourage a mix of land uses. 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 4. Preserve open space and critical environmental areas. 5. Reduce consumption of natural resources, including water. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population. Mixed, Consistent/Neutral /Not Consistent 1. The proposal is located adjacent to a major freeway and will have connection to a major street (Redwood Road) due to future State/City infrastructure investment in a new road that accesses the property. However, additional, significant developer provided infrastructure will be required to be installed to serve the property. 2. The zoning of the private property would allow a mix of uses. 3. The private property is currently underutilized with at least half of it being used for outdoor equipment storage, and the zoning would encourage its redevelopment. 4. The private property is generally used for agricultural and horse boarding activities. These uses could fall under the term “open space.” Records do not indicate that it contains any critical environmental features, such as wetlands. The City (RAC) and State (State Park) properties 35 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 7. Work with regional partners and stakeholders to address growth collaboratively. 8. Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails, recreation, and healthy food). function now, or will function, for uses that generally fall under “open space.” The City property itself has a deed restriction limiting the use of the property for open space type uses. 5. Multi-family residential development uses relatively little water compared to single-family residential, agricultural, or industrial development. 6. The proposal would accommodate approximately 1,800 new units over the next decade or so. 7. This policy isn’t directed at individual developments. However, the State/City will need to continue working together with regard to the North Access Road and any improvements to the I-215 interchange where they connect to City streets. 8. The site is directly adjacent to a regional recreational sports facility, which will soon have a playground, and will be a short walk to the Jordan River trail when the North Access Road is completed. This area of the City generally requires a car to visit a grocery or convenience store. The proposed mixed-use zoning of the private property would allow for future retail, such as grocery or convenience stores, and could be supported by the number of residents and also users of the RAC. Housing/ 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. Discussion (Excerpt) Almost half of the total housing units in Salt Lake are single- family detached dwellings. While preserving the existing housing stock will continue to be a Mixed, Consistent/Neutral/ Not Consistent 1. The proposal would allow for the creation of multi-family rental housing, but they could also be condominiums. The developer has not indicated that the housing will be income restricted. 2. Not applicable, this would generally be considered relatively high-density development. 3. Not applicable. This is aimed at ensuring a diverse range of housing options in predominantly single- family neighborhoods. 4. This area has a high level of current and planned vehicle transportation 36 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 priority for Salt Lake City, over the next 25 years, it will be critical for us to encourage and support a diversity of new housing options and types with a range of densities throughout the City to best meet the changing population. Policies: 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. infrastructure, a current and future high level of recreational access (RAC, Jordan River Trail), but a low level of nearby service access (retail, grocery) except via a car. The number of future residents in this location may support additional pedestrian accessible services, such as retail. 5. This is not in an existing neighborhood. 6. Newer construction is generally more energy efficient. 7. The area is not currently served by transit, but a transit stop could be possible in the future with the number of residents at the location. 8. Not applicable. Parks and Recreation GUIDING PRINCIPLE/ Protecting the natural environment while providing access and opportunities to recreate and enjoy nature. 2040 TARGETS: 1. Increase Park Space Neutral/Consistent Most of these policies aren’t directly applicable to the proposal, but the proposed Open Space zoning supports additional park space and allows the recreational facility to be “enhanced” with a second phase. (Target 1 and Initiative 4) The proposed private property zoning would support additional households that have both a park and a recreational space (RAC 37 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 2. Parks Or Open Space Within Walking Distance Of Every Household 3. Increase Miles Of Trails Initiatives: 1. Balance protection and management of natural lands with access to recreational opportunities. 2. Provide accessible parks and recreation spaces within 1/2 mile of all residents. 3. Enhance trail and open space connectivity through improved visual and physical connections. 4. Protect and enhance existing parks, recreational facilities, and trails allowing for modifications to enhance usability and promote activity. 5. Establish level of service standards that address type, proximity, quality, and quantity of park space that is responsive to both citywide and neighborhood needs. 6. Integrate artistic elements into parks, urban trails, and other urban public spaces. 7. Support urban agriculture and local food systems that produce healthy and sustainable food for the community, while providing valuable open space. and the Jordan River trail) within a ½ mile of their location. (Target 2 and Initiative 2) 38 North Rose Park Lane Annexation & Rezone February 22, 2023 ATTACHMENT H: Public Process & Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: • May 16, 2022: The Westpointe Community Council was sent the required 45-day notice for recognized community organizations. The notice asked for input from the organization and whether the organization would like the applicant to present at one of their meetings. • May 16, 2022: An online open house webpage was posted to provide additional information on the requests. A link as provided to the Westpointe Community Council and included in mailed notifications to nearby property owners. • May 17, 2022: Mailed early notifications were sent out to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the properties. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • February 8, 2023 o Public hearing notice signs posted on the properties. • February 8, 2023 o Public hearing notice mailed. o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. Community Council Meetings The applicant informed Staff that they met with the Westpointe Community Council twice before the applicant submitted their annexation and zoning request. The most recent of those meetings was on January 8, 2020. Public Input: Staff received a call from a horse owner who utilizes the horse stables on the applicant’s property. The caller was concerned with the potential loss of the facility an d was provided information on how to attend the public hearing and how to provide a written comment. Staff also received one written comment opposed to the rezone of the private property. The comment is located on the following page. Staff received no other public comments or inquiries. Community Council Comments Staff requested comments from the Westpointe Community Council, but they did not provide any comments or a letter about the proposal prior to staff report publication. 62 1 Echeverria, Daniel From:Kelly Pickering Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 1:42 PM To:Echeverria, Daniel Subject:(EXTERNAL) 2-22-23 Comments re Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 N. and Annexation at Approximately 2441 N. Rose Park Lane Mr. Echeverria: This note is meant to comment on the Zoning Map Amendment for 2350 N. and Annexation at Approximately 2441 N. Rose Park Lane being considered on February 22, 2023. The 1,800‐ unit multi‐family residential development will negatively impact the area in the following ways. 1. In this area, Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure to accommodate water let alone sewer for 1,800 new households. Conservatively, the average household has three people. This area cannot accommodate 5,400 residents and their vehicles. 2. Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure in this area for school enrolment. 3. Rose Park does NOT house the infrastructure in this area for safety and enforcement and 4. This proposal will also negatively affect wildlife in this area. Please consider this is not the best use for this land. Kindest regards, Kelly Hambleton‐Pickering Resident 63 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: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment (Petitions PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134) STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7165 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the annexation and the requested zoning map amendment designation of R-MU for the two involved private properties. BUDGET IMPACT: No direct budget impact. If annexed, the properties would be subject to receiving City services for such things as fire, police, and utilities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: JWright Communities, LLC, property owner and applicant, is requesting a zoning map amendment for an approximately 6-acre parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. The applicant is requesting a rezone from the AG-2, Agricultural, zone to the R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use zone. The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family residential development. No formal plans have been submitted for that development. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:13 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 In conjunction with the rezone request, the property owner filed a petition to annex approximately 28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation process requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed into the City. The City Council reviewed the annexation petition in April 2022 and referred the annexation petition to the Commission for a recommendation on the proposed zoning. The properties involved and the requested zones are below: 1. 2440 N Rose Park Lane a. This is a City-owned property and has been shown as a future Regional Athletic Complex phase in City plans. b. The City proposed to zone the property OS, Open Space, to support future recreational use. 2. 2441 N Rose Park Lane (“Hunter Stables”) a. This is a privately owned parcel, owned by the applicant, JWright. b. The applicant is proposing the R- MU, Residential/Mixed-Use, zone to support an 1,800 dwelling unit development. 3. 2462 N Rose Park Lane a. This is a State-owned property utilized as part of the State’s Jordan River Off-Highway Vehicle State Park. b. The City proposed to zone the property OS, Open Space, to support continued recreational use. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the zoning map amendment and annexation zoning requests at their March 8th meeting and forwarded a negative recommendation on both requests. The meeting can be viewed here with this particular item beginning at 1:55:53. The vote on the motion was 6 to 4. The Commission’s motion to recommend denial was the following, recommending denial of: 1. The zoning map amendment, for the reason that it does not comply with the stated zoning goals of the small area master plan (Rose Park Small Area Plan). Map of the rezone and annexation properties, showing the OHV State Park, RAC, and a planned “North Access Road.” 2. The annexation, based on Plan Salt Lake and the access to open space are not met. And the 2016 Salt Lake Housing Policy points of emphasizing the value of transit-oriented developments and the livability of neighborhoods. For the zoning map amendment, the Commission’s motion refers to the Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) which has policies that call for the Open Space or Agricultural zoning in the future for the rezone and associated annexation property. The requested R-MU zone does not align with those specific zones. For the annexation, the Commission’s motion refers to the citywide plan, Plan Salt Lake, and one of its policies that encourages access to parks and recreational spaces within a half mile of all residents. In its discussion, the Commission noted that despite the property being adjacent to the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), use of the RAC is generally restricted to organized groups, such as leagues, and future residents of the conceptual 1,800 dwelling unit development wouldn’t be able to freely use the facility. The Commission’s motion also refers to the City Council’s adopted “Housing Policy Statements” from 2016 that emphasize transit-oriented development and livability of neighborhoods. The full referenced policies are as follows: • Emphasize the value of transit-oriented development, transit accessibility, and proximity to services; • Address the livability of neighborhoods and concentrations of ageing adults, and plan and implement strategies that will allow residents to Age in Place. There are similar policies in both Plan Salt Lake and the City’s adopted housing plan Growing SLC (2017.) The Commission’s motion and discussion were focused on the R-MU requests and the Commission did not offer any concerns regarding the proposed zoning designation of Open Space for the City and State properties involved in the annexation; however, since the zoning of these properties was included in the same petition, the Commission simply recommended denial of the entire petition. Nine individuals addressed the Commission during the public hearing, including a representative of the Westpointe Community Council. Comments at the public hearing addressed limited resident access to the RAC, traffic from the RAC, concerns with limited infrastructure, easement impacts on the developable area of the property, loss of the horse boarding facility and agricultural lifestyle, piecemeal annexations of this area of the City, safety related to mosquitoes and canals, parking issues and congestion on Rose Park Lane, air quality impacts from I-215, and RAC/OHV negative impacts on potential residents. A comment questioning why this area was appropriate for housing, while properties to the west in the Northpoint area were not, was also made. Planning Staff Recommendation to the Planning Commission The Commission recommendation was opposite that of the Staff recommendation. The Staff recommendation was to forward a positive recommendation with several conditions related to infrastructure requirements, water quality, air quality, and noise. Those are detailed on the second page of the staff report. Two additional conditions regarding HVAC system air filters to mitigate health impacts from the freeway and mitigation of construction impacts on adjacent property owners, were added after staff report publication in response to late arriving public comments. These conditions are located on the attached Staff presentation slides (Exhibit 2b). The Staff recommendation acknowledged the Rose Park Small Area Plan’s future land use map designations of Open Space and Agriculture do not correspond with the requested R-MU zone, but cited the plan’s policy reason for that zoning, which was to ensure those properties maintain compatibility with the RAC and OHV properties. The recommendation noted that residential and low-intensity commercial uses are generally compatible with recreational uses. The recommendation also relied on general policies from Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC that support more housing throughout the City, including policies supporting housing with access to recreational uses (RAC/Jordan River Trail), existing infrastructure (I-215 freeway, new “North Access Road,”) and using underutilized properties for housing. Since the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, an ordinance has not been prepared by the Attorney’s Office for the zoning map and annexation requests. If the City Council indicates support for the requests, the Attorney’s Office will draft an ordinance at that time. PUBLIC PROCESS: The proposal followed the City’s public input requirements required for a zoning amendment. The annexation was processed following the same input process. Details on that process are located in Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant met with the applicable community council on two occasions, but the community council did not provide any formal written comments to Planning Staff. A community council representative attended the Commission hearing and their comments focused on the limited or no access to the RAC facility that any new residents would have due to the facility’s current use policies. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Planning Commission – March 8, 2023 a) Additional Written Public Comments b) Staff Presentation c) Applicant Presentation 3) Notice of City Council Hearing 4) Original Petitions 5) Mailing List EXHIBITS 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023 a. Additional Public Comments b. Staff Presentation Slides c. Applicant Presentation Slides 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 5. MAILING LIST 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 November 1, 2021 Applicant submits original annexation petition that includes only the applicant’s property at 2441 N Rose Park Lane. November 3, 2021 Applicant submits rezone petition for 2350 N property to Planning Division. November 18, 2021 Applications assigned to John Anderson, Planning Manager. Applications subsequently put on hold as applicant works with City and County to adjust the boundary request of their annexation to include the 2440 N (City) and 2462 N (State) properties in order not to create a new peninsula of County land. March 22, 2022 Salt Lake County Council approves resolution number 5956 agreeing to requested annexation to Salt Lake City. County Council reviewed the annexation request as the annexation property leaves a peninsula of County land. County resolution also encourages City to annex additional land in the area. March 24, 2022 Applicant resubmits annexation petition to City, now including the 2440 N and 2462 N properties. April 5, 2022 Salt Lake City Council approves Resolution 6 of 2022 agreeing to accept annexation petition for further consideration. Petition is forwarded to Planning Division for a Planning Commission recommendation on the zoning. May 5, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Dave Gellner, Senior Planner, for processing. May 16, 2022 Notice sent to Westpointe community council. Open house webpage posted to the Planning website. May 17, 2022 Mailed noticed provided to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the properties. October 4, 2022 Applications re-assigned to Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, for processing. February 8. 2023 For the February 22nd public hearing, public hearing notice signs posted on the properties, notices mailed to properties and residents within 300 feet, and notices posted on City and State websites. Notices sent on Planning Division listserv. February 22, 2023 Public hearing canceled due to weather. February 23, 2023 Project re-noticed for March 8th public hearing. Notice signs, mailers, online notice, and listserv notice all re-sent out. March 8, 2023 Planning Commission holds public hearing and provides negative recommendation on both the zoning amendment and annexation requests. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2021-01124/01134: JWright Communities, LLC, property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment for a ~6 acre parcel of land located at 2350 N Rose Park Lane. In conjunction with this request, the property owner has filed a petition to annex approximately 28 acres of property located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The following petitions are associated with this proposal: 1. Annexation (PLNPCM2021-01124) – A petition to annex into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 N Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: a. 2440 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space b. 2441 N Rose Park Lane – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use c. 2462 N Rose Park Lane – OS, Open Space 2. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01134) – A petition to rezone property located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG-2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use. The zoning is intended to support future development of an 1,800-unit multi-family residential development. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. The annexation process requires that the City apply a zone at the same time a property is annexed. Although the petition proposes specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones. The properties at 2350 and 2441 N are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The properties at 2440 N and 2462 N are currently vacant. The properties are in or near Council District 1, represented by Victoria Petro-Eschler. On March 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend denial of the associated petitions by the City Council. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-71765 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at www.slcpermits.com, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01124 or PLNPCM2021-01134. Additional information is also available on the Planning webpage here: https://bit.ly/slc-openhouse-01124 People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 2023 a. Additional Public Comments From: cindy cromer Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 5:09 PM To: SLC Planning Commission Subject: Fw: comments about Rose Park Lane 1 It is part of the piecemeal annexation process which guarantees poor enforcement and coordination of services. Please ask for a briefing on how the Special Improvement District, not the County, is in charge and what has to happen to get to a comprehensive process instead of proceeding the way we have been. It is essential to the health of the Great Salt Lake that we have coordination of governmental efforts near the Lake. 2 This staff report is amazing and contains one of the longest lists of conditions of approval I have ever seen. But it doesn't require that the necessary road improvements occur PRIOR to construction. We are seeing a nightmare play out in Northpoint on 2200 West as the trucks for a million sq. ft. facility make their way down a country road which is no longer a safe place to travel on foot or by bicycle. And the permits from the County were NOT in place. Neither was the road you were promised, leading back to my first point about annexation. 3 It is inconceivable that you could conclude that there is no opportunity for housing in Northpoint, west of 215, but room for 1800 units immediately east of the freeway. It is unreasonable to decide that future airplane traffic above Northpoint makes it unusable for residences, but the noise and pollution from the freeway is just fine on Rose Park Lane next to an off-road vehicle park. It is hard for me to imagine a place more ill-suited for high density residential use than this one. And you took all sort of precautions with a hotel property in terms of noise attenuation when you removed it from the airport overlay at the expense of the organization providing the supported housing, but I see nothing about measuring ambient levels of sound here. 1 Echeverria, Daniel From:Mark Sweet Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:54 AM To:Echeverria, Daniel Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning 2441 N Rose Park Lane Questions on purpose and funding. Question the wisdom of cramming 1,800 condos onto 34 acres between I-215 and a flood control canal.(testing positive for West Nile Virus). Or will the DNR's ATV facility be used for this development? The area is served by a dead end road that is barely two lanes wide. And the nearest fire station is four and half miles away. Is the developer paying the impact fees for the cost of; 1- water line upgrades 2- sewer lines. 3- power lines 4- the canal contains gasoline, diesel and Lord knows what other contaminants. 5- how many causeways/culverts will there be. 6- rebuilding/upgrading North Rose Park Lane 7- sound barriers along the freeway. Will any of these units be designated low income? The bond issue voted on 20 years ago for the Regional Athletic Complex; called for a dozen plus soccer fields and a similar number of baseball/softball fields. Are the fields still to be built? Or are they to be replaced with high density housing? On days of soccer matches, traffic is terrible/obscene. Adding some 2,000 plus residents to the area will make it all the more worse. Mark Sweet Dear Commission Members: RE: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment It has been well established in extensive research (cited herein) that residents, schools, and workers close to major highways are hugely affected negatively health wise. This new development proposal sits back to back on I 215, recently opened to heavy diesel truck traffic. 1800 units speaks loudly to the number of citizens that will be affected. There also will be a sound issue given heavy diesel truck traffic. While PM2.5 particulates are the major concern, it is known that some PM 2.5 contains black carbon (soot produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels) Additionally, the OHV park will be a major contributor to dust issues, acknowledged by the staff report This development needs to be required to: 1. Install the latest air filtration technology in every apartment and public space in the development. Either have HEPA install a central system, or provide each apartment with a HEPA filter system; 2. Require that UDOT plant a major pollution absorbing tree barrier on the west side of the property; 3. The developers work with the state and Davis County to plant a tree buffer at Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area; and, 4. Notice the applicants leasing/purchasing of the health risks associated with living close to a major highway as is noted in the staff recommendation for the sound issue. https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/mortality-air-pollution-associations- low-exposure-environments-maple-phase-2 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 14, 2022 – A comprehensive new study published today by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reports increased risks of mortality in millions of Canadian citizens, including at the lowest levels of exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5), levels that fall below current U.S. and other ambient air quality standards. Long-term outdoor PM2.5 exposures as low as 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter were associated with increased risk of death, suggesting that lowering regulatory standards could yield further health benefits. http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/57/3/747.short ABSTRACT We examine the effect of traffic pollution on student outcomes by leveraging variation in wind patterns for schools the same distance from major highways. We compare within-student changes in achievement for students transitioning between schools near highways, where one school has greater levels of pollution because it is downwind of a highway. As students graduate from elementary/middle school to middle/high school, their test scores decrease, behavioral incidents increase, and absence rates increase when they attend a downwind school, relative to when they attend an upwind school in the same zip code. Even within zip codes, microclimates can contribute to inequality. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-18458-3 Continual exposure to toxic metals through road dust might develop lifetime cancer risk in local inhabitants. 1 Clark, Aubrey From:Terry Marasco Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 AM To:Clark, Aubrey Cc:Mendenhall, Erin; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Norris, Nick; Kevin Parke; Westpointe 2 Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Please pass this document to all Commissioners Aubrey, please pass these also. Daniel Medoza at the U led these" https://www.mdpi.com/1660‐4601/17/18/6931 More frequent peak exposures were associated with reduced math and ELA proficiency, as was greater school disadvantage. High frequency peak exposures were more strongly linked to lower math proficiency in more advantaged schools. Findings highlight the need for policies to reduce the number of days with peak air pollution. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748‐9326/abbf7a Pollution reduction benefits would be greatest in schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Heterogeneity in exposure, disproportionately affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged schools, points to the need for fine resolution exposure estimation. The economic cost of absences associated with air pollution is substantial even excluding indirect costs such as hospital visits and medication. These findings may help elucidate the differential burden on individual schools and inform local decisions about recess and regulatory considerations for localized pollution sources. Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, Utah "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Terry Marasco <wrote: Re: PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134: North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment Thank you! Terry Marasco Salt Lake City, Utah "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 20233 b. Staff Presentation Slides PLANNING COMMISSION // MARCH 8, 2023 NORTH ROSE PARK LANE ANNEXATION AND ZONING AMENDMENT 2350, 2440, 2441, AND 2462 N ROSE PARK LANE PLNPCM2021-01124/01134 •Requests by JWright Properties (2350/2441 N) •Two requests: •Zoning Map Amendment (2350 N Rose Park Lane) •From AG-2, Agricultural •To R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use •Annexation from County to City –Zoning Requests •Apply R-MU to 2441 N •Apply OS to 2462 N •Apply OS to 2440 N •Intended to accommodate an 1,800 unit multi-family development on the 2350 N and 2441 N properties •City and State properties not involved in development Recommendation: Staff is recommending a positive recommendation to the City Council with several conditions REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division 2441 (J Wright) 2350 (J Wright) 2440 (City) 2462 (State) CONTEXT Salt Lake City // Planning Division 2100 North Interchange (Access) PROCESS AND ZONE Zoning Map Amendment •Requires review against standard City considerations •Consistency with plans, compatibility, impacts to services Annexation: •No consideration standards •City & State property included to comply with State law regarding creating “peninsulas” •Requires a zone be applied when annexed •Council forwarded the annexation to Commission for a zoning recommendation •Staff utilized considerations for a rezone Salt Lake City // Planning Division ZONING AMENDMENT &ANNEXATION PROCESS •Proposed Zone for J Wright (private)properties •Height: •Max.75'(multi-family/mixed-use), •Max.45'(non-residential) •Setbacks: •No front/side;min.25%lot depth/up to 30'rear setback •Max.Setback/Build-to Line: •Min.25%of building must be within 15'of front lot line •Open Space:20%of lot area •Freeway Landscape Buffer: •20'wide,shade tree for every 300 sq ft (equivalent to every 15'feet) •Allowed Use Examples: •Multi-family,retail,restaurant,office Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-MU -RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE KEY CONSIDERATIONS 2440 (City) & 2462 (State): •Rose Park Plan (2001) calls for Open Space (OS) or Agriculture (AG) •Proposed OS –will be used for park/recreation -RAC and OHV facility 2350 & 2441 (JWright) •Rose Park Plan policy: •Zone properties OS or AG •“to be compatible with the State recreational (OHV) and open space land uses (RAC)” •Residential compatible with recreational uses •Citywide policies support additional housing throughout City •Access to healthy lifestyle (recreational access –sports/trail) •Redevelopment of underutilized property •Locating near existing infrastructure (significant planned improvements) •Compatibility and Citywide policies support requested zone Salt Lake City // Planning Division PLAN CONSIDERATIONS F S t r e e t 2441 (J Wright) 2350 (J Wright) 2440 (City) 2462 (State) •Traffic study shows need for road improvements •Abutting roadway is only semi-improved (no curb/gutter/etc.) •Inadequate utilities •Recommended conditions: •Phased improvements identified in traffic study •Roadway improvements to widen/improve adjacent street (Rose Park Lane) •Sidewalks and crosswalk to link development to existing sidewalks at RAC •All necessary utility improvements Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS F S t r e e t Turn Lane Signal/ Turn Lanes New Road (Partially funded) •Improve/Widen Road •Add Sidewalk/ Crosswalk •R-MU has no parking requirement •Mostly mapped in higher transit areas •Site has no current transit access •Recommend “General Context” intended for low/no transit access areas •Ex: 1.25 parking stalls for 2-bedroom units, 2 spaces for every 1,000 sq ft for retail •R-MU has a maximum front setback (15') •Public Utilities recommending condition for 50' setback for canal water quality •Setbacks conflict (15' vs 50’) •Recommend condition waiving R-MU setback where canal setback conflicts Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-MU ZONE CONDITIONS •Freeway -Noise and pollution from vehicles •Noise attenuation requirements condition •30 dbs attenuation for bedrooms/25 dbs elsewhere •Freeway landscaping (already required)help mitigate pollution •New condition not in report: •MERV 13 rated air filters in HVAC systems to reduce PM 2.5 air pollution from the freeway •OHV Park (ATVs)-Noise and dust from ATVs: •Intermittent noise can be very loud •Dust has negative health impacts •Recommend sound notice be provided to tenants/future owners •Recommend landscape buffer to help capture dust Salt Lake City // Planning Division FREEWAY NOISE/POLLUTION I-215 bordering site on west OHV State Park bordering site on east •Applicant original RMF-75 zone request •Concerns with single-use, no potential for local services (retail) •Staff discussed with applicant •Recommending the mixed-use residential zone to allow for services •Considered other zones and impacts •General Commercial/Industrial zones •Higher impact uses, loud outdoor mechanical uses •Residential/lower intensity commercial (office, retail, restaurant) •Little to no negative impacts to recreational uses •Additional recreational users •Activity and eyes on the recreational spaces Salt Lake City // Planning Division ALTERNATIVE ZONES/USES •Applicant included a concept plan, showing 1,800 dwelling units •Planned Development would be required due to having buildings without street frontage Salt Lake City // Planning Division CONCEPT SITE PLAN •Two letters generally opposed to the residential zone •One letter with conditions related to health/air quality •No letter from community council •RAC Use Clarification •Doesn’t currently have drop-in play hours •Use requires reservation and insurance policy •Construction Mitigation •Concerns regarding future construction activity •Condition: Work on a condition regarding construction mitigation to limit impacts Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC INPUT RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division Staff recommends a positive recommendation to the City Council with conditions as listed in the report: 1.Roadway/Traffic Improvements 2.Rose Park Lane Improvements 3.Sidewalk Improvements 4.Public Utility Improvements 5.City Drain Lift Station 6.City Drain Setbacks 7.R-MU Setback Modification 8.General Parking Requirement 9.Sound Attenuation 10.State Park Landscape Buffer 11.State Park Noise Disclosure Salt Lake City // Planning Division RECOMMENDATION Additional conditions not in report: 12. HVAC Filters: •That air filters with a minimum rating of MERV 13, or equivalent, shall be used in all HVAC equipment. This applies to any replacement filters. 13.Construction Impacts: •That City Staff develop a condition to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties from construction activity on the 2350 and 2441 properties. QUESTIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com PLANNING COMMISSION – March 8, 202333 c. Applicant Presentation Slides Albuquerque | Boise | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Phoenix | Portland | Reno | Salt Lake Ci ty | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. 2350 N Rose Park Lane North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 Salt Lake City Planning Commission– February 22, 2023 Context Aerial 2 Context Aerial 3 Applicant Parcel to be Rezoned Salt Lake City Parcel to be Annexed State of Utah Parcel to be Annexed Applicant Parcel to be Annexed and Zoned City Boundary Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) 4 Rose Park Small Area Plan (2001) -Policy: •Retain existing agricultural land uses along Rose Park Lane. -Policy: •If properties in the County are annexed into the City, retain the existing land use development by zoning the properties either agricultural or Open Space. -Discussion: •If and when existing properties in the County are annexed into the City they should be zoned for either agricultural or open space land uses to be compatible with the State recreational and open space land uses between Redwood Road and Interstate-215. 5 Current Zoning AG-2 BP PL M-1 6 Salt Lake County Zoning: A-5 Proposed Zoning R-MU BP PL M-1 7 Site Plan 8 Site Plan 9 Site Rendering 10 Conditions of Approval 11 1.That the owner of the 2350 N and 2441 N properties enter into a development agreement with the City that does the following: i.Traffic Impact Study Improvements: That the improvements noted in the transportation impact study addendum (dated 12/23/22), or equivalent improvements as determined by the Transportation Director, are completed prior to any Certificates of Occupancy being issued for development of the property. If other uses are proposed on site that differ from those evaluated in the study, the Transportation Director shall have the ability to require additional traffic studies and may require different off-site improvements for traffic impacts identified in such studies. (See Consideration 2) ii.Rose Park Lane Improvements: The developer shall make all public right of way improvements to the adjacent street Rose Park Lane that would be required by a subdivision process for each phase of their development in compliance with the improvement standards of Chapter 20.40 “Improvements and Flood Control” and Chapter 20.12 “Design Standards and Requirements” including, but not limited to, road widening, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, and park strip landscaping. This may include additional right-of-way improvement beyond the west-half of the adjacent Rose Park Lane right-of-way. (See Consideration 2) iii.Sidewalk Improvements: Sidewalk shall be installed both adjacent to the site and off-site to provide a complete pedestrian connection from each phase of the development to existing sidewalk infrastructure along the Regional Athletic Complex. Sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet. A crosswalk shall also be installed across Rose Park Lane. The final configuration of the sidewalk and crosswalk is subject to Transportation, Engineering, and Planning Director approval. (See Consideration 2) iv.Public Utility Improvements: That the developer complies with all Public Utility Department requirements to serve the development, including, but not limited to, installation of offsite water and sewer improvements. (See Consideration 2) v.City Drain Usage: If future development plans require discharging to City Drain, there may be offsite lift station upgrades required as determined by the Public Utilities Director. (See Consideration 2) vi.City Drain Setback: That a 50' setback from the City Drain apply to development of the property, measured from the average high-water elevation of the City Drain. No buildings or parking pavement shall be constructed within the setback. Fences, landscaping, sidewalks, and other improvements may be located within the setback. (See Consideration 3) Conditions of Approval 12 vii.R-MU Setback Conflicts: That the maximum front setback provisions of the R-MU ordinance in section 21A.24.170.E.8 do not apply where a greater setback is required along the City Drain (canal) or by the Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback where conditioned to apply along Rose Park Lane. (See Consideration 3) viii.Parking Requirement: That any uses comply with the General Context minimum parking requirements in Table 21A.44.040-A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. This does not preclude modifications through the options provided in the Zoning Ordinance. (See Consideration 3) ix.Sound Attenuation: That residential uses be built with at least 30 dBs of sound attention in sleeping areas and 25 dBs of attenuation in other areas, due to the proximity to the freeway and noise impacts. A sound attenuation study would need to be provided to verify compliance, as described in City Code 18.88.020. (See Consideration 4) x.State Park Adjacent Landscaping: That the landscaped setback requirements of the “Freeway Scenic Landscape Setback” of 21A.48.110 (or its successor) be applied along the east property line where it is directly across the street from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area (2462 N Rose Park Lane). The requirement shall apply where new development occurs within 100' of that portion of the east property line. (See Consideration 4) xi.State Park Noise Disclosure: That a disclosure be provided to future residents, tenants, and owners regarding the potential for high levels of noise from the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area. (See Consideration 4) North Rose Park Lane Annexation and Zoning Amendment PLNPCM2021-01124 and PLNPCM2021-01134 Salt Lake City Planning Commission –February 22, 2023 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS Updated 7/1/20 Zoning Amendment Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N IN G 10/28/2021 X n JAW Development, LLC; Attn.: Jeffrey D. Wright, P.E. and Jay Bollwinkel 801-302-2200; 801-364-9696 jeff@jwright.biz; jayb@grassligroup.com 801-386-6820; 801-364-9696 n jeff@jwright.biz 801-302-2200 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 357 West 6160 South, Murray, UT 84107 JWright Communities Updated 7/1/20 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 In Person: Planning Counter 451 South State Street, Room 215 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. X X X X X 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT A SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PURPOSE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION: •Acreage: 4.93 acres •Address: 2350 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 (the “Property”) •Current Zoning: Agricultural 2 Acre Minimum (AG-2) •Proposed Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75) 2. A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED: The Property is currently in Salt Lake City. The intention is to annex in adjoining land from unincorporated Salt Lake County (the “Annexation Property”)1 and have a single, integrated multifamily project located on the combined land. The requested rezone will facilitate the development of this project, and will tie in infrastructure improvements intended for the area to facilitate development. The conceptual site plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, contemplates, among other things for both the Property and Annexation Property: •11 buildings (5 stories – less than 75’ in height); •164 units per building (500 sq. ft. minimum); •Total density of 1,804 units; •Building coverage of 29%; •Parking Provided: Podium (2 levels each building) (1,760 parking spaces), and Surface (775 parking spaces) (total of 2,535 parking spaces); •Parking coverage of 30%; and •Landscaping coverage of 41%. 3. REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA: •The Property is adjoined by the following zoning districts: •North: N/A Unincorporated [Annexation Property (High Density Multi-Family Residential District (RMF-75)) upon completion of annexation and rezone)] •East: Open Space (OS) •South: Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) separated by I-215 and Frontage Rd. •West: Business Park (BP) separated by I-215 •The Property is located within an agricultural area of the Rose Park Small Area Plan (adopted 2001), and other details therein are very limited. The Property is generally located within the Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan (adopted 1992) but the exact location of the Property is not discussed within such Master Plan. The Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan highlights the importance of eliminating use conflicts between adjacent properties. Multi-family residential housing does not conflict with the surrounding uses detailed above. Further, we intend to preserve open space and existing 1 The Annexation Property adjoins the Property to the north (2441 N. Rose Park Ln., Salt Lake City, Utah 84116). The Annexation Property is approximately 17.21 acres. Applicant is simultaneously seeking to annex the Annexation Property into Salt Lake City with requested zoning of RMF -75. 4842-6277-7292 trees on the Property and the Annexation Property in accordance with the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry. •A rezone of the Property would support business park uses in the area, if they develop in accordance with current zoning. The existing Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) to the east provides an adjacent, complimentary use. Multi-family residential housing will involve efficient use of the Property and Annexation Property and coordinate well with existing and planned public infrastructure. •A rezone of the Property and the Annexation Property will support nearby developments, including, without limitation, the RAC, and will provide infrastructure improvements for the area to facilitate development. We have been in contact with the Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and others with respect to constructing and/or contributing to: (i) Sports Park Boulevard, (ii) the upgrade of the intersection of Sports Park Boulevard and Redwood Road, (iii) new water and sewer lines through Sports Park Boulevard, and (iv) a Salt Lake City drain bridge on or near the Property. The installation of Sports Park Boulevard and the upgrade of the aforementioned intersection will reduce traffic congestion on Rose Park Lane after RAC sporting events. The construction of new water and sewer lines and the drain bridge will facilitate development in the area generally. 4.PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED: •Property: Parcel Id. No. 08153010030000; AG-2 to RMF-75 •Annexation Property: Parcel Id. No. 08151000240000; Unincorporated to RMF-75 4842-6277-7292 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN [See Attached] 20 21 23 54 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % DW N 10 % PARKING ( T Y P ) 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 40'Rose P a r k L a n e C o u n t y Utah State Parks Jordan River OHV Park I-215 Sa l t L a k e C i t y Club House PLAYGROUND PERIMETER TRAIL GATHERING AREA FENCED DOG AREA PERIMETER TRAIL LAWN SALT LAKE DRAIN Pool HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 12 MAY 2021SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 5/12/21 at 9:42am By: dans P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-103 Site Plan MColor 210512.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD 23 13 65 48 68 18 46 12 2 5 44 95 45 56 22 42 11 3 13 5 44 DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN 10% DWN DWN 10% PA R K I N G ( T Y P ) 25' 40 ' Ro s e P a r k L a n e County U t a h S t a t e P a r k s Jo r d a n R i v e r O H V P a r k Salt Lake City N R E D W O O D R D JO R D A N R I V E R SPOTS PARK BOULEVARD Cl u b Ho u s e JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL P L A Y G R O U N D S A L T L A K E D R A I N Po o l HUNTER STABLES APARTMENTS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 13 APRIL 2120SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Scale: 1" = 100'-0" 0 50' 100'200' Plotted: 4/13/21 at 2:37pm By: tylerr P:\Projects\19-103 Hunter Stables HD\02-Working\01-Drawings\01-SD\19-2013 Site Plan MColor.dwgFile Path: SLC RAC TRAIL CONNECTING TO JORDAN RIVER AND LEGACY PARKWAY TRAIL ROAD CONNECTING TO N REDWOOD RD hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ $QQH[DWLRQWR6DOW/DNH&LW\ K&&/ h^ KE>z WƌŽũĞĐƚη͗ZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚLJ͗ĂƚĞZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ͗ WƌŽũĞĐƚEĂŵĞ͗ W> ^ WZKs/ d, &K>>Kt/E'/E&KZDd/KE /ƐƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚĂƌĞĂďŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͍ FzĞƐFEŽ ZĞƋƵĞƐƚ͗ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗ EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗WŚŽŶĞ͗ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ ͲŵĂŝůŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗Ğůůͬ&Ădž͗ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛Ɛ/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶ^ƵďũĞĐƚWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͗ Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŵĂLJďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉůĂŶŶĞƌƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘ůůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁŝůůďĞĐŽƉŝĞĚĂŶĚ ŵĂĚĞƉƵďůŝĐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůŽƌĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨƉƵďůŝĐ ƌĞǀŝĞǁďLJĂŶLJŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚƉĂƌƚLJ͘ s/>> KE^h>dd/KE Î WůĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞŵĂŝů njŽŶŝŶŐΛƐůĐŐŽǀ͘ĐŽŵŝĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ t, Z dK&/> d, KDW> d WW>/d/KE ƉƉůLJŽŶůŝŶĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƚŝnjĞŶĐĐĞƐƐWŽƌƚĂů͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƚĞƉͲďLJͲƐƚĞƉŐƵŝĚĞƚŽůĞĂƌŶ ŚŽǁƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚŽŶůŝŶĞ͘ Z Yh/Z & &ŝůŝŶŐĨĞĞŽĨΨϭ͕ϯϰϰ WůƵƐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨĞĞĨŽƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉƵďůŝĐŶŽƚŝĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘ ^/'EdhZ /ĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͕ĂŶŽƚĂƌŝnjĞĚƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĐŽŶƐĞŶƚĂƵƚŚŽƌŝnjŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƚŽĂĐƚĂƐĂŶĂŐĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘ ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨKǁŶĞƌŽƌŐĞŶƚ͗ĂƚĞ͗ 6$ / 7 / $ . ( & , 7 < 3 / $ 1 1 , 1 * ϮϯϱϬE͘ZŽƐĞWĂƌŬ>Ŷ͕͘^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͕hƚĂŚϴϰϭϭϲ :tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘ ͘ĂŶĚ:ĂLJŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů ϴϬϭͲϯϬϮͲϮϮϬϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ ũĞĨĨΛũǁƌŝŐŚƚ͘ďŝnj͖ũĂLJďΛŐƌĂƐƐůŝŐƌŽƵƉ͘ĐŽŵ ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂLJ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ ϴϬϭͲϯϴϲͲϲϴϮϬ͖ϴϬϭͲϯϲϰͲϵϲϵϲ y ŶŶĞdžϮϴ͘ϮϴĂĐƌĞƐŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͕ĨƌŽŵƵŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ KǁŶĞƌΘZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ March 24, 2022 (via email)Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Hunter Stables PLNPCM2021-01124 hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ ^ƚ Ă Ĩ Ĩ Z Ğ ǀ ŝ Ğ ǁ ^hD/dd>Z Yh/Z D Ed^ ϭ͘>ĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ ϭ͘ůĞƚƚĞƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞDĂLJŽƌŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ͘ Ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂŶƐǁĞƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƐŚĞĞƚͬƐ͗ ϭ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚ͍ Ϯ͘ tŚĂƚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďLJĂŶŽƚŚĞƌŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ͕ĐŽƵŶƚLJ͕ŽƌƐƉĞĐŝĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͍ ϯ͘ WůĞĂƐĞŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJĂŶLJůĞŐĂůŽƌĨĂĐƚƵĂůďĂƌƌŝĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞůLJĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽďĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨ ĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͍ ϯ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ϭ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů^ŝĚǁĞůůŵĂƉŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͘ Ϯ͘ĚŝŐŝƚĂů;W&ͿĐŽƉLJŽĨƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚ͘ ϯ͘dŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶWůĂƚƐŚŽƵůĚƐŚŽǁƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ Ă͘ƚŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚĂŶĚĐĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚďLJĂůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐƵƌǀĞLJŽƌ͖ ď͘ĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůLJĚƌĂǁŶƚŽƐĐĂůĞ͖ Đ͘ĂĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖ Ě͘ƚŽƚĂůĂĐƌĞĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͖ĂŶĚ Ğ͘ƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞďůŽĐŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ŝƚLJƚƚŽƌŶĞLJ͕ŝƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͕ ĂŶĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͘ ϰ͘EĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘ ϱ͘WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐǁŚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ͘ x ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚŶŽƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƌĞŶƚĞƌƐ͘ x dŚĞƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘ &/>>/E't/d,^>d>< KhEdz> Z<͛^K&&/ Î WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂĐŽƉLJŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŵƵƐƚĂůƐŽďĞĨŝůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJůĞƌŬ͛Ɛ KĨĨŝĐĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐZĞĐĞŝƉƚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJZĞĐŽƌĚĞƌ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞ͘dŚĞŽƵŶƚLJůĞƌŬ͛ƐŽĨĨŝĐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚ͗ϮϬϬϭ^ŽƵƚŚ^ƚĂƚĞ ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ZŽŽŵ^ͲϭϭϬϬ /EKDW> d WW>/d/KE^t/>>EKd Wd ͺͺͺͺͺͺ/ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞŝƚĞŵƐĂďŽǀĞƚŽďĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞŵLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞĚ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĐĐĞƉƚŵLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƵŶůĞƐƐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƚĞŵƐĂƌĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƉĂĐŬĂŐĞ͘ y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y hƉĚĂƚĞĚϭϬͬϮϳͬϮϭ W d/d/KEdKEE yWZKW Zdz/EdK^>d>< /dz:hZ/^/d/KE ;ƚŚŝƐƉĂŐĞŵĂLJďĞĚƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞĚŝĨŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJͿ EĂŵĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĚĚƌĞƐƐŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ĂƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ 127,&( 7KHUHZLOOEHQRSXEOLFHOHFWLRQRQWKHDQQH[DWLRQSURSRVHGE\WKLVSHWLWLRQEHFDXVH8WDKODZGRHV QRWSURYLGHIRUDQDQQH[DWLRQWREHDSSURYHGE\YRWHUVDWDSXEOLFHOHFWLRQ ,I\RXVLJQWKLVSHWLWLRQDQGODWHUGHFLGHWKDW\RXGRQRWVXSSRUWWKHSHWLWLRQ\RXPD\ZLWKGUDZ\RXU VLJQDWXUHE\VXEPLWWLQJDVLJQHGZULWWHQZLWKGUDZDOWRWKH6DOW/DNH&LW\5HFRUGHU,I\RXFKRRVHWR ZLWKGUDZ\RXUVLJQDWXUH\RXVKDOOGRVRQRODWHUWKDQGD\VDIWHU6DOW/DNH&LW\UHFHLYHVQRWLFHWKDWWKH SHWLWLRQKDVEHHQFHUWLILHG ƐĂŶŽǁŶĞƌŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŽ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJ:ƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ͕/ĂŐƌĞĞƚŽƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ WƌŝŶƚEĂŵĞĚĚƌĞƐƐ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ :tĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕>>͖ƚƚŶ͗͘:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ͘tƌŝŐŚƚ͕W͘ ͘ĂŶĚ:ĂLJŽůůǁŝŶŬĞů ϯϱϳtĞƐƚϲϭϲϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕DƵƌƌĂLJ͕hdϴϰϭϬϳ 01/0 138z/7. 1z 233 z/ z53!z /6-49z/ z2)3z)( vz vz vddz "z oCz z z z ?CMZJz BlQrz do\bz BC^\dCz =ZBzd=rzeK=ez #z oCz =Vz =_Cz eKCz \oZC_dz \DzeLCz ^_\z C_frz MBCZeMGCBz Mz eKCz =hg=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz eK=ez eKCz de=eCWCZedz KC_CMZz @\Ze=M[CBz =[Bz eKCz MZH_X=fM\[z ^_\mMBCBz M[z eKCz =fg=@KCBz ^Q=Zdz =[Bz \eKC_z CpKM?Medz =_CzM[z =QQz _Cd^C@edz e_lCz =[Bz @\__C@ez e\ez eKCz ?Cdez \EzWrz \l_z PZ\oQCBJC z "z =Qd\z =@OZ\oQCBJCz eK=ez #z oCz K=mCz _C@CMmCBz o`MefC[z M[dkl@eM\Zdz _CJ=_BMZJz eKCz ^_\@Cddz I_z oKM@Kz #z oCz =Wz =_Cz =^^QrM[Jz=ZBz eKCz2=Qez*=OCz Mfrz 0Q=[ZMZJz 2e=Fz K=nCz MZBM@=eCBzeKCrz=_Cz=m=MQ=?QCze\z=ddMdezVCzMZzW=ON[JzeKNdz=^^QM@=eM\Zz $ - +)- %""-,'- - 0_\^C_erz/o[C_z 0_]^C_irz/oZC_z ,\e=_rz 1CdMBMZJzM[z2=Sfz*=OCz\l[ftz 5e=Kz +rz@\YMddM\[zCp^M_Cdz &zz wz $z%z#z oCz<x A Ta:z;z eKCz\oZC_zdz \DzeKCz_C=Qz ^_\^C`erz BCd@_M?CBz MZz eKCz =fj=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz B\z=leQz \_MuCBz=dzWrz\z _z =JC[edz '=sz\QQoMZPCRz z e\z_C^_CdCZezVCzldz _CJ=_BMZJz eKCz =fj=@KCBz =^^QM@=eM\[z =[Bz g\z =^^C=_z \Zz Wrz z\l_z ?CK=QDz ?CH_Cz =[rz =BVM[Mde_=eMmCz \_z QCJMdQ=eMmCz ?\Brz M[z eKCz Merz@\ZdMBC_MZJz eKMdz =^^QM@=eM\[z >Bze\z =@ez M[z=QQz _Cd^C@edz =dz \l_z =JCZez M[z V=eeC_dz ^C_f=MZMZJze\zeKCz=ef=@KCBz=^^QM@=eM\Zz 0_\^C_irz/o[C_z 0_\^C_erz/oZC_z =hCyMdzB=rz\Dz z z ^C_d\Z=Urz=^^C=_CBz ?CH_CzWCz eKCz dMJZC_dz \DzeKCz =JCZez =lez cu=eM\Zz oKz BQrz =@P[\oQCBJCBz e\z XCz eK=ezeKCrzCpC@leCBzeKCzd=WCz $!!- + *- &##-,(- - ,\e=_tz 1CdMBMZJzMZz2=Qez*=OCz\lZerz5e=Kz +rz@\VWNddM\ZzCq^M_Cdz 145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com 0DUFK, 202 Mayor Mendenhall Salt Lake City 451 S. State Street, Suite 306 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Subject: Annexation of Acres on 2664 North Rose Park Lane Dear Mayor Mendehall, We formally request the annexation of the above referenced parcel to be classified as RMF75 zoning. We have attended the Westpointe Community Council and presented our project twice to gather input. We are now ready to proceed with Planning Commission review of our project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jay Bollwinkel, Principal MGB+A, Inc. 145 W 200 S – Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 – 801-364-9696 – www.grassligroup.com ϭ͘What is the current use of the land? – ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĞ Ϯ͘What services are currently provided by another municipality, county, or special district? - EŽŶĞ ϯ͘Please identify any legal or factual barriers that would negatively affect the probability of annexation of the subject property? – EŽŶĞ tĞŚĂǀĞƌĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŚŝƐĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞĂŶŶĞdžĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ;ϮͿƉƵďůŝĐůLJ ƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͕ƉĞƌƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽĨ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ͘dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐĂƌĞŽǁŶĞĚďLJ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŝƚLJŽƌƉ͘ ;ƉĂƌĐĞůηϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϯϬϬϬϬϬͿĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨhƚĂŚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŽĨWĂƌŬƐΘZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶͲ;ƉĂƌĐĞůη ϬϴϭϱϭϬϬϬϮϵϬϬϬϬͿ͘ Property Owners: Jeff Wright JWright Communities, LLC 357 W 6160 S Murray, UT 84107 All ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞproperty owners support this annexation 1 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO: CITY RECORDER’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: The undersigned owner (the “Petitioner”) of a portion of the Property (defined below) submits this Petition for Annexation (this “Petition”) and respectfully represents the following: 1.This Petition is made in accordance with the requirements of Utah Code § 10-2- 403. 2.The real property subject to this Petition: (i) contains land that is privately-owned by the Petitioner, (ii) contains land that is publicly owned by Salt Lake City Corp. and the State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, (iii) contains approximately 28.28 acres, (iv) is located within the unincorporated area of Salt Lake County, (v) is contiguous to the northern boundary of Salt Lake City’s limits, and (vi) is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the “Property”). 3.The signature affixed hereto is that of the Petitioner and who, by so affixing its signature, states and confirms that: a.the Petitioner is the owner of all private land area within the Property; b. the Property is accurately described and depicted on the recordable map, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which was prepared by a licensed surveyor and which is made a part hereof by such reference; c.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(A), a notice of intent to file a petition was properly filed with the City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and d.in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-403(2)(a)(i)(B), a notice was properly mailed to each “affected entity”, including, without limitation, the public entities that own a portion of the Property, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” , as evidenced by that certificate of completion attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 4.The Petitioner hereby designates the following person as the sole sponsor, and the contact sponsor, for this Petition. The sponsor’s contact information is as follows: Jay Bollwinkel 145 W 200 S Salt Lake City, UT 84101 jayb@grassligroup.com 5.The Property is not, in whole or in part, subject to any other petition for annexation that was previously filed that has not been denied, rejected, or granted, in accordance to Utah Code § 10-2-403(4). 2 WHEREFORE, Petitioner hereby requests that this Petition be considered, accepted, and certified by the Salt Lake City Recorder in accordance with Utah Code § 10-2-405. DATED this day of March 2022. PETITIONER: JWright Communities By: Name: Jeffery D. Wright Its: NOTICE: THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC ELECTION ON THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY THIS PETITION BECAUSE UTAH LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN ANNEXATION TO BE APPROVED BY VOTERS AT A PUBLIC ELECTION. IF YOU SIGN THIS PETITION AND LATER DECIDE THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE PETITION, YOU MAY WITHDRAW YOUR SIGNATURE BY SUBMITTING A SIGNED, WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL WITH THE RECORDER OR CLERK OF SALT LAKE CITY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW YOUR SIGNATURE, YOU SHALL DO SO NO LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER SALT LAKE CITY RECEIVES NOTICE THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED. CONTACT SPONSOR: By: Name: Jay Bollwinkel Its: 23rd 3 EXHIBIT “A” Recordable Map or Plat [See Attached] 4 4852-6058-5424.4 5 EXHIBIT “B” Notice of Intent to File Petition & Notice to Affected Entities [See Attached] 6 7 8 9 10 11 EXHIBIT “C” Certificate of Completion [See Attached] 12 13 14 5. MAILING LIST Name Mailing Address City/State ZIP PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY 1545 WEST 1000 NORTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN Nancy B Regier UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION 1596 W North Temple SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 STATE OF UTAH AND PROVO-JORDAN RIVER PARKWAY AUTHORITY STATE OFFICE BUILDING RM 404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107 ATTN RHONDA DEVEREAUX HAPPY HORSE RANCH LLC 88 E EDGECOMBE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 ERIC PORTER 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGER STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF PARKS AND 1594 W NORTHTEMPLE ST # 116 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN: JEFF WRIGHT JWRIGHT COMMUNITIES, LLC 357 W 6160 S MURRAY UT 84107 ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ETG LV TR 2125 N 2800 W BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302 ATTN: TAX ADM DIV 513-5346 ROSE PARK STAKE OF CHURCH OF JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST #2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 PARK MANAGEMENT II, LLC 1302 W MILLBRIDGE LN WEST BOUNTIFUL UT 84087 ATTN: HAMILTON PARTNERS HAMILTON I-215 LOGISTIC CENTER LLC 222 S MAIN ST # 1760 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LBA RVI-COMPANY XLIII, LLC PO BOX 847 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CURRENT RESIDENT 2441 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2575 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2800 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2462 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2440 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2350 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2280 N ROSE PARK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2075 W 2670 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2476 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2596 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2520 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2390 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2320 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CURRENT RESIDENT 2220 N 2200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ATTN DANIEL ECHEVERRIA SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114 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: 8/14/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 8/14/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 8/14/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Darell Schmick member of the Library 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 August 14, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Library Board. Darell Schmick to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 8/14/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 8/14/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 8/14/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Sariah Toronto member of the Library 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 August 14, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Library Board. Sariah Toronto to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 8/11/23, 2:06 PM BCA-00376 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001QwXXUA0/p 1/2 Close Window Print This Page Expand All | Collapse All BCA-00376 BC Boards and Commissions Application Name BCA-00376 Outcome Board Applied For Library Board Case 00072464 Second Choice Owner SLCCRM Third Choice Stage New Profession COO, Morgan Stanley Salt Lake Previous contact with board or members No Previous Contact Details How Heard Other Applicant Applicant Sariah Toronto Applicant City Council District Applicant Email torontosariah@gmail.com Contact Sariah Toronto Applicant Phone Contact Email torontosariah@gmail.com Applicant Address 1465 Princeton Avenue South Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Questionaire Reason for interest in this board The Salt Lake City Public Library is an incredible component of the fabric of our city. I am continually impressed by how the library supports and enriches the community. I am an avid reader, and thus often frequent my local branch library, as well as the Main library. I am passionate about the library's mission, and would be so honored to contribute to that mission in a board capacity. Civic/Professional Org Memberships Community Service activ. past/present I have served on the boards of the Bachauer International Piano Foundation and American Cancer Society - Utah. In the course of my work, I have also engaged closely with many community organizations, including Women Tech Council, Girls Who Code, House of Hope, Utah Food Bank, The Period Project, Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Salt Lake, Utah Black Chamber, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and others. I also co-authored a study of philanthropy in Utah, The Giving State: A Report on Utah's Philanthropic Landscape (2017). Other Information References 8/11/23, 2:06 PM BCA-00376 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001QwXXUA0/p 2/2 Reference 1 Name Andrea Reference 3 Name Diane Reference 1 Last Name Verkic Reference 3 Last Name Liu Reference 1 Phone 801-783-9334 Reference 3 Phone 801-368-7378 Reference 2 Name Stefanie Reference 2 Last Name Condie Reference 2 Phone 646-221-0364 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Female Disabled Veteran Languages English, Spanish, Russian, French Housing ID as LGBTQ Education Level Masters Degree Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 12/29/2022 10:40 AM Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 12/29/2022 10:40 AM Files Sariah Toronto - November 2022 (1) Last Modified 12/29/2022 10:43 AM Created By SLCCRM Copyright © 2000-2023 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved. SARIAH TORONTO sariah.toronto@gmail.com | +1.917.749.4656 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MORGAN STANLEY SALT LAKE Salt Lake City, 2021 - present Chief Operating Officer GOLDMAN SACHS Salt Lake City, 2018 - 2021 Chief of Staff, Engineering CLARITAS LLC Salt Lake City, 2016 - 2018 Founder and Principal, Philanthropic Consultancy Conceived of/co-authored The Giving State 2017: A Report on Utah’s Philanthropic Landscape BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION Seattle, 2012 - 2016 Senior Program Officer, Media Grant Portfolio/Measurement, Learning & Evaluation Chief of Staff, Communications Division Senior Communications Officer, Strategy, Planning and Management FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK New York, 2001—2002, 2008—2012 (via Comforce 2008-2009) Senior Trader/Analyst and Secretariat, Treasury Market Practices Group (TMPG) Senior Business Analyst, Central Bank and International Account Services CITIBANK Assistant Vice President, Promotions Management, Citi f/i New York, 2000 Global Management Associate, Citibank Global Technology Infrastructure Various, 1998—2000 BOARD SERVICE GINA BACHAUER INTERNATIONAL PIANO FOUNDATION AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY—UTAH CHAPTER EDUCATION INSEAD WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AMEC INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE IN MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION INTERNATIONAL MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION University of South Carolina, Russian track BA, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, SPANISH (cum laude) Brigham Young University 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: 8/21/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 8/21/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 8/21/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Turner Bitton member of the Planning Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 August 21, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Planning Commission Turner Bitton to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Friday, December 31, 2027. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 8/21/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 8/21/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 8/21/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Carlos Santos-Rivera member of the Planning Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 August 21, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Planning Commission Carlos Santos-Rivera to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Friday, December 31, 2027. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file t IVORY UNIVERSITY HOUSE Public Benefit Analysis Project Description • Philanthropically driven student housing project located on the corner of Mario Capecchi Drive and South', Campus Drive • Provides 465 units at 80% AMI • Ivory family has committed that 25% of students will receive housing aid • Next to TRAX BUILDING A EAST LLEVAT ION • All profits donated to the Ivory University House Scholarship Fund administered by the University of Utah Ownership Structure • Tenant: Ivory University House, L3C Utah definition of BC — "A Low -Profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) shall significantly further the accomplishment of one or more charitable or educational purposes within the meaning of Section 170(c)(2)(B), Internal Revenue Code; shall demonstrate that it would not be formed but for the company's relationship to the accomplishment of a charitable or educational purpose; subject to Subsection (3), may not have as a significant purpose the production of income or the appreciation of property; and may not have as a purpose to accomplish one or more political or legislative purposes within the meaning of Section 170(c)(2)(D), Internal Revenue Code." • Why L3C? Saved $7,680,000 in general contractor fees by Ivory Commercial doing project at cost. • The BC is wholly owned by a trust whose sole beneficiary is Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation Landlod: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • 99-year Ground Lease • Requires all profits to be donated to University of Utah • Prohibits transfer of lease to any for -profit entity Building Permit Fee Waiver Request • Salt Lake City Code 18.20.220 already provides a waiver for "nonprofit organization" that provides housing for persons or families under eighty percent (80%) of the city's median income. • Ivory University House operates on a non-profit basis and will provide housing at 80% AMI PEWIT 1ST PHASE FEES PAID Building Permit Fee $211,114.98 Plan Check Fee $137,224.74 Utah State Surcharge $2,111.15 Fire Sprinkler $3,398.41 Plumbing $8,080.71 Electrical $4,315.60 Mechanical $6,429.83 Fire Alarm Permit Not yet applied for Total $372,675.42 2ND PHASE FEES PAID $211,117.77 $137,226.55 - $2,111.18 $3,398.41 $9,572.78 $5,805.61 $12,575.51 Not yet applied for $381,807.81 TO7A $422,232.75 $274,451.29 $4,222.33 $6,796.82 $17,653.49 $10,121.21� $19,005.34 Not yet applied for $754,483.23 Impact Fee Waiver Request Total Impact Fee Waiver Request - $1,648,714 • $1,431,270 of the fee is allocated t❑ park impacts • Data gleaned from a sample of 849 students currently living on campus at the University of Utah demonstrates IUH will not have a significant park impact • Approximately 88 percent of students reported spending at least half of their free time on campus, with 64 percent spending most, nearly all, or all their free time on campus. • Regarding time spent off campus, 73 percent reported spending "very little" or "none" of their off -campus free time at a park, natural area, or trail. • $217,444 of the fee is allocated to fire, police, and roadwav impacts • New construction with state-of-the-art fire mitigation system • IUH has contract with University of Utah police • Project is next to TRAX and is projected to lessen, not increase, impacts on roads Partnership Offer - $2.4M Scholarships for SLC Residents In addition to the other public benefits, and in recognition of the collaboration from the City, Ivory University House has offered to provide dollar for dollar scholarships for SLC residents. Paid over a 10-year Period • Need -based Scholarships for tuition, fees, housing, or paid internships Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/16/2023 9:16 Cindy Cromer Another fire in the histroic district/D4 another fire in the historic district heading over now to see how far the damage spread; one of 5 vacant buildings within a block of my properties I am completely done with the City's failure to do anything. The building next to me isn't completely boarded after being empty for 18 years. c Massive fire breaks out at abandoned 3-story building near downtown Salt Lake City | KUTV 8/16/2023 10:40 Laura Erekson Artist Career Empowerment/D5 Dear Darin Mano, I wanted to thank you for the Salt Lake City Arts Council Artist Career Empowerment Grant that will enable me to realize a project I've wanted to do for some time now as well as further my career as a visual artist. I will be holding a tactile art exhibit with extremely textural paintings made for the viewer to experience through touch as opposed to sight. A portion of these works will be composed using collected objects and plant matter gathered by students of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. In conjunction with this exhibit, I will hold an experiencing art through texture workshop with blind and visually impaired students of the community. The exhibit will be held at the art warehouse Sugar Space in District 2 of Salt Lake City on Friday November 3rd 6pm - 9:30pm. The purpose of this exhibit is to bring an otherwise marginalized and overlooked population of the community to the forefront of the art scene. Not only will they be involved in the creation process of the show, but they will be able to “see” the paintings as they see the world—with their hands. Viewers who are not blind or visually impaired will be given the option to experience the exhibit with a blindfold and rope guiding them through the works. Thank you for your support and I hope to see you at the event! Best, Laura Erekson 8/16/2023 13:54 Julie Sanders Ivory Homes proposed Development at 675 N. F Street Whom it May Concern. I live in SLC on Tomahawk Drive. I have lived in my home for over 15 years and have seen many changes in SLC during this period of time. Some changes are good and some are not so good. I strongly feel that the addition of the Ivory Homes Development falls into the not so good change for the following reasons. 1. The area is not large enough to accommodate the number of proposed homes especially with ADUs. They will be crammed together. What about parking? snow removal? can fire trucks get in the proposed streets? 2. The proposed walking trails are a joke. 3. Our current roads can barely handle the car, bike, walking and scooter traffic now. What will happen with an influx of people? I can’t speak about water and sewer... 4. These will be expensive homes. That is NOT what is needed in SLC. We need moderately priced homes for families. Families are needed to support the public schools. 5. There is no benefit to the community from this project except for the income that taxes will provide. 6. Living on Tomahawk, I am well aware of fire danger. This proposed development would add to that fear. SLC is known for the Avenues. The houses are different. They have character. This proposed development does not fit in. By allowing this you are slowly ruining one of the best areas of this city. Thank you for your time and consideration, Julie Sanders Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/16/2023 16:36 Kate Jarman-Gates In Support of Sanctioned Camping Dear Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Mendenhall, I recently heard about your efforts, including the budget allocation, to create a sanctioned campground for the unsheltered in our city. When I heard about it I gasped with joy. This is exactly what we need! Thank you, thank you, thank you! In District 1, I see a lot of the impact of the unsheltered on themselves, myself, and my neighborhood. Recently I've decided to make friends with the unsheltered when I see them, and find out what they need in their own words. Every one of them so far has said that they have big plans for getting back into four solid walls, and then shared the dreams they had for once they got there. Many of them have said their biggest wish once they get back to normal life is to go back out and serve the community, to help their neighbors both sheltered and unsheltered. Can you imagine what a difference that would make, if we turned our entire homeless population into a workforce for good in our city? Especially a workforce that has direct experience with homelessness. They would make skilled caregivers and liaisons for other people without permanent homes. And every single one of them said to start that all they need is a sanctioned place they can set up camp. That would help them redirect their energy towards improving themselves and the city, rather than draining it just to survive. They said they hate having to be out in public because they know it annoys and even scares people, though they try to be as considerate as they can. One said, "I would be happy to move my camp somewhere and get out of the way! But where can I go? There is no where. Please stop asking me to do something I physically cannot do." They also mentioned that more consistent help from case workers, legal help (not just for criminal convictions, but also for cases where they are victims or discriminated against), places to bathe and shower, public toilets and drinking water, rides to doctor appointments and other ammenities, and public cell phone charging stations would be the next things they need to move from surviving to thriving (in addition to sanctioned camping or secure housing with support). Please, please expedite this sanctioned camping ground, or supported housing, as our unsheltered friends have wisely requested. I'm doing what I can to support the cause, so please feel free to reach out for any support you need from me or my neighbors. I will happily volunteer at a sanctioned campground or to help our friends get on their path to security in whatever capacity I'm most qualified for. With compassion, Kate Jarman-Gates P.S. I also know that this is a county-wide problem. In fact, I'd argue it's a nationwide systemic problem that one sanctioned campground can't fix. But I also know, from personal experience, that small moves like this can have a positive, immeasurable ripple effect. Just because we can't predict it, doesn't mean it won't make the difference we need. Let's not make perfect the enemy of progress. Let's make a sanctioned campground to directly help people NOW. And then we can look at the whole picture of ending homelessness, including getting our county friends on board. 8/16/2023 16:59 Stephen Bitteker Salt Lake's air quality Hi. I'm intersted in knowing more about what the City Council and Mayor are doing to keep the city's air clean. Are you working with State officials in making certain nearby refineries are using the lastest emissions filtering technology? The concern stems from breathing problems since moving here in 2022 as well as a peculiar odor in my hair and on clothes after spending time outdoors withtin the city limits. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/17/2023 13:52 Colette Ruff Petition in support of the Northpoint small area plan To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to petition for the support of the Northpoint small area to be changed from agriculture to M1. I have spent an enormous amount of time in that area in the last 5 years and am astounded that the city has taken so long to change up the property. I became aware of this situation in 2022 when I heard that the city was not allowing residents to sell their properties because of a technical issue. The city has also allowed outside community voices to sway their decision instead of doing what's right by everyone, especially the land. It is commendable that you have given everyone an opportunity to have their say and voice their concerns about the property. However, it is inevitable that this area is turning into an industrustrial business district and it will only increase with the dust, tractors, and loaders that are changing the landscape of what used to be beautiful farmlands into an area of concrete businesses that I see every time I drive on 2200 West. It will benefit the city greatly to change the variance to M1, increasing property taxes paid to the city and allow those that do not wish to continue seeing their property and the area being taken over by businesses, to move on and start their lives elsewhere. Thank you so much for your time and know you will make the right decision for all those involved at the upcoming meeting this week. Sincerely, Colette Ruff Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/19/2023 10:00 Shawn Winter No sanctioned Camp in SLC. Dear City Council Members I am writing as a concern citizen who has lived in SLC for 15 years. It is a great place to raise kids and enjoy the outdoors. As a citizen of slc I am completely against a sanctioned camp for the homeless in our cities borders. I know the homeless problem is not you guys fault and anyone who says it’s your fault is full of it. We have countless reports of homeless people being shipped to our city from communities around Utah and Wyoming. Even the mayor has been told to her face that other cities mayors send their homeless to us. Then those same mayors turn around and blame SLC for how we handle the situation. Ever night our shelters are full and every winter we have to spend thousands of dollars on winter shelters. Why is the burden on us (SLC) to provide resources or even a camp to people who are not from our community? Well enough is enough. We have no obligation to give homeless a spot of land to squat. Also,, we do have a growing issue on our hands, and it is time that we engage with some type of intervention until more affordable housing comes online. First off, I am all for the housing first program. It was successful in the past and still can be. But we need to do something now, and the ideas I have may not be the most popular; however, I ask you to consider them. As mentioned, our emergency shelters are full every night. Why can’t we transport some of the homeless to other CoCs in the state? The latest annual data report from workforce services shows that both Mountainland and balance of the state CoC are only at 55% and 61% utilization of their year-round emergency beds compared to 85% of SLC Coc . What’s wrong with sending the homeless that live on our street to these shelters? They are not allowed to camp on public property, but when I hear people say “where can they go?” we could have them sent to other CoC shelterss. You know that those other CoCs are doing the same to SLC so why not send them back? The second idea is to conduct a Rio Grande-like operation to remove all the drug dealers and drug users from the streets. Many people feel unsafe because they see people using drugs right in the open. It’s only a band-aid for the problem, but drug use and selling is still illegal, no matter if you are homeless or not. Anyways, again, I am against a sanctioned camp in the SLC limits. And I will sue if one is decided to be put up. Don’t let half of the people who are talking during the city council meetings fool you. They are homeless, and of course they want a camp, but they do not pay the property taxes of this city, and most of them can’t even vote in our elections. You should listen to the people who actually vote and contribute to this city. We already are paying a lot for the size of Salt Lake City compared to the rest of the state. Thank you for your time. PS. I have sent this letter to several members individually and appologize for the redudancy. I am just new to this whole process and wanted to make sure I got my concerns to the right people 8/21/2023 10:39 Eileen Brown (EXTERNAL) IVORY HOMES We are AGAINST Ivory Homes Planned Development -- Avenues project. Keep the S-1 zone. We do not need more expensive massive homes. Ivory has twisted their claims as far as “affordability, trails, open spaces", etc. Adding ADU to each of the 21 units will add enormously to the long term traffic up and down the Aves., not to mention the short term noise, pollution, congestion and damage to roads caused by heavy construction trucks going up and down for many months. What a nightmare. Ridiculous location for this development in the first place, project should never have been approved, but rather kept as a park for the next generations. We will never get back the beautiful trees and open space. Suggestion: Develop some empty office/public buildings downtown into more affordable housing….and I mean affordable, with rents no more than $1,500 mo. for average 2 bedroom. Subsidized by Ivory. Eileen and Jim Brown Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/21/2023 15:45 Jan McKinnon (EXTERNAL) Ivory's Planned Development/Parking! Dear Aaron This is my second email to you regarding the Planned Development by Ivory Homes. I have grave concerns about the design and especially with what looks like nine homes facing Capitol Park Avenue. As you may not know, Capitol Park Avenue is a private road owned by the HOA's of the Meridian and Capitol Park Avenue. We pay to have the road maintained but also have always prohibited parking on the road. With the front door of these nine residences facing Capitol Park Avenue, I suspect the owners are going to try and park on a road posted as "No Parking" and they will be ticketed or towed. There are a number of reasons why cars are not allowed to park on Capitol Park Avenue. The main reason being is that it isn't as wide as a normal city street and cars parked on the road inhibit travel of cars driving through the neighborhood and would also create difficulty for emergency vehicles responding to an emergency. Parked cars on the road during the winter would make it impossible for our snow plows to clear the snow from the streets. Capitol Park Avenue HOA members were required to provide at least three enclosed parking spaces when the house was built. In addition, they have double wide driveways that are deep enough to accommodate several guest cars if needed. The Meridien has underground resident parking and two large guest parking lots above ground. The lack of parking in the Ivory Homes Development in general is a concern. The overflow parking will flow to F Street and 13th Street. In the winter F Street is treacherous and if cars are parked on both sides of the road, it is inevitable that there will be many cars that slide into the parked cars. It's happened before with a few cars parked on the street but you add 5-10 more cars and it would be much worse. This is an easy problem to solve. Require Ivory Homes to build a development using the SR-1 Zone they were awarded by the City Council. Ivory Homes still makes money, homes with yards provide housing for families keeping our Ensign elementary school populated, the development under these standards would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, and a beautiful foothills lot would be creatively developed. Right now it looks like Ivory is trying to retrofit an existing plan onto this steeply, sloped lot. It just won't work. Everyone wins if Ivory is held to the SR-1 Zone. Thank you. Jan McKinnon Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/21/2023 15:47 Judy Rose 1/2 (EXTERNAL) Ivory Homes Proposed Development at 675 North F Street / D3 To Whom it may concern: With respect to: Ivory Homes Proposed Development at 675 North F Street Please see below my concerns about the Ivory Home proposal development: Not Compatible with Established Development in the Avenues The houses proposed by Ivory are at least twice the size of most houses in the SR-1 zone of the Avenues and packed far more closely together: 10 feet between large, 90 foot long buildings. No Public Benefit: A Planned Development allows a relaxation of zone requirements in exchange for one or more of a set of prescribed public benefits. Ivory’s proposed development provides no public benefit. Ivory’s Proposal Does Not Meet the Criteria for a Planned Development: A Planned Development is required to produce an “enhanced product”. Ivory’s proposal is not an enhanced product. • Ivory claims that a Planned Development is required to add ADUs. This is not correct. The City law allows ADUs for any qualifying home. • Ivory also claims they are “preserving open spaces” and “creating trails”. These claims are also both untrue. Sidewalks, which are needed regardless, do not constitute a trail and most of the open space they claim to be preserving was mandated by the city for a public-access park as a condition of the rezone. Ivory should build something closer to the SR-1 zone granted by the City Council. Approval of this Planned Development would make a mockery of the Planned Development process. Not Affordable: There is nothing affordable about Ivory’s proposed development. Their large houses will sell in the millions and the ADUs will rent at high Avenues market rates. Unreasonable: Neighbors who live adjacent to this proposed development purchased their homes with the understanding new buildings would comply with FR-3. Times change. We recognize more housing is needed. Neighbors understand that the City has rezoned this to SR-1, but the Planned Development takes this way beyond what neighbors feel is reasonable. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). These are permitted by the City, but have to date only been created one at a time by individual owner occupants. Ivory is proposing to build an entire subdivision where every unit (21) has an ADU. This will add enormously to the number of vehicles, plus there is concern these units may become disruptive short-term rentals. An Experiment: Ivory describes the creation of a subdivision of ADUs as an “experiment -- the first of its kind in Utah”. Is this really the right location for such an experiment? A site that only borders one public road. Maybe it makes sense in a walkable part of the city, but not here. Soil Removal: This is a highly sloped foothills lot. Ivory proposes to build 21 large, 90 feet long homes against the grain of the hillside. How many thousands of truckloads of soil will be trucked out through our steep and narrow Avenues streets so Ivory can overbuild this lot? Setbacks and Building Coverage: Ivory’s proposal radically reduces setbacks and increases building coverage to allow oversized homes on shrunken lots. 8/21/2023 15:47 Judy Rose 2/2 CONTINUED!! (EXTERNAL) Ivory Homes Proposed Development at 675 North F Street / D3 It is the Planned Development that would allow Ivory to ignore the rules of the SR-1 zone. They want to cut one front yard setback (lot 10) from the required 20 feet to approximately 2 fee No Yards: Houses with no yards are less likely to attract families with young children and will not support enrollment in the Ensign school. Parking: Ivory has provided insufficient parking. They have provided only four guest parking spaces for 42 residences. They have provided nowhere to store plowed snow in the winter. We have estimated that around 40 cars from this development will park on neighboring streets, principally F Street and 13th Avenue. Parking on Capitol Park Avenue: Ivory fronts 9 homes onto Capitol Park Avenue, a private street posted as No Parking. Ivory residents and guests will nonetheless park there illegally, causing disputes and friction between neighbors. Fire: Ivory’s development, Capitol Park and Northpoint sit in an area designated as at high risk of wildfire. There is concern that F Street would become a choke point in the event of a wildfire. Thank you for your consideration, Judy Rose Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/21/2023 15:49 Cindy Van Klaveren (EXTERNAL) Re Ivory Project on 675 N F Street / D3 To Whom It May Concern, Last evening, Ensign Elementary received a special award to recognize the largest educational growth in SLC School District for 2022-2023, among non-Title 1 schools. This honor underscores the excellent quality of education in our neighborhood school. Isn’t it a shame that Ivory’s current plan will not attract families with children as the design has no open space nor back or side yards? This development could have drawn a dozen or so such families who might have benefited from the excellent neighborhood school. Ensign would have welcomed those children with open arms. This is indeed an opportunity lost. Cindy van Klaveren8/23/2023 10:37 Linda Bailey Your Park Strip Violates the City Ordinance #21A.48 We have been the owners/residents for 45+ years in our Rose Park home. My husband and I are both retired and I was extremely upset to have the above-mentioned note left on our porch. We replaced the lawn in the park strip with beautiful red rocks for water conservation (said rocks were at a cost of a little over $500), a lot of money for retired folks. Several of our retired neighbors have done the same thing and I can tell you, it looks 100% better than the yards around here that have 1 to 2 feet high weeds that are not dealt with at all. In an effort to keep our park strip as is and to save water we would request that we should not be punished for our efforts. Please take this into account and we appreciate your efforts in this regard. Warmest regards, Linda & Glen Bailey 8/23/2023 10:40 Margaret Adams Parking Strip Ordinance Hello, I would like to attend a public meeting for district 1 about the parking strip city ordinance. I don't think we should be required to have vegetation and waste water on that, and I also do not want us to be required to have trees on our parking strips. they can damage all sorts of things like the sidewalks and sewer lines and I just think we should focus on saving water and preventing damage to the things I just mentioned. Please let me know if we can do a public meeting. I would like to attend, thank you. Margaret Yun 8/23/2023 10:43 Matthew Yun parking strip ordinance I want to urge you to hold a public meeting in District 1 regarding parking strip ordinance. I don't think residents should be required to have vegetation in their parking strips. We should save water. We live in a desert. Watering vegetation is a waste of money. I also oppose parking strips being required to have a tree planted. Trees have deep roots and break through the sidewalks, curbs, driveways, water lines, gas lines. If the city requires trees, the city will be responsible for damage repair caused by trees. 8/23/2023 11:39 Christopher Mead Parking Policy/D4 Hi there, I live at REDACTED. The city needs to do better and be aggressive when people park across driveways (this happens a lot in busy areas west of the U). The current policy of a slow response simply just to ticket is insufficient. Everywhere else I've lived they just tow when the actual driveway is being blocked. It's good revenue for the city and a strong disincentive when it comes to this very anti-social behavior. Thanks, Chris8/23/2023 16:33 Margaret Miller (EXTERNAL) Fwd: Ivory Homes Development in the Avenues / D3 Please DO NOT approve this development. I have been an Avenues resident for 20 years. The houses are small and very close together, much moreso than other neighborhoods where I have lived. Salt Lake needs more affordable housing. These houses will not be affordable. I have lived near Ivory Developments before and they have been normal sized houses and blended in with the neighborhood. I have heard this is an "experiment" for Ivory. The proposed houses with ADU's will be jammed into a small area with no open areas, no parking, no play areas and nowhere for the resident's pets. Why impose this kind of development on an already overcrowded area? F Street is very steep and slippery in the winter and will not accomodate all the street parking that this development will add. Please DO NOT approve this development. Margaret Miller Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/25/2023 12:09 Robert Taylor Northpoint Small Area Plan I was made aware that my neighbor 2 doors east from me is trying to get a rezone of his property which is currently AG-2 to M1. We live on a dead end street that is only 15' wide with no curb and gutter. I live at 2074 west 2670 North. While I don't want to dictate what others do with their land this is a horrible idea and everyone I've talked to strongly opposes putting in storage units in our neighborhood. Is that even legal? Jon Schrek from the development group OCC was out measuring the road yesterday. 😬 Please help us to combat this.8/28/2023 9:12 Trevor Ovenden (EXTERNAL) Message in support of Affordable Housing Incentives / D5 Hello Council Member, I’m reaching out to you today to voice my support for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives, specifically the incentives that would apply to single family zoning districts. The Planning Commission received quite a few comments in opposition to this proposal, and you’ve probably heard similar concerns from your constituents. I would posit that most of these concerns are unfounded and stem from misinformation, incorrect assumptions, and many homeowners’ discomfort with the possibility of less affluent people living near them. It’s likely that the most commonly heard concern regarding the proposal is that that large numbers of well-maintained single-family homes in established neighborhoods would be demolished to be replaced with shoddily constructed and poorly-maintained multifamily buildings. This scenario is extremely unlikely. The income restrictions imposed by the incentives make it very difficult if not impossible in most situations for a developer to do this and make a profit. Anyone who takes the time to do some very basic calculations would realize single family homes are simply too expensive for this strategy to be economically feasible. Another common concern is that the City lacks the ability to ensure that the affordability restrictions are enforced. Those who voice this concern are likely unaware that the proposal includes an annual reporting requirement that provides the City an opportunity to ensure compliance every year. Additionally, it is likely that many projects will use funding from sources with more even rigorous reporting requirements that ensure that the units are maintained as affordable. There seems to be a lot of fear that that this proposal will dramatically change our neighborhoods, but the reality is that there probably won’t be many opportunities for these types of projects to pencil in single family zones. Concerns that neighborhoods will be negatively impacted by creating affordable housing at this scale are unreasonable and perpetuate the discriminatory housing policy that has significantly contributed to the housing crisis we are facing today. This proposal is very well thought out and incentivizes more housing to be built in our City in a way that is compatible with existing development. It also creates a new path for people to create additional legal units within existing buildings provided the units meet the affordability requirements and building code, and a parking space is provided for each unit. The Planning Division receives inquiries from people hoping to do this almost daily. The lack of affordable housing in our area is a crisis, and anything we can do to facilitate the development of more housing is step in the right direction. Please schedule this item for a work session and public hearing as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. Trevor Ovenden Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/28/2023 13:38 Mark Segal Park Strip Watering/D3 Dear Mr. Wharton, I was recently made aware of the "park strip" requirement to maintain a minimum of 33% vegetation along with an automatic sprinkler system for this area. As a resident of Salt Lake City, I feel this is a huge waste of water, a precious commodity. I am confused why the city is asking all of us residents to conserve water and on the other hand, requires that we waste it on the park strip areas? Why does the park strip ordinance imposes huge fines if we chose to create landscaping that is not a waste of water? We need to reverse this requirement and find a more sensible and cost effective way to keep our city beautiful. At a minimum there should be a means to vote on such issues and not quietly post them for comment on a city blog that the vast majority of SLC residents never see. I understand and commend the city for having requirements to keep our city beautiful, yet the means to achieve this needs to be updated to reflect our current environmental situation. The use of city water in my opinion should be focused on public parks etc.. where the maximum number of residents can enjoy spending time outdoors in a green environment. I understand the beautiful trees that line our streets also need water. Yet there are many properties where this does not apply that are forced to waste huge quantities of water just to keep our city ordinances simple and “across the board". With this kind of outdated approach, our resources are bound to dry up much earlier than we think. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mark SEGAL SLC 84103 8/28/2023 13:43 Michael Bastiani Park Strrip/D3 Dear Mr. Wharton, I was recently made aware of the park strip requirement to maintain a minimum of 33% vegetation along with an automatic sprinkler system for this area. As a resident of Salt Lake City, I feel this is a huge waste of water, a precious commodity. I am confused why the city is asking all of us residents to conserve water and on the other hand, requires that we waste it on the park strip areas? Why does the park strip ordinance imposes huge fines if we chose to create landscaping that is not a waste of water? We need to reverse this requirement and find a more sensible and cost effective way to keep our city beautiful. At a minimum there should be a means to vote on such issues and not quietly post them for comment on a city blog that the vast majority of SLC residents never see. I urge you to conduct a public meeting in District 3 on this issue. Residents should not be punished for water conservation efforts. The city should focus on water wasters. And since many residents do not know what water saving measures are allowed, you and the mayor should form a special water-wise group to inform the public. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Bastiani 8/28/2023 13:46 Bethany Steinberg Zero Scaping/D3 . Dear Mr. Wharton, I was recently made aware of the park strip requirement to maintain a minimum of 33% vegetation along with an automatic sprinkler system for this area. As a resident of Salt Lake City, I feel this is a huge waste of water! I am confused as to why the city is asking residents to conserve water and on the other hand, requires that we waste it on the park strip areas. Why does the park strip ordinance impose huge fines if we choose to create landscaping that is not a waste of water? We need to reverse this requirement and find a more sensible and cost-effective way to keep our city beautiful. Currently, 1/2 the water used to keep our anemic stretch of grass alive on our extension ends up on the pavement or in the air. At a minimum, there should be a means to vote on these issues and not quietly post them for comment on a city blog that the vast majority of SLC residents never see. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David and Bethany Steinberg Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/29/2023 13:32 Trevor Ovenden Message in Support of Affordable Housing Incentives Hello Council Member, I’m reaching out to you today to voice my support for the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives, specifically the incentives that would apply to single family zoning districts. The Planning Commission received quite a few comments in opposition to this proposal, and you’ve probably heard similar concerns from your constituents. I would posit that most of these concerns are unfounded and stem from misinformation, incorrect assumptions, and many homeowners’ discomfort with the possibility of less affluent people living near them. It’s likely that the most commonly heard concern regarding the proposal is that that large numbers of well-maintained single-family homes in established neighborhoods would be demolished to be replaced with shoddily constructed and poorly-maintained multifamily buildings. This scenario is extremely unlikely. The income restrictions imposed by the incentives make it very difficult if not impossible in most situations for a developer to do this and make a profit. Anyone who takes the time to do some very basic calculations would realize single family homes are simply too expensive for this strategy to be economically feasible. Another common concern is that the City lacks the ability to ensure that the affordability restrictions are enforced. Those who voice this concern are likely unaware that the proposal includes an annual reporting requirement that provides the City an opportunity to ensure compliance every year. Additionally, it is likely that many projects will use funding from sources with more even rigorous reporting requirements that ensure that the units are maintained as affordable. There seems to be a lot of fear that that this proposal will dramatically change our neighborhoods, but the reality is that there probably won’t be many opportunities for these types of projects to pencil in single family zones. Concerns that neighborhoods will be negatively impacted by creating affordable housing at this scale are unreasonable and perpetuate the discriminatory housing policy that has significantly contributed to the housing crisis we are facing today. This proposal is very well thought out and incentivizes more housing to be built in our City in a way that is compatible with existing development. It also creates a new path for people to create additional legal units within existing buildings provided the units meet the affordability requirements and building code, and a parking space is provided for each unit. The Planning Division receives inquiries from people hoping to do this almost daily. The lack of affordable housing in our area is a crisis, and anything we can do to facilitate the development of more housing is step in the right direction. Please schedule this item for a work session and public hearing as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 8/31/2023 10:32 Ashlee Mason Construction/Traffic I live in Fairpark but work downtown and wasn't sure who to contact. I rarely write letters to my representatives, but for the first time in a while, I feel I have to voice my opinion. It is not clear to me who at the city thought it was a good idea to do so many construction projects in the downtown area at once, but it. is. getting. UNBEARABLE. I commute from Fairpark to the address above, and both main traffic arteries (200 S and North Temple) are reduced to one lane each and have been hell on my car's alignment. I am furious with the city's planning of this. We're not cattle, and shouldn't be shuffled into nearly impossible situations like this for years on end. I'm a longtime Democrat, but Mayor Mendenhall might not get my vote if she runs again, because this is a disaster. Sorry, but I had to let someone in government know. Also, 200 S and State St. seems like a hazard. It's unclear from the signage if we are just not allowed to turn left from the Gallivan Center driveway, or if we're allowed to proceed east on 200 S. The cones are arranged to make it look like there is right hand turning only, but I and others have proceeded to go straight. I've seen two close calls re vehicle collisions. Finally, this isn't related to the construction, but since I have you, I think something should be done about the intersection on 400 W and 300 N in Fairpark. I've seen near misses and actual accidents occur there regularly, and I find it dangerous to drive through. It should probably be a prominent four way stop (like the one on 1000 W and 500 N, with the hanging stop signs so no one misses them). One time, my husband and I were in an Uber, and the driver drove right through the stop sign traveling south. It scared the hell out of us, and I just don't want anyone getting hurt. Thank you for listening. 8/31/2023 16:01 Aleyzia Grant Fleetblock Good evening I'm emailing you in regards to your building I've been trying to turn that into a place that gives back to the community and most of all are young youths! It would be a honor if you took it into consideration I look forward to hearing from you! 9/2/2023 10:37 Sarah Simkins SLC Police Brutality Murals I am disappointed in the many ways the current mayor and city council have refused to hear the impacted communities on many issues. "Listening" and hearing are two different things. There are many families and community members that have pleaded for the fleet block space to remain a safe space that provides a place for mourning and much needed resources for those living in that area. A city that creates such a place is a city that values all of its people, not just the privileged. The current zoning would allow for all those community needs to be met. We don't need another luxury apartment or city building. We need a collective safe space for the community to aid in healing, crucial conversation, and distribution of much needed resources to those living without their basic needs being met. Thank you, Sarah Simkins 9/4/2023 4:57 Amanda McLearn-Montz Proposal on New Zoning Fleet Block Hello City Council, As a constituent and resident of Salt Lake City, I strongly support increased affordable housing in our city. I understand this will require new zoning laws and changes to certain neighborhoods. However, the murals of Breonna Taylor, Bernardo Palacios, and other lives lost too soon should be protected and not removed in this process. These murals are sacred places for families and the community, and they are a special place to gather. Our community needs special places to gather, remember, and celebrate the lives of those we lost. Please preserve this space and find other ways and places to rezone to provide affordable housing. Thank you, Amanda McLearn-Montz Lower Avenues, Salt Lake City 9/4/2023 11:43 Roger Carrier no wearhouses in wetlands I love Salt Lake City, and I am very concerned about over-developement that impacks the environment Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 8:24 Dorothy Pappas Owen Northpoint Small Area Master Plan As former chair of the Westpointe Community Council I have been very involved in advocating, participating, and now implementing this plan for the past 5 years. I regret that all of the problems and concerns voiced by residents during this period have come to pass. The one positive outcome of this unfortunate situation is that there now no question that such concerns are real and must be resolved. . The remaining question is whether the Council’s actions now will change anything. Not to be redundant, but we do not need another warehouse district. Nor do we want development that impedes the City’s goal of saving the Great Salt Lake and the surrounding areas. There has been much talk that development in this area will bring “good paying jobs.” Within the last month members of the Westpointe Board went door to door to the new businesses along 2200 West seeking their involvement in the community by inviting them personally to the annual Night Out event. We also used this opportunity to explore recruitment of needed employees from the local area. None voiced interest in such employment outreach and only one, a recent Australian firm, voiced support for such community engagement efforts and actually showcased their product at the Night Out. This e outreach experience was enlightening and disappointing. These businesses, for the most part, did not see themselves as part of the community and did not provide “high paying jobs.” Westpointe has had two additional opportunities to have local residents access such employment—neither has been successful to date—one was the new Utah State Prison and the other is with the new Salt Lake City Waste Treatment Plant. If government is unable to commit to this goal then why does the City believe private businesses will? . In conclusion, please do not support the current proposed Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Be bold and do something positive for the area. Coming up with a plan that “makes everyone unhappy” is not an indicator of a sound planning strategy What you do needs to be something future City Council will be glad you did rather than lament about past missed opportunities that makes their job even more difficult (sound familiar?) Thank you 9/5/2023 8:29 Lynn Schwarz Northpoint Northpoint It is almost inconceivable that of the three choices for use of this area, the highest, best use that was chosen was light manufacturing, with a probable utilization as distribution and fulfillment facilities. This choice, in the face of a dire need for space for housing, in the face of a Great Salt Lake in desperate trouble, and in the face of pollution so severe that it shortens people's life spans, choosing a use that will probably add a significant number of trucks to the area, was your preferred choice. Talk about adding insult to the injury of the Inland Port. In this time of our housing crisis any proposed land useshould be for housing as a first choice, and any other use should prioritize a use with the potential for generating the least pollution as possible, especially on the West Side. A use such as a Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area would be a preferred second choice. A light industrial use should not even be considered a viable use. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 8:34 Rebecca W Davis Opposition to Creation of Northpoint District Master Plan as Written I am in opposition to the creation of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan as currently written because it will greenlight millions of square feet of new warehouse construction in Salt Lake City on currently undeveloped Great Salt Lake wetlands and uplands. The Master Plan has no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses which is unacceptable. The health of Salt Lake City’s citizens is too important to allow more warehouses to be built which will result in thousands of diesel trucks servicing these warehouses creating more water, noise, air and light pollution in Salt Lake City and surrounding communities, along with traffic congestion. These warehouses are in addition to warehouses being built as part of the Utah Inland Port which allows for 152 million square feet of new warehouse development. This is not the best use for this area which is home to a nearby residential community. The health and well-being of these residents as well as the rest of the citizens of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County must be considered with reasonable restrictions being placed on the Northpoint District. The survival of the Great Salt Lake and its wetlands which are critical to the survival of migrating birds is more important than more warehouses and the problems they cause. Thank you. Rebecca Davis 9/5/2023 9:04 Danial Rubenstein 1/2 2200 W Construction I am a Veteran who served our country with my heart and soul. I’m still dealing with many issues related to my service to this beloved country that I love so very much. I genuinely need peace in my life. Please consider this letter as it is written with the pain I have endured. I have no choice but to leave the home I have loved for 22 years. I have lived at 2680 N. 2200 W. for the last 22 years. I very much love living here. Unfortunately, now with the decision of the city council to allow the North Point Distribution project on the west side of 2200 West to move forward. My life has been completely turned upside down. Since last February of 2022, living here has been unbearable. In the beginning, 300 semi-trucks drove up and down this small 2-lane road daily, with 40-foot side loaders bringing in backfill to start the project moving forward. This was the beginning of the issues I now face, and it's only getting worse. In April, road construction began for the Gas line. The city allowed work to start at 12 am until 7 pm. With no regard to the residents living on 2200 W. I have to wake up at 5 am to start my day. I'm dealing with loud noises, lights, large trucks heavy equipment, and compactors shaking my home 18 hours a day. I can’t sleep and cannot stay in my home because it is unbearable. My employer was ready to terminate me because I was late to work because of the unexpected delays with the construction, and I was getting no sleep and was unable to complete tasks at my job because I’m so exhausted. I am a carpenter by trade and need to be aware of the environment around me. I deal with many situations if I'm not aware of my environment, I could place myself in danger and the many co-workers who trust in me to be alert. I'm thrilled the gas line is now completed past my home. The city engineer told me that if I thought the gas line was terrible, wait for the sewer line to be installed, Quote. (it's only going to be worse). Rather than lose my job because of no sleep and being late, I have resorted to sleeping in the back truck at the job site I’m currently working on in Heber. I sleep there better and know I will have no delays because of construction leaving my home. I have been reduced to sleeping in my vehicle. I never thought I would ever have that reality in my life. To make matters worse. I was offered a job at the airport that would have paid me substantially more money. I wanted and needed this job so badly. I knew that I would not be able to sleep in my vehicle at the airport. I had to turn this opportunity down. I am responsible for keeping the ditch on my property clear of debris. The trucks are destroying the ditch. I’m responsible for it. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 9:04 Danial Rubenstein 2/2 CONTINUED!! 2200 W Construction I can not maintain my property or the ditch for fear of being run over by the trucks. I can no longer put my garbage cans on 2200 West as they have been knocked over several times, Creating a massive mess for me to clean up. The post office will no longer deliver mail to me as it has been deemed dangerous for the postal worker. I have lived here for 22 years. This project has destroyed my quality of life. I can no longer rest in peace in my own home. Please allow me to move forward from this hell. I need to be able to work, sleep, love, and enjoy life. This whole situation is entirely unbearable. I do not know how much longer I can endure this. I welcome any council member to spend the night at my home. You will then understand the hell that you have created for me. I'm confident it was not intentional. Sometimes decisions have unexpected results. But the results are authentic for any resident who lives on 2200 West. The homeowners farther east will not understand. They are worried about the wildlife in the area. I'm worried about my own life. Please approve the M-1 with distribution zoning change. Please release me and others from this hell. Allow me to be no longer held hostage in this horrible situation. It is not too late to fix this problem. Please make this right for me and many other homeowners feeling this pain to move forward from this nightmare. I am very sad to have to leave my home of 22 years. I need to make a new dream for my future.’ Thank you for allowing me your time to express the pain I am enduring. 9/5/2023 11:42 Neal Zimmerman Public art along I-80 wall facing 200 south - D2 The enormous concrete wall and underpasses of I-80 lining 200 South seem like an ideal place for public murals. I'm imagining the city doesn't exactly own this infrastructure but it would sure be nice to add something positive to this massive barrier that adds so much pollution and noise to our neighborhood 9/5/2023 13:40 Rae Duckworth Fleet Block Greetings, My name is Rae Duckworth and my cousin is Bobby Ray Duckworth. He is beautifully represented on the building that occupies Fleet Block, also known as Salt Lake City Police Brutality Murals. Below are statements of opinion for you, my elected council officials. The last presentation was disappointing to see, as being part of some of the conversations surrounding this sacred space in our neighborhood, we comfortably recognize this block's purpose. This safe space has united people in grieving, mourning, and pain. This safe space has provided the community with a sacred ground to hold important, heavy discussions that we know our current City is not having internally. This safe space has aided families of police violence by creating a safe community's environment. It is highly encouraged to continue this theme for safety in this block. This block does not need to be rezoned. The current zoning prioritizes the people who live in that neighborhood. The following are ideas you should prioritize in your decision making. The community living in that neighborhood needs safe shelter, safe food, safe water, and safe resources. If you are not building a structure with a roof, to house people in a lower tax bracket than yours, you are failing. If you are not building an easily accessible fridge and garden, for everyone to enjoy, including those who are unsheltered, you are failing. If you are not building access to fresh water, without labeling fountains for "People of Colour", you are failing. If you are not building a central station with resources that could have provided safety for the victims of police violence, then you are not listening to the people who put you in your elected seat, then you are failing. "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Former President Barack Obama With Love, -- Rae Duckworth Operating Chairperson of Black Lives Matter Utah Chapter Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 13:41 Jenica Wilcox Rezoning fleet block I'm writing in hopes of convincing you to keep the community space for families affected by police violence. Please enhance and improve, don't remove this important space. Our city, our state needs to embrace and improve. Jenica Wilcox 9/5/2023 13:42 Nathan Jones Fleet Block City Council Public Comment Hello, My name is Nathan Jones. I am a concerned citizen who cares about the well-being of our unhoused population and disenfranchised fellow humans. Below are my public comments and statements of opinion for you, my elected council officials. The last presentation was disappointing to see, as being part of some of the conversations surrounding this sacred space in our neighborhood, we comfortably recognize this block's purpose. This safe space has united people in grieving, mourning, and pain. This safe space has provided the community with a sacred ground to hold important, heavy discussions that we know our current City is not having internally. This safe space has aided families of police violence by creating a safe community's environment. It is highly encouraged to continue this theme for safety in this block. This block does not need to be rezoned. The current zoning prioritizes the people who live in that neighborhood. The following are ideas you should prioritize in your decision making.The community living in that neighborhood needs safe shelter, safe food, safe water, and safe resources. If you are not building a structure with a roof, to house people in a lower tax bracket than yours, you are failing. If you are not building an easily accessible fridge and garden, for everyone to enjoy, including those who are unsheltered, you are failing. If you are not building access to fresh water, without labeling fountains for "People of Colour", you are failing. If you are not building a central station with resources that could have provided safety for the victims of police violence, then you are not listening to the people who put you in your elected seat, then you are failing. In short, if you do not build resource centers aimed at rebuilding and caring for this community and instead gentrify the area to absorb profit, YOU ARE FAILING. Stand with those who need strong leadership and maintain a safe space for this block. With respect, Nathan Jones 9/5/2023 13:46 Nicole Denison No Port Salt Lake County Council Members: The people of this valley have spoken time and again against widening of roads, gondolas and other damaging commercial projects. These acts benefit a few greatly and affect many who call this beautiful place home adversely. We live here for the connection to nature, we endure bad air days to continue our connection to these mountains, rivers, canyons and valleys. Please halt consideration of another wound on our land. Respectfully, Nicole Denison 9/5/2023 13:47 Kathy Van Dame Undeveloped GSL wetlands & uplands... Dear SLC Council, Undeveloped GSL wetlands & uplands are disappearing from the Earth. These naturally productive areas must be preserved for future generations of humans & our companions. Please do not allow new development on any wetlands & uplands within the area of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Thank you for your work for SLC & our Earth Peace, Kathy Van Dame 9/5/2023 13:47 Susan D No to new warehouse district Please vote no to a new warehouse district. It will pour more pollution into neighborhoods and cause ecological destruction on the South shore of Great Salt Lake. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 13:48 Jonathan Constance General Public Comment - Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, RE: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan I would like to add my voice to the call to limit industrial development in the areas around the Great Salt Lake and elsewhere in Utah. As a current resident of North Salt Lake and longtime Utah native, I continue to grow in appreciation for the beauty and uniqueness of our state. However, air pollution is a major threat to our quality of life along the Wasatch front. This has become a top concern and a consistent topic among my friends and neighbors. Please consider preserving natural habitats around the lake and our mountains by restricting further development. This is especially important when the impact of development will both destroy wildlands and exacerbate pollution. Sincerely, Jonathan E. Constance, Ph.D 9/5/2023 13:49 Susan Fleming No new warehouse on Great Salt Lake wetlands and uplands! Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, Please do NOT to create yet ANOTHER warehouse district in Salt Lake City! I understand you will be discussing adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. As written, this plan will give the go ahead to millions of square feet of new warehouse construction in Salt Lake City on currently undeveloped Great Salt Lake wetlands and uplands. We have a HUGE pollution problem in Salt Lake City and it is growing worse. My own eyes sting when I go out of doors and I have to use an indoor air filter. The wetlands are very, very fragile and we need them to help save the Great Salt Lake and to attract migratory birds. The larger picture of our environmental catastrophe is MUCH more important than short term profits. We are ruining all that our wonderful state offers by overbuilding and creating more emissions. This new warehouse district will pour more pollution into neighborhoods and cause ecological destruction on the South shore of Great Salt Lake. Sincerely, Susan F. Fleming 9/5/2023 13:50 Nicola Nelson Turning into California Utah politicians hate California, yet they are making laws and promoting developments that will increase air, soil and noise pollution. A generation from now we will be looking to California to help us solve the problems we created for ourselves. Nicola Nelson 9/5/2023 13:51 Karin t KIRCHHOFF northpoint warehouse Please do not infringe on any more of the wetland area of the GSL. There has been too much destruction of the edges of the lake and wetlands. Karin Kirchhoff 9/5/2023 13:51 Ann Carter Another inland port Inland ports are such a bad idea. A few people benefit financially and the rest of the community suffers. Why do we keep making the same mistakes that compromise health and safety and have no respect for the environment! Vote NO!! Ann carter Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 14:22 Jay Griffith Please Vote No To The Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Here’s why. Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, First, thank you for your public service. It is not an easy thing you do. Earlier this year The New York Times published a piece written by the renowned Terry Tempest Williams. She noted BYU Ecology Professor, Ben Abbot’s January report on the health (or impending possible demise) of our Great Salt Lake. All the science indicates—even with the blessing of a very wet year—a 5-7 window to save the lake. And within that time frame the need to urgently employ every remedy and prevent every detrimental action possible. In light of the local, statewide, and international importance of our Great Salt Lake, allowing a new warehouse district so near its borders would gravely set back the health of the lake even more. Here’s why: • It will create much more air, light, and noise pollution in critical avian and wildlife habitats as well as neighborhoods causing even more ecological destruction on the South shore of Great Salt Lake. • The plan allows for millions of square feet of new warehouse space facilitating thousands of additional diesel trucks daily, with their noise, pollution, wear on roads, and added congestion. • Just the construction of such an enormous facility contributes to water, noise and light pollution, as well as traffic congestion. • With nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City zoned for warehouses, this is the largest zoning district in the city in terms of acreage, while also one of the least restrictive in permitted and conditional land uses. There are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses in the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. How can this be? • Given the dire condition of our lake and the huge negative impact on wildlife and people that allowing such massive warehouses to be built so close to it would cause, I strongly urge you to vote no to this plan. It is a master plan that spells disaster for our lake. This is also personal. I have kids, grandkids, and friends who live in neighborhoods that would be negatively impacted by this kind of development. They already live in compromised areas of health and wellbeing due to pollution. 9/5/2023 14:23 Janet Utt Protect the wetlands. No more warehouse and trucking in the area. Kicks up a lot of dust. 9/5/2023 14:25 Skylar Casey Concerned about Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Concerned about Northpoint Small Area Master Plan 9/5/2023 14:27 Diane Warsoff Do NOT approve the warehouse district! I am a resident of Salt Lake City - I live in District 6, and Dan Dugan is my city council member. I am appalled that the Council would be considering anything to assist in the expansion of the inland port. I strongly oppose this action. Please consider the impact on the west side of our city before making this decision. Please consider the thoughts of your constituents, who pay your salaries before making your decision. And Councilman Dugan, it would be nice if you were to respond to your constituents. I have written to you multiple times with no response.9/5/2023 14:27 Hank Duffy North point small area master plan I am against the proposed Northpoint warehouse district. 9/5/2023 14:29 Megan Barfuss Please DON'T Create New Warehouse District THIS IS A BAD IDEA. The Great Salt Lake needs protection NOW. Allowing more development nearby is irresponsible, please do not do this. 9/5/2023 14:34 Polly Wiessner strong opposition to the creation of another warehouse district Dear Salt Lake City Council, Please do not create another Warehouse District in Salt Lake City. It will just increase the air pollution in the city contribute to damaging the Great Salt Lake, harm the migratory birds and cause destruction on the south shore. As pollution and ecological damage increases, property values will decline. The risk of air pollution to pregnant women and children his high and if such development continues, many families will leave the city on the grounds of health risks. The long term economic value of this area will depend on efforts in research park, technology, and tourism, not on a polluting inland port. Please, think of the future of our city and its inhabitants! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 14:50 Austin Scott Stop Northpoint Warehouse Development Good day Council Comments Team, I'm writing to voice my opposition to the Northpoint Warehouse Development project. We should not further degrade our air quality with polluting warehouse development, when dust from the drying Great Salt Lake is increasingly threatening to human health. The area is called home to a variety of important wildlife and is an important ecosystem to the state. Please do not proceed with allowing the development of this area.9/5/2023 14:51 Kathy Schockmel Against Northpoint Small Area Master Plan The last thing the Salt Lake valley needs is millions of square feet of new warehouse space which will generate more pollution from diesel trucks, noise and light pollution, water pollution and more traffic. As it stands now, nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City are zoned for warehouses and it’s the largest zoning district in the city in terms of acreage, while also one of the least restrictive in permitted and conditional land uses. There are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses in the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan - and as a lifelong Utah resident, I want to let the City Council know that this is totally unacceptable. 9/5/2023 14:52 Sarah Maulden Northpoint Development Comment I am a resdent of Salt Lake County since 1994. I am writing to express concern about proposed additional warehouse and/or "inland port" development at Northpoint in SLC (Northpoint Small Area Master Plan).. I am concerned this development could have adverse impacts on our air quality, disrupt the wetlands ecosystem, and negatively impact residents in the vicinity (increased noise, traffic, and pollution). I am also concerned there are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses included in the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Please consider whether other solutions could be developed that would protect our air quality and minimize environmental impact. Thank you for your consideration. 9/5/2023 14:53 Christine Barker Northpoint No Northpoint Small Area Master Plan 9/5/2023 14:54 Julie Miller Stop the Northpoint rezoning proposal Please end your consideration of rezoning the Northpoint warehouse district to accommodate more trucks and warehouses that will result in more ecological degradation on the South shore of The Great Salt Lake. More warehouses on the west side of our city will have negative impacts on water, noise and light pollution, as well as more air pollution due to increased diesel truck traffic. And, what about the increased negative impacts on the residents on that side of the city?9/5/2023 14:55 Stephen Erickson Oppose Northpoint Small Area Plan I urge you not to adopt the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan. Salt Lake City does not need another large warehouse district to augment and compete with the massive subsidized warehouse area under the jurisdiction of the Inland Port Authority. The Northpoint Small Area Plan would allow destruction of a residential neighborhood, and bring additional traffic and air, light and noise pollution to the larger West Side Community. The Plan runs counter to the City's professed commitment to protect the wetlands and uplands on the fringes of the UIPA Jurisdictional Area from further pollution and degradation. 9/5/2023 14:56 Mary Mcconaughy No to Northpoint I do not support warehouses in this area. We need to do more for our communities environment. If we do this it only tells the legislators that the inland port is ok also. 9/5/2023 15:03 Kimberly Hall Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. I would like to make my opposition known concerning the Northpoint Project. I have been biking and spending time in the area that will be developed for over 40 years and c'mon....it's all just getting eaten up and developed. I know citizen's voices are rarely considered but please know that I am in opposition to another warehouse complex. Thank you, 9/5/2023 15:04 Larry Hardebeck Proposed new warehouse district in SLC I urge you to NOT approve another warehouse district in the Salt lake City area. I believe that this will just further increase the pollution in the area and detrimentally affect the wildlife habitat. As far as I can tell there is already more than enough land set aside for warehouses. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:05 Gunseli Berik I oppose Northpoint warehouse development Dear members of the SLC City Council, I am unable to attend the September 5 meeting. I would like to register my strong opposition to expanding warehouses near the Great Salt Lake. I would like the Council to restrict the zone for warehousing to protect air, water and noise pollution in our city. 9/5/2023 15:07 Eileen Vestal Northpoint Inland Port Council Members---The proposed building of the Inland Port on natural wetlands of the Great Salt Lake is a glaring step backwards. The wetlands are struggling, as the Lake is, to even survive! This will hasten the demise of the whole ecology of the region. I am committed to working to make the Lake and wetlands surrounding it healthy again. To NOT do this spells the demise of Salt Lake City! I am not exaggerating to imagine poisonous dust covering the city so often that soon there will be hundreds of new homes on the market every day! Who will want to move into a city with poison air? The Inland Port is short-term thinking, mainly of profit. Please think long-term about the health of ALL the people in the Salt Lake Valley; VOTE NO!!! 9/5/2023 15:08 Susan Furca Northpoint As I live outside SLC limits, this may not carry any weight, but your actions affect ALL in the area - not only residents of nearby areas, but many other species that have lived here for millennia before humankind took over the land. There’s already been so much damage done to the Earth here and so many others imperiled or even extinguished that we must put the brakes on before it’s too late. Please don’t approve yet another warehouse district that will have devastating effects on wildlife, nesting and migrating birds in particular. 9/5/2023 15:10 Angela Wade Please do not adopt the Northpoint Plan as written I hope you listen to each voice. I think before we build new, we need to live what we teach our youth and children and use what we have already. Before we keep hurting ourselves by overusing our resources we have to renew, reuse and reconstruct. Our legacy is already not as we would hope for our children after we are gone.9/5/2023 15:11 Helene Cuomo NO to the adoption of Northpoint Master Plan PLEASE do not make this area, which is an important buffer to the GSL open to more roads, concrete, warehouses and all the is bad for the only planet that we can live on. Protect the GSL. Protect our health. Don't you have children? WE need to keep them safe, free of air pollution and having the legacy of the Great Salt Lake intact. It's not too late to stop this madness. 9/5/2023 15:12 Catherine McVey Please, no! Please do not approve this project. I would attend meeting, but will be out of country traveling. 9/5/2023 15:13 Deborah Hunt No more warehouse districts I live in Poplar Grove, District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. I am against more large warehouse districts in Salt Lake City and County. Our air is killing us already. Inviting more large trucks in proximity to our neighborhoods only invites increases in air pollution and respiratory illness. We can ill afford this. Especially on the west side, where our health challenges and other disparities already exist. I left Salt Lake City in 1998 and returned in 2020. What a stark difference. It is depressing to see a once clean and beautiful city turn into a ghetto. We can do better. Stop inviting more density, whether it be in transport hubs or housing! Give us space and room to breathe. You are killing us. 9/5/2023 15:14 Laur Florence Northpoint Warehouses Please don't build warehouses at Northpoint. 9/5/2023 15:16 Ron Faich Do not adopt the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan SLC does not need another warehouse district, especially one in the Salt Lake's wetlands. Please disapprove of efforts in this direction. Thank you. 9/5/2023 15:17 Charlene M Meyer Owen No to the Northpoint Warehouse District I'm totally against yet another 'warehouse district' in the Salt Lake area. More warehouses means even more semi trucks on our already overcrowded freeways - contributing greatly to our already hideous air quality and reducing the rapidly diminishing quality of life for those of us living in and around Salt Lake City. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:18 Dottie Hussey Adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Adoption of the plan as written will greenlight millions of square feet of new warehouse construction in Salt Lake City on currently undeveloped Great Salt Lake wetlands and uplands This is unacceptable especially at a time when we are trying to protect the Great Salt Lake. I do not support adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. 9/5/2023 15:19 Caroline Newman Proposed South Great Salt Lake Warehouse I am urging you not to build the warehouse district in the proposed site that has wetlands south of the GSL. This site is not ideal for health of the community and the wildlife and birds that live there. The residences in the surrounding area already have air, sound and light pollution from I-15, I-215, the refineries, Gravel pits and airport. Wetlands provide habitat for crucial animals and birds associated with our location on the flyway. They are also a buffer for flood waters in wet years. They help filter pollutants from run off and industry. As a Registered Nurse and a person with asthma I beg you not to add to our air pollution with construction, diesel fuel and exhaust from trucks and hardscapes. Developers want growth with little forethought for the health of the community and environment. Please allow for a study period, commentary, or EIS to be performed in this area. Sincerely, 9/5/2023 15:20 Felicia Alvarez Please stop (vote NO) with the Ports in Salt Lake County- Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Please, please please do NOT approve another inland port (Northpoint Small Area Master Plan) in Salt Lake County. We need more greenspaces, even in areas that people don't visit, reside, or shop in. We do not need more pavement, more concrete, more pollution, more trucks, etc. That whole area north and south of 1-80 already has SO much building going on. Let's at least take a break until/if those areas even fill up or get used. All over Salt Lake County there are numerous empty buildings. This newest development idea houses so many birds and other wildlife. Let's give them a place to thrive. And since there is so much "talk" and relatively little action about the GSL, does anyone really think that by building more concrete and pavement that this helps get water to the lake? I hope you can vote in favor of nature and the lake. 9/5/2023 15:21 Lorene St. Aubin I say NO Please do not consider building a second inland port. Can we not value open space for wildlife and air quality over industry and money? I say NO! 9/5/2023 15:22 Eileen Brown Inland Port I DO NOT support adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan, and while I can’t make the meeting Sept 5, I want my opinion considered. 9/5/2023 15:23 Doug Roberts Just say NO to Northpoint Warehouse District! We don't need the extro pollution...and do you have to pave over EVERYTHING?? Who does this benefit anyway??? Build a park! 9/5/2023 15:24 Leslie Miller Warehouse on Wetlands As a former member of the Park City Council I understand the pressure to meet expectations from private interests for commercial, industrial and residential development. As an advocate for managed growth I strongly oppose the North Point Small Area Master Plan proposal to add additional warehouse space near a Salt Lake City residential community. I especially object to sacrificing wetlands for warehouses. Permitting warehousing and distribution centers which will increase commercial traffic and pollution in a city where air quality is some of the worst in the nation is irresponsible. More warehouse districts are unnecessary. 17,000 acres are already zoned for warehouses in Salt Lake City. The rate of growth occurring in Salt Lake City and our region is destroying our quality of life. Vote No. 9/5/2023 15:25 Stephanie Weems No More Warehouses! We don't need any more warehouses, we need to save what is remaining of our Irreplaceable Great Salt Lake. 9/5/2023 15:26 Robert Wilson Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. I'm writing to let you know that I don't support the Northpoint Small Area Plan. This project would destroy wetlands and farmland and contribute to air pollution, traffic, and heat waves. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:27 Jeanine Kuhn-Coker Northpoint Plan Dear Coty Coucil members! Please do not adopt the Northpoint Master plan as written. We don’t need more warehouses taking the place of cherished wetlands. Someone needs to think about the future of the lans, our citizens, and wildlife. It isn’t all about money. Thanks for your consideration! 9/5/2023 15:29 Magali Lequient I don’t support adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. We should not further degrade our air quality with polluting warehouse development, when dust from the drying Great Salt Lake is increasingly threatening to human health. 9/5/2023 15:30 Louise Eutropius Northpoint Small Area Master Plan As has been noted and documented in other states, near-port communities, which are often low income and/or communities of color, bear a disproportionate burden from inland ports while not sharing proportionally in the “prosperity”. Too much power is vested in the private port industry in the name of “economic diversification” which can, and does, lead to negative impacts for the surrounding communities. To name a few: potential for decreased property values; air and noise pollution from machines, trucks, trains, and cargo handling equipment; light pollution from both constant and flashing lights. Health impacts can include hearing impairment, high blood pressure and loss of sleep, as well as disruption of biological rhythms from the aforementioned light pollution.Then there are the issues of water, power and waste, which create their own set of problems. Utah’s motto is simply “Industry”. It appears on the state seal and the state flag; the beehive emblem is also a symbol of hard work and industry. While it reflected, in the early days of statehood, the relative scarcity of resources available and the degree of work necessary for its founders to survive, is this really all that matters today? It appears to me that the “Life Elevated” and “Be Kind” slogans are just red herrings. The ‘sweetheart” deals for industry seemingly prevail and to no one’s surprise, are not located in or near the developers, investors, and powerbrokers backyards... I urge you to reject the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan and NOT create another polluting warehouse district. 9/5/2023 15:31 Linda Menasco We don't need or want another warehouse district We have one of the worst cities with respect to clean air. We are in a water shortage. This benefits no one except developers. Linda Menasco 9/5/2023 15:32 Margo Markowski No more Warehouse Districts! Please don’t compound the folly of the inland port with another warehouse district! 9/5/2023 15:33 Nancy Lombardo No to the Northpoint Warehouse District, please I am writing to let you know that I do not want you to support the Northpoint Warehouse District. We all know this will bring exceptional congestion, and much air, water, light and noise pollution to our city. Please oppose this development. 9/5/2023 15:34 Aline Devaud Against Northpoint I appreciated meeting you last month when you were going door to door and you helped me know that you are my council member. We talked about watering trees among other topics. I am writing to oppose the approval of the North Point Small Area master plan, which would give the go ahead for another warehouse in a space so close to the Great Salt Lake wetlands. I oppose this choice of area because of the precious nature of the wetlands for birds and other wildlife. if it’s absolutely necessary to build another warehouse, I would ask that you find another location and stay away from a Great Salt Lake wetlands. 9/5/2023 15:35 Peggy Clark Warehouses I do not believe we need to build a warehouse city in Utah. Our roads are already packed with semi-trucks. Take a drive up I-80 eastbound. You will see that Parley’s canyon is congested with semi-truck traffic all day long. Between the I-40 tanker trucks and the I-80 hauling trucks … It’s scary to drive from Salt Lake to Heber. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:36 Joan Gregory Please Just Say NO to the Northpoint Small Area Masterplan - We Don't Need More Warehouses! I am writing to make it clear that I do NOT support the Northpoint Small Area Masterplan - which as written will greenlight millions of square feet of new warehouse space on mostly undeveloped lands adjacent to Great Salt Lake. Please do NOT to approve another warehouse district. We should not further degrade our air quality with polluting warehouse development, when dust from the drying Great Salt Lake is increasingly threatening to human health. This area, containing 60 homes, is adjacent to some of the highest functioning wetlands on Great Salt Lake. The last thing we should be doing at a time when the Great Salt Lake is facing ecological collapse is destroying wildlife habitat which may be the last refuge for hundreds of bird species. The drying lake is also making our air quality worse. More warehouses and more pollution make that situation worse.9/5/2023 15:37 Margaret Edmunds Oppose the Northpoint Master Plan I was shocked to learn that the city is considering permitting the development of critical wetland habitat near our struggling Great Salt Lake. The Northpoint Port will destroy valuable wildlife habitat at a time that the Great Salt Lake is at the lowest level ever recorded. Salt Lake City should not approve any developer upzone requests allowing creation of a warehouse district in the Northpoint area. The damage this kind of development will do to existing residents, Great Salt Lake wetlands, and our air quality is not in the public interest. Before any zoning changes are even considered, Salt Lake City needs to have a comprehensive plan in place to protect the Great Salt Lake, its wetlands and ecosystems for the benefit of Salt Lake City residents. Please reject the master plan that would allow for this polluting proposal! 9/5/2023 15:38 Michael Evans The Northpoint Development Proposal is destructive! I am highly concerned to learn of plans to further damage the shorelands of the Great Salt Lake with an un- needed warehouse district that will pave over a remnant of once-rural Salt Lake County, affecting wildlife and water to the west, and the livability of nearby neighborhoods to the east. What is worse, is that this Port authority has shown repeated bad faith throughout its history. 9/5/2023 15:40 Linda Smith Northpoint Small Area Masterplan I strongly oppose this masterplan that will result in additional warehouse space being constructed near the Great Salt Lake. There are two reasons for my opposition: • The construction will harm the ecology, particularly the wetlands that need to be preserved by the Great Salt Lake • New warehouses will result in more traffic and increased pollution. We already suffer from bad air quality. Don’t increase the pollution here. 9/5/2023 15:41 Jane Wille No warehouse in our wetlands Please stop the master plan for warehouses in the Northpoint Plan. This would take up precious wetlands that migratory birds and animals use and it would also increase noise and air pollution that would be detrimental to the wetlands and wildlife. 9/5/2023 15:42 Aaron London Northpoint Small Area Master Plan public comment As a Salt Lake City resident I am writing to indicate my opposition to the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan on the grounds of environmental impact to the Great Salt lake wetlands, adjacent residential neighborhoods, and the entirety of the Salt Lake valley. We are at a turning point where business as usual and development at all costs will only lead to an over industrialized city increasingly unlivable for those already here and those projected to arrive in the future.9/5/2023 15:44 Marilyn Marshall URGENT! Tell the SLC Council NO Northpiont Attn: SLC Council comments for September 5 meeting, Why do we need this warehouse district? It seems Inland ports are proliferating all over the state, but there is no economic value and especially no environmental benefit that has justified construction of these ports. How many warehouses do we need? Are they getting them cheap, is that why so many want to build them? Is it a high profit margin product? Being so near the GSL, migration paths and wetlands, let alone other areas does not seem to warrant the intrusion into these natural areas. Who is do doing the evaluations and what is the hurry? Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:45 Angelika Pfutzner Stop the port As it stands now, nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City are zoned for warehouses and it’s the largest zoning district in the city in terms of acreage, while also one of the least restrictive in permitted and conditional land uses. There are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses in the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. This is unacceptable. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE STOP THE PORT 9/5/2023 15:46 Mary Navas Please do not endorse the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan as it is written On Tuesday, 9/5/23 you will be asked to approve a plan for building a new warehouse district that will add to the existing 17,000 acres of land committed to warehouses in Salt lake City. Critically, the "plan" presented to you has no restrictions on how these new millions of square feet of warehouse area can be used nor any protections for SLC or the adjacent neighborhood that will be damaged by this development. We know, that unrestricted development leads to degradation of existing neighborhoods and environments to create a windfall of profits for developers and commercial interests. This is not a plan that benefits SLC, so you as our representatives stand between the destruction the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan will create and your constituents. If permitted the effect of this new conditional use will be to damage the south shore of the critically threatened GSL and add air, water and light pollution all the while adding to traffic congestion from diesel trucks. You know that this is not the development that SLC needs. I urge you to say "NO" to the plan as written, but instead to direct the Northpoint developers in creating a plan that will benefit SLC without damaging our fragile eco system and air shed. Thank you for your work on our behalf. 9/5/2023 15:47 Anna Keeling Please stop another inland port I do not support the adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master plan and another inland port on the South Shore of the fragile wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. We cannot risk further degrading our air quality with yet another polluting warehouse development, when dust from the drying Great Salt Lake is already threatening human health and causing destruction of the environment of our city. Note the images below that depict dust and destruction. It’s vitally important right now - for both the planet and our immediate environment that you rule in favour of human and environmental health over more industry. Thank you, Anna Keeling, Scott and Obie Simper9/5/2023 15:51 Jon Jensen DO NOT approve Northpoint Small Area Master Plan I wish to officially register my total opposition to the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. No more polluting, open space- and habitat-destroying industrial warehouse sacrifice zones! Remaining GSL wetlands are so few, and so beleaguered. This proposed development is the last thing the city should be considering - indeed, I expect and demand that the city vigorously oppose all such development schemes that will only accrue benefits to powerful commercial interests at the expense of our precious few remaining open natural lands and waters. Save our open space, save our wetlands! 9/5/2023 15:51 Robert Burks new warehouse district Please do not consider approving the new warehouse district in discussion on Tuesday. I live in Salt Lake City and particulate debris, dust, air pollution, and traffic are substantially decreasing quality of life here. We have to start limiting this in Salt Lake to try to maintain some quality of city life. 9/5/2023 15:52 Tracy Walton Inland Port Expansion I do NOT support adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Our once great Salt Lake has suffered too much already because of the inland port project. If you truly wish to represent the will of the people, just say no! Our health, our children, our wildlife are precariously teetering on this decision. No more inland port expansion PLEASE!9/5/2023 15:54 Sue DeVall Portect our wetlands They are an environmentally important part of the GSL ecosystem. They must be protected. Do not permit Northpoint Warehouse District. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 15:54 Dani Blatter I am opposed to the Northpoint warehouse district plan I am deeply concerned that we are about to allow development of a massive distribution hub north of Salt Lake City. This will destroy already rare and precious wetlands and buffer lands around the Great Salt Lake. It will also greatly worsen our already intolerably awful air quality by bringing large numbers of incredibly polluting diesel trucks into the area. The last thing we need is to be used by mega-billionaires as a dumping ground for their pollution while they reap the profits. The low wages of the jobs that would be created to service these facilities is all the more reason not to accept construction of this facility. It harms our people and harms the natural world. Please stand with the people of Salt Lake City and say no to this project that will only benefit ultra-rich investors. 9/5/2023 15:56 Janet Houtz Please no more building on or near wetlands It is sad that our city and state officials are not listening to us...the citizens. It's tiring to see the votes for destruction and it goes on and on. My big question...isn't anyone concerned about the impact on future generations? We need to take care of our precious land. Please listen this time...no building whatsoever on or near wetlands. Thank you.9/5/2023 15:57 James Viney Great Salt Lake Wetlands Dear Sirs I great salt lake wetlands are critical habitat for 10’s of thousands of migratory birds. building a vast truck terminal inland port will destroy the ability of that area and it’s surrounding to serve as that habitat. The great Salt Lake as a critical environment is already under tremendous stress due to the shrining lake level. Building this inland port would be a huge step backwards for the environment of Utah James Viney MD 9/5/2023 16:03 Kyle Shiba Comment on Northpoint Small Area Master Plan I am writing in regard to the meeting happening on Tuesday, September 5th. As a concerned citizen of Utah I am asking that the council will not let another warehouse district occupy land in Salt Lake City. This will be a great disruption to our already struggling lake ecosystem. Please do not support the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. 9/5/2023 16:04 Mark Gassinger Northpoint The majority of salt Lake residents are against the port idea, the new mine in parley's, gondola in Lcc appears the Slc gov could care less what we think 9/5/2023 16:06 Petrine Anderson North point warehouse district Please vote against development of this area for warehouse uses. The last thing we should be doing is contributing more to the demise of the wetlands. One “good winter” didn’t solve our lake and air and water problems. The Inland Port will be bad enough ! Thanks for listening to your constituents 9/5/2023 16:07 Peter Smith Warehouse This is yet another example of how the council is not considering our poor valley-bowl air quality and the Great Salt Lake. This, even after the inland port? There has to be some financial kickback involved to fully ignore the negatives this will have on our city’s wellbeing. Please vote no. Thanks to your office aide or GPT bot for reading this, I’m sure it will land on no one’s ears so I will stop my efforts here. 9/5/2023 16:09 Kristen Roger Rogers- iversen Northpoint district You have been told all the reasons why this is a bad idea. Let SLC stand up for the health of citizens, the air, and the lake, even though other entities seem not to care as they approve more and more health destroying projects. 9/5/2023 16:12 Roger Miller Northpoint Warehouse District Please vote NO on the Northpoint Warehouse District. The environmental impacts are not worth its construction. Also, we do not have an infrastructure than would thrive with such an addition to our city. We love SLC due to the feeling of being near/in the mountains. If we wanted to live in what felt like a urban concrete jungle, we would live in NYC or Detroit. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 16:13 Isabelle Ghabash Northpoint Small Area Master Plan I am writing today to voice opposition to the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan as currently written. I am an architect here in the Salt Lake valley and am concerned about the amount of transitional and Business Park/Industrial proposed in this master plan. Our city already has a large amount area zoned for these or similar uses, and the Northpoint plan area deserves special consideration of air and water quality given its adjacency to critical wetlands. (Industrial uses can also be water-intensive, and we know that the Great Salt Lake is in serious jeopardy of drying up completely already). Because the ecosystem at the Great Salt Lake is facing ecosystem collapse and air quality remains hazardous along the Wasatch Front, I urge you to limit development of warehouses, industrial uses, and business parks in the Northpoint area and to reject the master plan as currently written. 9/5/2023 16:14 Joan Degiogio Northpoint Small Area Master Plan As a property tax paying 40+ year resident of Salt Lake City’s west side (Capitol Hill) - I am VERY concerned with the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. It is hard to believe that this is the best use of the area given concerns over Great Salt Lake wetlands and uplands. The West Side has for too many years taken the brunt of the City’s ugly and polluting development. It is time to stop that trend while there is still some open space left to preserve. Once it is paved over - it is gone forever or extremely expensive to restore. Salt Lake is an incredible place to live from the mountains to the GREAT SALT LAKE. Let’s begin to embrace our great geographical setting and not pave it all over. We are a smart city and can attract better businesses than warehouses. I respectfully request you DO NOT adopt the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. 9/5/2023 16:16 Elaine Jarvi Northpoint I would like to express my hope that you reject the proposal to create the Northpoint warehouse district. At a time when the future of the Great Salt Lake, its shores and its wetlands are in peril, it makes no sense to add more ecological disruption. 9/5/2023 16:16 Marry ann Ann Wright Northpoint Comment Please do not do away with the only open-agricultural space in Salt Lake City. We need open rural areas for clean air, habitat and mental health. Thank you, Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 16:18 Ivan Weber Salt Lake City North Area Masterplan: Imperative to Disqualify Based On Critical Importance of Wetlands As a long-retired wetlands professional, whose career consisted primarily of industrial water-quality treatment wetlands design and construction at Kennecott and at international economic development projects in Asia, I can confidently assert the critical importance of natural wetlands for water quality protection and remediation, as well as the extreme costs of re-creation of these wetlands once they’ve been destroyed. From the standpoint of cost of design, construction and maintenance of industrial facility runoff remediation, alone, it is quite simply insane and irresponsible to presume that development of any lands around the Great Salt Lake can feasibly be replicated for any biogeochemical catalog of performance, particularly when control of runoff variables will be relinquished contractually when development begins to take place, and at each change of use over time! ‘Daybreak’ (which began as ‘Sunrise’ in its early months) took place on Kennecott properties that were dedicated to experimentation on wetlands applications to emerging groundwater flows, with the objective of precipitating metals contamination compounds. We’ve not had access since those beginnings to analytical data on groundwater qualities, but it is safe to wager that nothing has or will be done to approach those beginning efforts to protect groundwater, Jordan River or Great Salt Lake water quality. And so it will go in the Nort Area Masterplan, spelling doom for this critically important sector of Great Sat Lake’s future. Please, Please, Please: Don’t allow this proposed type of development to occur, particularly not when Salt Lake City has not yet understood the biogeochemical consequences of what is proposed, what is required prior to and during construction of industrial parks, much less how to manage surface water and groundwater contamination prevention and control --- and the extreme costs of doing so with institutional and intellectual honesty --- for perpetual effectiveness! Natural wetlands are the most precious of all types lands! Salt Lake City, and Utah in general, have squandered far too much of the remaining wetlands around the Great Salt Lake, the other area on our ecologically unique map, to be able to sell so cheaply this treasure. We must not allow it to happen yet again. 9/5/2023 16:20 Georgie Corkery Oppose Northpoint Small Area Master Plan I urge you not to adopt the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan. Salt Lake City does not need another large warehouse district to augment and compete with the massive subsidized warehouse area under the jurisdiction of the Inland Port Authority. The Northpoint Small Area Plan would allow destruction of a residential neighborhood, and bring additional traffic and air, light and noise pollution to the larger West Side Community. The Plan runs counter to the City's professed commitment to protect the wetlands and uplands on the fringes of the UIPA Jurisdictional Area from further pollution and degradation. Please protect our city and the wildlife habitat within it.9/5/2023 16:22 Eric Orme Northpoint Small Area Plan I am a property owner in the Northpoint Small Area Plan area as well as a small business owner in Salt Lake City in District 2. I am writing in support of the January 2023 Adoption Draft of the Northpoint Small Area Plan and would encourage city council to approve the plan as is with no additional revisions or restrictions. The adoption of the plan will finally allow me to expand my business and allow me to create additional jobs within my business. I ask the city council to approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan without further delay. 9/5/2023 16:23 Molly Blakowski Northpoint As a physical scientist who studies particulate pollution and Great Salt Lake, I strongly oppose the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan draft. A huge warehouse should not be developed next to some of the hardest working wetlands on Great Salt Lake, and we should oppose exacerbating the multifaceted air quality crisis from which our communities are already suffering. Minimizing environmental contaminant transport is more important than maximizing profit. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 16:23 Carolee Lewis no more warehouses Do not let another warehouse be built in SLC. Especially where it will harm the Great Salt Lake further. This is very important for our health and ability to live here long term. 9/5/2023 16:24 Alexis Simontacchi Northpoint As a concerned resident of Salt Lake City, I am writing to oppose the approval of the Northpoint Small Area Masterplan. What we don't need is another warehouse district bringing more pollution, causing destruction of natural habitat and increasing traffic into our community. Thank you for all that you do and for doing the right thing in opposing this warehouse district that would deeply negatively effect the quality of life for residents and wildlife.9/5/2023 16:53 Tom Vasilioy CIP Speaking in support of funding request for Garden center and traffic mobility studies requests. 9/5/2023 16:57 Breanna Brannan CIP 1200 E Curb, gutter, sidewalk - I would like to advocate for this project in the interest of safety conditions for the neighborhood. 9/5/2023 16:58 Douglas Tolman Northpoint Small Area Plan Comment Dear Salt Lake City Council, I appreciate your mutual agreement that more warehouses are not what is needed in the Northpoint Neighborhood, this is certainly the right decision. I applaud both advocacy for our neighbors who live there a la Victoria Petro, and advocacy for the ecosystem a la Dan Dugan. Let us remember that we are part of the ecosystem, and that what is truly good for us is ultimately what is good for Great Salt Lake, and vice-versa. I ask that the city annex the proposed area with buy-in from those land-owners, and maintain the AG-2 zoning until a better tool is created to support clustered developments of affordable housing and good-paying jobs that support our local economy. Further, I ask that utmost protection for the air, water, and soil quality along with ecosystem connectivity are maintained along with protections for residents’ quality of life. These pieces can all be balanced within the framework of Environmental Justice, and I hope that the council can continue finding common ground as the Northpoint Small Area Plan is re-visited. Doug Tolman, District 2 Resident Doug Tolman MFA Candidate he/him doug.place 9/5/2023 17:09 Marianne Fraser Tonight's Meeting: please oppose the ecosystem disaster plan The proposed Northpoint Small Area Master Plan will endanger migratory birds and irrevocably destroy fragile, environmental ecosystems. Please do your job to protect the wetlands of Salt Lake City and oppose this master plan. Marianne Fraser, 9/5/2023 17:12 Tom Vasilioy General Comment We have 5 story building build and we make Rodds Herrowed by building big sidewalks cause more traffic fams and air pollution. SLC is building concrete stubs in a west side vestrictiny the rodds, all this concrete is unnessary. 9/5/2023 17:16 Hayden Oliver none Drive-throughs contribute pollution, exacerbate congestion, and reduce community safety. ------ I am in favor of the amendment. ------ I would suggest removing/revoking drive through permits, based on recent evidence from Jack in the Box (state street) and Chick-fil-a (2100s) ------ No carve-outs 9/5/2023 17:22 Scott Haris Sugarhouse Drive Thru Sugarhouse Business District has worked hard over several years to curate a mixed-use community, and it has been quite successful. Sugarhouse is a desirable destination for recreation, dining, retail, and housing. Key to this success is supporting this zone flies in the face of all the hard work that has been done to create what we know and love as Sugarhouse. Drive-thrus only support a single use, and are one of the least efficient uses of space. I support a ban on new drive through restaurants. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 17:32 Merle j. Ebbert Park & Wait Lot Hi, Just a suggestion; If you do not want people in the Park & Wait Lot to run their engines for A/C in the Summer, you could provide shade. Nice, environmentally friendly possibilities are Trees And / Or Shade roofs with solar panels There is generally (at least when I have been there) plenty of breeze if it weren't for the sun beating down. You'd probably get a ticket (or arrested) for leaving a dog in a vehicle under the existing conditions. Thanks, Merle --9/5/2023 17:36 Laurie Christie New Warehouse District Our number one pollution needs to be to protect our children from pollution...not profit. Thank you. 9/5/2023 17:52 Bob Speiser Inland Port Dear Council Members, Please do not approve any aspect of an Inland Port that endangers vital wetlands. Our environment is fragile and our wetlands are especially vital, not just for the fragile species whose lives help keep our air and water healthy, but, upstream, to our own continued health and safety, as has been shown again and again by experts who deserve a thoughtful and responsive hearing. We’re all in this together! Bob Speiser9/5/2023 17:57 Anne wallace Wallace NO to Northpoint Dear SLC Council Please do not approve the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. We need maximum protection of Great Salt Lake and its shores and wetlands. The degradation caused by this master plan is unacceptable. We are supposed to be stewards of our sacred lands, not destroyers of them. Approving Northpoint is the opposite of stewardship. Why does everyone want to encroach onto GSL shores, wetlands, and buffering uplands? Why would Salt Lake approve and approve of all this encroachment? GSL is a national treasure, and certainly a local one. It needs our protection. Sincerely, Anne Wallace -- Anne Wallace 530.263.63469/5/2023 18:22 Craig J Provost Northpoint Warehouse District- NO Please! Dear City Counci membersl, Please stop this development of another Warehouse district North of I-80. There is plenty of room South of I-80 where there are plenty of warehouses. The Northpoint area is too close to the Great Salt Lake, an important bird area for North America. Thank you, Craig Provost Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 18:27 Jackie Daniels-Brown Fleet Block I am writing as a SLC resident in STRONG opposition to the city council taking over the Fleet Block mural space. Call it rezoning, call it whatever you want. Don’t mess with the murals. The mural space has been a place of healing and connection. It is a sacred and reverent space. It is a reminder of beautiful souls who’ve been lost to senseless violence. It is one of the few places in this state where marginalized ppl can gather and feel honored and seen. Where else do we have a space like this? It feels sickening to know that mayor Mendenhall and the city council are even considering tearing this space down. The SLC city council should revitalize this space as a healing center. If the argument to destroy this landmark is that the building is a hazard - then PRESERVE the space!! With humility - preserve the walls. Fix it. Preserve what your community has built. It is not often that a city comes together like this. Preserve and do not destroy. Rebuild the space to provide highly needed services to our unsheltered relatives. KEEP THE MURALS IN TACT and continue to display them! Bring sanitation services in. Community gardens. A safe space from the elements. The question on the table should not be ‘should we get rid of the murals.’ It’s missing the mark entirely. The question should be HOW do we preserve this space. How do we tell our community members that we are all family and that this impactful space is held with love, not rejection. If the city council chooses to demolish the murals, I expect Mendenhall and the city council to do it on your own. Ask yourself if you’d be comfortable tearing those faces down with your own two hands, while the family and friends of those who DIED AT THE HANDS OF CIVIL SERVANTS watch on. Can you really do that? Can you? Bobby Duckworth’s family. Darrien Hunt’s family. Breonna Taylor’s family. Equally as heartless: how will you feel if you decide to demolish the murals- and the responsibility for demolition falls on a person/people of color? To me, that is unforgivable. What if the demolition occurs by a group of racists? That could go bad very quickly. If your child were one of those faces- if your child had been murdered by people whose paychecks come directly from your income - would you let your mayor and fellow council members tear that memorial down? Your community is watching. Please don’t let us down. Preserve the mural space. Preserve the mural space. Preserve the mural space. NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE -Jackie 9/5/2023 18:31 Diana maxell <maxelldiana@gmail.co m> Maxell Northpoint Small Area Plan To whom it may concern, A plan which allows more destruction of natural lands and adds to the already unacceptable pollution is wrong! Clean air and water are far more important than money. Once they are lost, they are more difficult and costly or impossible to regain. An ultimate purpose of government is to protect the health and welfare of the people not just line the pockets of some people’s businesses. Please, protect the public, the environment, and wildlife. Thank you! Diana Maxell Kamas, Utah 9/5/2023 18:33 Savanna Woods no subject Don’t put another warehouse in SLC!!! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 18:35 Candice Pheonix North Inland Port Hello, I wanted express my opinion on the Northpoint Inland Port project. I am STRONGLY OPPOSED!!! I cannot express enough how against this I am and here is why: 1. Environmental Costs are too high. It will ruin wetlands, air quality and increase noise pollution for generations to come. This project will inevitably create unacceptable levels of light, noise and air pollution. Anyone who tells you different is not being truthful. The effects on wetlands will be high and this in turn will pollute our water (wetlands store and clean our water supply). It will also disturb the Great Salt Lake habitat which I was under the impression that some on our government were attempting to save. Maybe I was mistaken. Utah had a terrible track record on putting profit ahead of protecting our beautiful landscapes and frankly, I’m tired of it. See this article for more details- https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/02/02/inland-port-may-have/ 2. The residents of the nearby neighbors are against it. The proximity to residential neighborhoods will have a negative effect on the residents who live there. Be honest, would you ever purchase or have a desire to live next to a warehouse district? I certainly wouldn’t. 3. The half truth of bringing more jobs and economic growth to Utahns is not the whole story. When developers build a huge project this is who gets the most money- the handful of wealthy individuals who built our own in. While it will create some jobs, the vast majority of the benefits go to people who are already quite well off. To illustrate this you can read about a similar situation, Amazon distribution centers, here- https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80935. Its safe to say that Amazon would be a good comparison to how an inland port might impact nearby communities. This article is from an impartial researcher which in my opinion is more trustworthy than data you might get from developers and owners of these corporations. I would ask you to take all factors into consideration, not just potential monetary gains. Please make a thoughtful pros and cons list and then draw your own conclusions. I hope you’ll come to see that an inland port is not a good choice in the long term for Utahns. It will cause more problems than it solves. I know your job is tough, thanks for your consideration and service to the public. 9/5/2023 18:45 Meherban Khalsa Northpoint No to Northpoint warehouse development. We must prioritize the health of the Great Salt Lake over more development. Thank you. Meherban Khalsa, Salt Lake City 9/5/2023 18:51 Guernsey Burrage Northpointe Warehouses Good morning, I am very opposed to plans to build millions of acres of warehouses in the Northpointe area. The warehouses are not needed, they will lead to worse air quality throughout the valley, they will be harmful to the wetlands and bird population that thrives there, they will be harmful to people who want to continue to make their homes there. Sincerely, Rebecca Burrage 9/5/2023 18:58 Ken Kraus Reject/ Do Not Adopt Northpoint Plan Ken Kraus here, writing to the SLC Council in vehement opposition to the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. As currently written, this plan greenlights millions of square feet of new warehouse construction on undeveloped Great Salt Lake wetlands and surrounding area. Such a warehouse district will result in the spread of air pollution into nearby neighborhoods. More warehouses equal more diesel trucks and traffic congestion. There will be more water, noise and light pollution and irreversible damage to an existing residential community. The already existing SLC Inland Port is already an ecological headache for SLC residents. The Northpoint area is adjacent to some of the highest-functioning wetlands on the Great Salt Lake. The LAST thing we need, as the GSLake faces ecological collapse, is the destruction of more wildlife habitat. Show some spine and do the right thing—by burying this Master Plan for the Northpoiint Area. Ken Kraus Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 9/5/2023 19:04 Haley Ashton World Economic Forum report and Northpoint Small Area Masterplan Dear Council Members, I was born in Utah and have resided in the Salt Lake Valley most of my life. Please do not adopt the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan in its current iteration. Building expansive warehouses this close to Farmington Bay would be harmful to birds and humans alike. As our global warming crises heightens and habitat destruction hastens, science points us towards the necessity for cities to be leaders in conservation and mitigation. Salt Lake City can be a global example and leader of a beautiful, thriving city that places nature at the center of its growth and development. Please look to science and the recommendations of interdisciplinary experts so that SLC and the surrounding areas may be a place where social, economic, and ecological systems work harmoniously together. Below is a 2022 World Economic Forum report that “calls on cities, as one of the crucial players in reversing nature loss and climate change, to become BiodiverseCities by 2030.” In the report, there are nine key messages, one of which is that there is significant economic benefit to “expanding nature in the built environment.” Before adopting any master plans, please consider the natural capital of an area. Northpoint is rich with natural capital that should be preserved. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_BiodiverCities_by_2030_2022.pdf Warmly, Haley Ashton 9/5/2023 19:18 Nancy Wingelaar Northpoint Small Area Plan Council Members, I do NOT support the adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. It will destroy more of our dwindling wetlands and uplands. Please do NOT support. Thank you, Nancy Wingelaar 9/5/2023 19:25 Andrea Stavrakakis Northpoint Small Area Plan Good afternoon, I'm writing to let you know I strongly oppose the inclusion of more new warehouse space in the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Our city if already overblown with industrial space and pollution, we shouldn't sacrifice wetlands to add more. Thanks, Andrea Stavrakakis 9/5/2023 19:34 Tiffany James Public Comment My name is Tiffany James. I am with my daughter Raven James. My 19-year old son Zane James was unlawfully killed by a police officer in 2018. Zane is one of the many beautiful faces that make up the Police Shooting Victims Murals at Fleet Block. I am here to request the City requires the integrity of the message and the mission of the murals is specifically maintained in the new zone definition language being proposed for Fleet Block and specific conditions be required of the developer. This type of requirement is both easily done and imperative to maintain the community trust in the City and the Mayor that is embedded in these murals. The city supported the installation of the Police Shooting Victims murals at Fleet Block when police misconduct was getting a lot of National attention. The goal of the murals was to both humanize the victims and raise awareness on the deep impact of police violence to individuals, their families and the psyche of the entire community. It also symbolized the City’s understanding of the same and signaled a desire to change policies to prevent unnecessary police brutality. The City now wants to move on from this chapter of Fleet Block and redevelop the property. This is understandable and while our family is supportive of urban improvement projects in general we are disappointed by the City’s efforts to white wash the existence and meaning behind the murals under the guise of urban improvement and redevelopment. The murals are not only about the families who have loved ones, they are a reminder of a necessary community dialog. This dialog is about the assigned role of police as protectors not as aggressors or executioners. Abuses of power cannot be tolerated by anyone in our community. Keeping this dialog front and center in our community and in our policies is key to making sure we have a police force that is accountable to the individuals in the community.