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 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION September 5, 2023 Tuesday 3:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 17:05:36 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:00 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 2.Ordinance: Northpoint Small Area Plan Follow-up ~ 3:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation- related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/NorthpointSmallAreaPlan FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 3.Informational: Presentation on Homelessness ~ 4:00 p.m. 60 min. The Council will receive a briefing by Wayne Niederhauser, State of Utah Office of Homeless Services Coordinator, about recent updates pertaining to homelessness, including the upcoming winter overflow plans. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/HomelessnessSLC 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 - n/a 4.Tentative Break ~ 5:00 p.m. 15 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Carlos Santos- Rivera ~ 5:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Carlos Santos-Rivera prior to considering appointment 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 6.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1435 State Street ~ 5:20 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2), amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The applicant's 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 within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 7.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 5:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up 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 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 8.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Turner Bitton ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Turner Bitton prior to considering appointment 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 9.Board Appointment: Library Board – Sariah Toronto ~ 6:00 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Sariah Toronto prior to considering appointment 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 10.Board Appointment: Library Board – Darell Schmick ~ 6:05 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Darell Schmick prior to considering appointment 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 Standing Items 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to; •Artwork Deaccession; •City's Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee; and •Scheduling Items. 13.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00pm 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. Administrative Updates September 5, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canArts Council www.slc.gov/feedback/ •2023 Public Arts Goals (D1/2) •Survey extended through end of September Transportation •1000 West Corridor Plan (D1/2) •Sugar House Safe Side Streets (CCIP) (D7) •Ballpark NEXT (D5) •Community visioning has begun! Redevelopment Agency Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPublic Utilities www.slc.gov/feedback/ •2100 South and Highland Drive (D7) •Project starting this week •City Creek Water Treatment (D3) •Construction Kick-off – October •Lead and Copper in water service lines •Identification and remediation Sustainability •The Other Side Village (Environmental) (D2) •The Remedial Action Plan was accepted by DEQ Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPlanning www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments (D5) •Community meeting on Sept. 7th •Gas Stations Near Water Bodies •Including Utah DEQ. In process •Landscape Chapter Update – almost to council •Subdivision Code – Public Hearing end of Sept. •Community Benefit Requirements – 45-day input period •Daycare Amendments – Planning Commission Sept. 13th Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Location Date Time Richmond Park – Pizza in the Park Sept. 8 5pm-7pm Avenues Street Fair Sept. 9 2pm – 4:30pm Neighborhood Hive Sept. 13 6pm – 9pm 9th and 9th Street Festival Sept. 16 10am-5pm Davis Park Sept. 18 3pm-5pm Salt Lake City Main Library Sept. 19 12pm-2pm Sorenson Multi-Cultural Unity Center Sept. 21 4pm-6pm Madsen Park – Madsen Fall Fest Sept. 23 12pm-2pm September Community Office Hours Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canSeptember Events These events are a collection of City sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events. EVENT DATE LOCATION Break Bread Barber Co Mural 08/27/23 Break Bread Barber Co. Mondays in the Park- Concert Series 08/28/23 Chase Home Museum at Liberty Park Art in the Heart of Fairpark- Community Party 08/28/23 All Chay's Urban Arts Festival 09/02/23 The Gateway Downtown Farmers Market 09/02/23 Pioneer Park Pizza in the Park 09/09/23 Richmond Park Tomato Sandwich Party 09/09/23 Wasatch Community Garden's Campus Avenues Street Fair 09/09/23 7th Avenue between H and N Streets, Hispanic Heritage Parade and Street Festival 09/09/23 The Gateway Pacific Health 5K 09/09/23 Liberty Park SLC VegFest 2023 09/09/23 Salt Lake City Library Square Downtown Farmers Market 09/09/23 Pioneer Park Fisher Mansion Beer Garden 09/09/23 Fisher Mansion 2023 Salt Lake Recovery Day 09/09/23 Jordan Park Homeless Resource Center Utilization •August 7th-11th HRCs:99.4% Rapid Intervention/ EIM •Victory Road Tuesday •44 HEART-tracked camps •RIT locations: o VOA Outreach Engagement: 2 o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 8 (+16) Resource Fair: •Friday Sept 8th @ Pioneer Park Kayak Court -Friday Sept 15th Homelessness Update Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Initial Phase •City-State Funding Agreement & Scope of Work •Temporary Location ~5 Months •Up to 50 Residents •Solid Structures (State-Owned) •On -Site Bathrooms •Perimeter Fencing •Neighborhood Safety & Security Plan •Operator Scope of Work Homelessness Update Non-Congregate Shelter Project 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:September 5, 2023 RE: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan PLNPCM2022-00687 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: February 21, 2023 Briefing 2: September 5, 2023 Set Date: February 21, 2023 Public Hearing: March 7, 2023 Potential Action: TBD NEW INFORMATION The Council last considered the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan during the March 7, 2023, public hearing. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. Section 6 - Public hearing Summary below outlines public comments made during the meeting. Since the public hearing, different stakeholders, including property owners, met with some Council Members to discuss their concerns, proposed changes, and how to move forward with the draft plan. Since it has been almost 6 months since the last Council discussion on the draft plan, the follow up briefing on September 5 will serve as a reorientation to the daft plan and related issues. In order to get Council Member review and feedback on next steps, the staff report is outlined in the following sections. Section 1 – Policy Questions Section 2 – Changes Made to the Draft Plan based on previous Council input Section 3 - Proposed City-Led Annexation Section 4 - Related Planning Documents Section 5 - Public Comments / Requested Changes Section 6 - Public Hearing Summary Page | 2 1. Section 1 - Policy Questions Policy questions are listed in the first and by major category so the Council can review and have them in mind as they read the staff report. They are included again in their respective sections below. o Future Land Use Map (more information in Section 2 below) Currently the draft future land use map calls for the area east of 2200 West to be Transitional Industrial. Properties located in this area of the County are currently zoned Agriculture. This would convert the area to light industrial/manufacturing. The transitional designation is intended to mitigate the impact of those uses on the residential and agricultural uses. The Council received different requests to change the future land use map, so the area east of 2200 West tis identified for agricultural uses or to preserve the area for conservation uses. Other stakeholders requested residential be allowed in this area, in addition to industrial uses, and some have said the current proposed plan is the best option. Based on the requests from various stakeholders to either amend the plan, or keep the plan as currently drafted, the future land use map and eventual zoning would change depending on the Council’s decision. Much of the discussion has focused on the area east of 2200 West. Options the Council may wish to consider for the area east of 2200 West include: •Keep the plan as currently proposed – Light Industrial •Change the plan to support Residential in addition to Light Industrial in the transitional area •Change Plan to support Natural Open Space Does the Council support changing the draft plan’s future land use map to reflect any of the proposals by various stakeholder groups? o Future Zoning (more information in Section 2 below) Rezoning properties located within the small area plan boundaries is one way to implement the plan’s vision. During the work session briefing the Council asked Planning staff if there could be a limitation on distribution and fulfillment uses. Additionally, some public feedback suggested the City’s current M1 Light Manufacturing zoning district would not sufficiently take into account the unique needs of this area, and a new zoning district or overlay zone is needed to properly implement the vision of the small area plan. Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? Page | 3 •This could be accomplished with either an entirely new zoning district or an overlay. Planning staff could have discretion to move forward with whichever option they think is best. o City Led Annexation (more information in Section 3 below) A large portion of the small area plan is in an unincorporated part of the County. For the past few years property owners in this area have been discussing annexing into the City. In March of this year the City rejected an annexation petition with the intent that the City initiates a more holistic annexation for this area. Some felt it was important to get the small area plan completed before moving forward with the annexation process. ▪Does the Council wish to initiate the City-led annexation? ▪Does the Council wish to request that the Administration seek Planning Commission input on the zoning consideration for the area? o Response to Public Feedback Some residents requested the City slow down on the small area plan to give stakeholders time to research and potentially implement a proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area. Section 5 below goes into more detail about this request. ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for an update on discussions about the proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area? 2. Section 2 - Changes made to the draft plan based on Council feedback During the briefing the Council requested the following changes be made to the draft plan. Planning staff provided the attached memo (Attachment A) outlining how the changes were incorporated into the draft plan. o Stronger language throughout the draft plan ▪Specific design standards and implementation section were updated by replacing "should be" with "shall be" and "encouraged" with "required”. o Business Park Land Use/Zoning: ▪Removed Business Park from Vision Map and revised the land use category to be Light Industrial rather than Business Park/Industrial. o Distribution Uses ▪Planning staff is seeking further direction from the Council on this issue. To limit distribution uses, an overlay zone could include a specific list of permitted and conditional uses that align with the plan, while prohibiting distribution and fulfillment uses. ▪Additionally, building gross floor area could be limited to under 150,000 square feet1, and building height could be limited to under a specific height (such as 32 feet). ▪If the Council could initiate a zoning amendment that would implement these concepts (see Legislative Action in section 1 above). o 3200 West development concerns ▪The plan was updated to expand on the intent that new development cannot be accessed from 3200 West. Page | 4 o Close or put a gate at 3200 West ▪Based on current City policy, staff does not recommend closing 3200 West because the road would likely need to be sold to adjacent property owners. ▪ Planning Staff does not recommend gating 3200 West as it could create unforeseen issues for property owners who use the road for access. o Future Land Use Vision Map ▪Update to show proposed buffer widths from waterways •Jordan River – 100 feet •Canals and Drains – 75 feet •Rudy Canal – already has a 200 foot no development easement Policy Questions •Does the Council support changing the draft plan’s future land use map to reflect any of the proposals by various stakeholder groups? •Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? 3. Section 3 - Proposed City-Led Annexation A large portion of the small area plan is in the County. For the past few years property owners in this area have been discussing annexing into the City. In previous attempts the County has expressed the preference for the boundaries of the City and County to be cleaned up in this area. Since much of this area is identified in the City’s annexation plan, they felt it made sense for the City to lead any annexation efforts. In March of this year the City rejected an annexation petition with the intent that the City initiates a more holistic annexation for this area. The City’s Recorder’s Office has done some initial work on the City led annexation. This included a community open house on May 11th and informational letter distributed to property owners. Additionally, they have worked with the County to verify all requirements are being met to move forward with a potential annexation. Attachment B - City-Initiated Annexation Update outlines the next steps the City may take if the Council is ready to move forward with the annexation petition. It should be noted that the Council could choose to change the boundaries of the annexation. The entire area depicted does not need to be annexed all at once. But ultimately the goal is to clean up the boundaries between the city and county jurisdiction in this area. The zoning of properties annexed into the City receive their zoning designation during that process. They do not go through the traditional rezone process. In previous annexation petitions the Council asked staff to send the petition to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation on the zoning. If the Council initiates an annexation petition for this area, it may wish to ask the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation on the zoning considerations. Page | 5 If the Council is ready to initiate the annexation, staff will work with the Attorney’s and Recorder’s offices to prepare a resolution which can be adopted at an upcoming Council meeting. Policy Questions ▪Does the Council wish to initiate the City-led annexation? ▪Does the Council wish to request that the Administration seek Planning Commission input on the zoning consideration for the area? 4. Section 4 - Related planning documents During some meetings with stakeholders the Salt Lake County West General Plan was raised for consideration. The West General Plan was approved by the County Council on May 10, 2022. Attachment C – SL County Future Land Use Map shows the area identified for potential annexation into Salt Lake City is proposed as agriculture use. From Attachment C – SL County Future Land Use Map Page | 6 5. Section 5 - Public Comments, requested changes Attachment D is a letter submitted to the City and County in advance of the March 7 public hearing. The letter outlines recommended changes to the Northpoint Small are plan in order to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. The group of stakeholders that submitted this letter also set up some small group meetings with Council Members to go over their concerns. The letter outlines the concept for a Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area which is depicted in the map attached to the letter and shown below. Page | 7 The letter requests the Northpoint Small Area plan be amended so that some of the properties would be preserved and the development rights be transferred to another area of the City. This is a concept known as a Transfer of Development Right (TDR) program. TDR is a tool identified in the land preservation section of the small area plan. According to the small area plan, page 42: TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. The administration has expressed support to explore the possibility of a Great Salt Lake shoreline preserve. However, at this time it is not clear if that process has started. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is an update on the shoreline preservation discussions. Policy Question ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for an update on discussions about the proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area? Another comment submitted requested the city update the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (AFPP) because they believe new information suggests it should be updated. The resident who submitted the letter on behalf of a property owner in the Northpoint area said they would pay for the costs to update the overlay district. The letter also suggests residential dwellings could be allowed in this area and the plan would need to be updated to allow residential uses east of 2200 west. Policy Question ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration/Airport staff for their feedback on the request to update the AFPP? 6. Section 6 - Public Hearing Summary The minutes of the public hearing provide a summary of comments made during the March 7, 2023, public hearing. They can be found in Attachment E – March 7 Public Hearing Summary of Public Comments. Many people spoke both in support and in opposition to the draft plan for a variety of reasons. Some felt the draft plan was ready to be adopted as currently written while others felt it needed more work to ensure environmental issues were adequately addressed. The following information was provided for the March 7 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. Page | 8 Work Session Summary At the February 21 work session briefing, Council Members raised questions about the impact future development may have on the residents in the area due to increased traffic, as well as impacts to air quality, and the environment. Some felt the Plan was a good attempt at balancing and protecting the current residents and the environment, while providing the growth and development that is likely to come. Some expressed concerns the plan was too flexible and asked Planning staff to consider making changes that require the type of development the city wants to see in this area. Other ideas raised included creating a fund to help residents pay for impacts and damage to their homes and property that may occur due to construction and looking further into the potential to use transfer of development rights in this area. On a related note, in recent weeks the Council office has received many questions and complaints about the traffic impact on 2200west due to the development in the area and 2900 west not being completed. The Council also discussed some of the implementation strategies they would like to see prioritized such as removing the BP zone, mapping, and increasing the buffers between the wetlands and river, and including stricter language that would keep 3200 west a gravel road. Council members indicated they would like to have a follow-up work session after the public hearing to go over any potential changes they would like to see included in the draft plan. The public hearing is scheduled for March 7 The following information was provided for the February 21 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. In 2020 the Council allocated $100,000 to update the master plan for this area to help plan for the increased development pressures going on in this area of the city. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: •The limit on distribution land uses be removed. •The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Page | 9 Mayor Mendenhall submitted a letter with the transmittal that recommend the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. The mayor noted in her letter “this could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses [distribution] where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development” (Transmittal letter pages 5-6). Key Concepts Identified in the Plan Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outline the key concepts of the plan and potential action items the City can take to implement the plan. •Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. •Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. •Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. •Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. •Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. •Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. Changes to Plan noted by Planning Staff. Page 4 of the transmittal letter notes planning staff recommends making a few modifications to the draft forwarded by the Planning Commission. •Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” - Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. •Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. •Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space - In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. Page | 10 •Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Does the Council support include these changes in the final draft of the small area plan? Policy Questions Below are some policy questions the Council may wish to consider as you review the draft plan and bring up during the briefing with the Administration. 1.Implementation a. Are there specific implementation steps outlined in the small area plan the Council would like to initiate? See Implementation section below (page 5) for outline of key items and pages 2-3 of the draft plan for details. b. Does the Council wish to take steps to ensure future development will abide by development recommendations outlined in the plan, if any petitions come to the city before the zoning changes are adopted? i. Consider using development agreements for zoning petitions in the process Does the council wish to support initiating any of the key implementation actions recommended in the master plan? 2.Development Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (Pages 20-29). a. Some CMs have mentioned conditions included in the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District (21A.34.140) may be a good template to consider for development in this area of the city. b. Some of those standards include: i. Lighting – all lighting shall be shielded to direct light down and away from edges of the property. ii. Roof color – light reflective roofing with minim solar reflective index iii. Landscape – shall consist of native plants, remove noxious weeds, iv. Glass Requirements – use glass design elements to reduce bird collisions. v. Fencing – see through fence that is 50% open. c. Some have asked about the possibility for the city to require solar panels be included in a future development. d. Additionally, in the NWQ overlay, certain permitted uses are limited. Do the development standards outlined in the plan successfully address the council’s concerns about mitigating the impact of development in this area of the city? 3. The mayor recommend that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and Page | 11 distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. Does the council Mayor’s and Planning staff recommendation to limit distribution uses in this area? Outline of the Draft Small Area Plan Land Use Categories The future land use map includes the categories outlined and shown on the map below. •Natural Open Space •Transitional •Business Park / Industrial •Airport Page | 12 Design Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (pages 20-29). These standards include: • Buffering and setbacks for existing residential uses and wildlife and wetland habitat • Standards for new development o Grading limitation, Fencing / Walls, Dark Sky Lighting, • Water Conscious Development Page | 13 o landscaping, stormwater management, • Airport Conflict Mitigation o Noise, land use compatibility • Visual Design • Standards for Transitional Areas o Industrial land use mitigation - noise, odor air quality, traffic, and loading • Standards for Natural Open Space o Wetland Design Standards – planting, trails / boardwalks, Implementation (Chapter 3) The implementation plan identifies three-time sensitive actions that should be prioritized (pages 2-3). • Services and Infrastructure o Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 west and Construct 2900 West • Natural Environmental / Preservation o Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space • Built Environment/Design o Adopt Development Code Updates Additional implementation actions are identified on pages 34-35. These include items such as creating a local utility plan, updating the major streets plan, environmental impact standards, annexation, etc. Tool Kit The plan includes a variety of tools that will help implement the small area plan (pages 38-53). Some of those tools include land preservation, regulatory, incentive based, land acquisition, and financial. Public Process The public process started in summer of 2021 up to the planning commission public hearing on December 14, 2022. During that time the outreach included numerous steering committees, community council meetings, online questionnaire, Council update and Planning Commission briefings. The full details are outlined on pages three of the transmittal letter and the chronology is on page 11. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Date: March 9, 2023 Re: Northpoint Small Area Plan During the briefing held on February 21, 2023, the City Council provided guidance and direction for changes to the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan. The following memorandum is a response to the comments and requested changes: 1. Stronger Language: The Council expressed concern with the flexibility of the plan’s wording and directed Planning Staff to make the plan language stronger. The plan was revised to address these concerns. Specifically, the Design Standards and Implementation sections have been updated by replacing "should be" with "shall be" and "encouraged" with "required." In some instances, statements were fully rewritten where necessary. Generally, master plans are considered advisory documents unless explicitly stated in the ordinance. To clarify the status of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, a statement has been added to page 7 of the plan, as well as Section 2 of the adopting ordinance, indicating that it is intended to be a binding document. Status: changes made 2. Business Park Land Use/Zoning: Removed Business Park from Vision Map and revised the land use category to be Light Industrial rather than Business Park/Industrial. Status: changes made 3. Distribution Uses: At the work session the City Council asked for more information on what distribution uses are and what limiting them means. Distribution and fulfillment uses refer to businesses that primarily handle the storage and transportation of goods and merchandise, rather than producing them on site. The zoning code includes the following definition, however, there may be other uses that may fall into the distribution category: WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION: A business that maintains an inventory of materials, supplies and goods related to one or more industries and sells bulk quantities of materials, supplies and goods from its inventory to companies within the industry. A wholesale distributor is not a retail goods establishment. If the Council wishes limit distribution and fulfillment land uses, a Northpoint specific overlay zone could be created. This would allow for a unique set of standards to be applied to the Northpoint area, without requiring amendments to other relevant sections of the code or negotiation on a project-by-project basis. To limit distribution uses, the overlay zone could include a specific list of permitted and conditional uses that align with the plan, while ⚫ Page 2 prohibiting distribution and fulfillment uses. Additionally, building gross floor area could be limited to under 150,000 square feet1, and building height could be limited to under a specific height (such as 32 feet). Alternatively, special provisions could be included in the M-1 zoning district that would apply specifically to the Northpoint area. However, this approach presents challenges, as someone could propose a different zone, and it may be less efficient in terms of time and resources since an overlay zone may still be necessary to adopt the design standards presented in the draft plan. Status: direction needed 4. 3200 West: What does “development is prohibited from facing 3200 West” mean? This was intended to mean that new development cannot be accessed from 3200 West and that impacts associated with development (vehicle egress, signage, lighting) would be at the front of the building facing the new 2900 W north-south collector street. The plan was updated to expand on the intent of this statement. Additionally, the Plan language was modified to emphasize that 3200 West will remain unimproved (using “will” rather than “should”), and the Major Street Plan map was modified to clarify that 3200 West will remain unimproved. Status: changes made 5. Can we close or gate 3200 West? 3200 West falls on the Salt Lake City boundary and is split in the middle with the east half in Salt Lake City and the west half in Salt Lake County. Additionally, a portion of 3200 West at the south end of the project area is fully within Salt Lake County’s jurisdiction. To vacate or close 3200 West, Salt Lake City would need to annex the entire portion of the road. Additionally, it is unclear if the city can close or vacate the road without requiring the adjacent property owners to purchase it. Current policy, the City Council’s 1999 Street Closure Policy, is to sell the underlying property for fair market value. If 3200 West is not vacated and remains a public street, there could be legal issues with gating or limiting access to the public. While the policy established in the draft plan is that 3200 West remains a dirt, unimproved road, it is still a necessary access road for maintenance and utilities for the airport and power utility easements. Therefore, Planning Staff does not recommend gating 3200 West as it could create unforeseen issues for property owners who use the road for access. Status: changes are not recommended 1 The following are typical sizes for the uses outlined. - Major Distribution Center: 500,000 to more than 1.5 million square feet - Large Fulfillment Center: 150,000 to more than 500,000 square feet - Smaller Local Fulfillment Station: 50,000 to more than 150,000 square feet Source: NJ State Planning Commission Office of Planning Advocacy, Distribution Warehousing and Goods Movement Guidelines. September 2022. https://nj.gov/state/planning/assets/pdf/warehouse-guidance.pdf ⚫ Page 3 6. Vision Map: The Vision Map was updated to show the proposed buffer widths from the Jordan River (100 feet on each side) and canals and drain (75 feet on each side). Of note, the Rudy Canal already has a 200 foot (total) no-development easement. Status: changes made 7. Revise Wetland Buffer to Remove Width Flexibility: The City Council provided direction that allowing reduced buffer widths is not appropriate. The Draft Plan was updated to remove language that would allow flexibility of the wetland buffer width and established a firm 300- foot buffer from wetland boundaries. To clarify, wetlands identified on the Vision Map were sourced from the Utah Geological Survey with data derived from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands should be used as a guide and delineation will be required at the time of development permit. Status: changes made 8. Transfer of Development Rights: During the Council's discussion, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) was raised as a potential land preservation tool. It is already listed as a recommended tool in Chapter 4 of the plan. However, further direction is needed from the Council on whether they want to pursue the development of a TDR program within the plan or as an implementation step. If either action is taken, it would likely require funding for a consultant to conduct a financial analysis and identify a method for calculating the development potential that can be transferred, as well as determining where the transferred development potential can go (receiving areas). Creating the receiving areas would also require a public process, and it is unclear whether the community would support it, or if the finances would result in successful development rights transfers. Status: direction needed 9. Community Benefit/Development Agreements: The Council discussed setting up a framework that would require a developer or contractor to set aside money in case of damage or lawsuit. After discussing this with the Attorney’s Office, we do not believe that this is something that we can require and do not recommend its inclusion in the plan. Generally, this is a civil matter that is handled through insurance claims or other means. However, information could be provided to the public at the beginning of construction, such as contact information for insurance claims. Status: changes are not recommended 10. Bird-friendly Design: During the work session, bird friendly building design was mentioned. Planning Staff reviewed the plan and realized that this was not included in the design standards, although it is something that is necessary to mitigate impacts associated with new development in the area. The following standard was added to the plan: Follow bird-friendly window and building design by mitigating reflective and transparent conditions. New construction and major renovation projects shall incorporate bird-friendly building materials and design features, including those ⚫ Page 4 recommended by the American Bird Conservancy publication Bird-Friendly Building Design. Status: change made The full revised draft Northpoint Small Area Plan is attached for reference. MEMORANDUM TO SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO: City Council Chair Mano City Council Vice Chair Petro DATE: August 2023 FROM: Salt Lake City Recorders Office Thais Stewart, Deputy City Recorder – Operations Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder CC: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Blake Thomas, Community & Neighborhood Department Director Laura Briefer, Public Utilities Department Director Bill Wyatt, Airport Department Director Chris Donoghue, City Surveyor Nick Norris, Planning Division Director Katherine Lewis, City Attorney SUBJECT: City-Initiated Annexation Update Pursuant to the Legislative Intent outlined in the motion denying the Annexation Petition/Application titled Legacy Business Park (PLNPCM2022-00937), the City Recorder’s office has compiled the next steps as outlined in UCA 10-2-418, for a City-Initiated Annexation of the area located near the northwest City boundary lines near 2200 West and 3200 North. Proposed Next Steps: 1.City Council: Consider a resolution for the annexation (a proposed map and resolution have been included as Exhibit A) 2. Optional: Planning Commission input and public hearing on zoning considerations for the area 3.Recorder’s Office: Send a letter to North Salt Lake City identifying the area planned for annexation and request determination from their leadership due to the overlapping territory of the Annexation Plans of Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City 4.City Council: Set the date for the public hearing 5.Recorder’s Office: Complete the noticing for the annexation request and subsequent public hearing and protest period (if the resolution is adopted noticing must start 14 days after the adoption and at least 3 weeks before the public hearing) a.Protest period beings when the notice is published and ends the day of the public hearing 6.City Council: Conduct the Public Hearing 7.City Council: Consider adoption of an ordinance identifying the zoning and confirming the desired annexation area 8.Recorder’s Office: If adopted, submit documents and ordinance to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and complete other notification steps Background: The following steps have taken place since the April 3rd, 2023, memorandum: 1.The boundary map was updated to include properties within the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan. 2.Community Open House held on May 11th at the Regional Athletic Complex to inform property owners and answer questions regarding the annexation process. 3.Informational letter distributed to property owners 4.Salt Lake County verified requirements of §10-2-418(2) have been met to move forward with a City-led annexation without a petition. Note: The City Recorder’s office has been contacted by a property owner currently working towards the annexation of their properties into North Salt Lake and Davis County. Salt Lake County approved this move prior to the timing of this request and there is no expiration to that approval. The property owner has requested the City consider removing their parcel from the annexation area on behalf of Salt Lake City. Exhibits: A.Proposed resolution B.Draft of the public hearing notice Exhibit A: Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ANNEX CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED PROPERTIES NORTH-NORTHEAST OF THE SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND NEAR THE SALT LAKE COUNTY BORDER WITH DAVIS COUNTY PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 10-2-418 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-2-418 allows a municipality to annex unincorporated areas without an annexation petition under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, some owners of real property north of 2100 North Street and adjacent to 2200 West Street in unincorporated Salt Lake County near the Salt Lake County-Davis County border (the “Properties”) have expressed interest in annexing their land into Salt Lake City’s corporate limits; and WHEREAS, collectively, the Properties are contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and are identified within an expansion area described as “Study Area 1 - West Airport” in the city’s annexation policy plan titled, “A MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION for Salt Lake City, Utah” adopted in 1979 and as shown on the map accompanying that plan titled, “SALT LAKE CITY Annexation Policy Declaration Proposed Future Boundaries”; and WHEREAS, a majority of the area consists of residential or commercial development with fewer than 800 residents; and WHEREAS, in addition to the privately-owned land in the proposed annexation area, over 200 acres of the Properties are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation, the majority of which was acquired through federal grants for such land to be used for airport purposes; and WHEREAS, the Properties constitute an unincorporated peninsula, as that term is defined in Utah Code Section 10-2-401; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake County Council approved an annexation near Rose Park Lane with the contingency that Salt Lake City make efforts to annex all of the unincorporated areas to the west and north of the Property; and WHEREAS, most of the area in the proposed annexation have received some Salt Lake City municipal-type services for many years and continue to receive those utility services; and WHEREAS, as part of an effort by private property owners to annex a portion of the Properties into North Salt Lake City in recent years, North Salt Lake City amended its annexation policy plan in 2021 to include some of the proposed annexation areas into that city’s proposed expansion area; and WHEREAS, some owners who sponsored the effort to annex into North Salt Lake City are now supportive of annexing into Salt Lake City’s corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 10-2-418(2) requires that unincorporated areas that are within the expansion areas of more than one municipality must receive the consent of all other municipalities whose annexation policy plans include the subject area in their respective expansion areas in order to annex the area; and WHEREAS, in pursuing its intent to annex the Properties, Salt Lake City acknowledges that it must receive the consent of North Salt Lake City before annexation of the Properties can be completed; and WHEREAS, because the Properties are within Salt Lake City’s expansion area in its 1979 annexation policy plan and because the Properties are collectively congruous to Salt Lake City corporate limits, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this resolution of intent to annex the Properties identified in Exhibit A hereto is in the city’s and private property owners’ best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That Salt Lake City intends to pursue annexation of approximately 463.25 acres into Salt Lake City pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-2-418. DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2023. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By:___________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Resolution intent to annex properties per 10-2-418 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 18, 2023 N3 2 0 0 W N3200W N3200W N32 0 0W N3 200W N 32 0 0 W N3 2 00W N32 0 0 W N3 2 0 0 W Reclamation Ditch W2100N N 32 00W NPerimeter W3300N Re clamationDitc h W2100 N NPerimeter W3300N Reclamation Di tch W2100N NPerimeter S e wag e Ca n al SewageC a n al Jordan Riv er WCenterSt N2 2 0 0 W W31 30N W3300 N N 2 2 0 0 W R e clamationDitch N2 2 0 0 W W2670 N N2 2 0 0 W Re c lam a tio n D i tc h N2 2 0 0 W R eclamationDitch Re c l a m a t i o n D i t c h N 2 2 0 0 W N2 2 0 0 W N2 2 0 0 W W2100N J o r d an River Jordan Riv e r WCenterSt S 12 0 0W Jo r d a n R i v e r D r Se w ag e Canal J o r d a n R iv e r S 1 2 0 0 W 215 Rec lamationDitch 215 215 W2670 N Le g a c yPkwy Re clamationDitch 215 NR ose ParkL n 215 NRo sePa r kLn 215 NRos eP arkLn 25 215 W2100N NRoseP a rkLn N 2 18 0 W WCenterSt R i v e r b e n dW a y N1100W L e g a c y P k w y Le g a c y P k w y JordanRiver S 1 200W Rive rb en dWa y Legacy Pk wy Le gacy Pkwy J o rd anRiv er JordanRiver 215 LegacyPkwy Leg a c y Pkwy Leg acyPk w y 27 JordanRive r Jordan River Jo rda n River J o r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R iv e r W Center St 27 J o r d an River SR ed wo od Rd Jo rdan Riv er SR edw oo d Rd NR ed w oo dR d N Redwoo d Park L n NR e dw oodRd NR ed wood Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Salt Lake County, Maxar Rd , Microsoft 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 Miles Proposed AnnexationHunter Stables City-Initiated Annexation SLC/SLCO/Davis County Boundary Legend Exhibit B: Draft Public Hearing Notice SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON [date resolution gets adopted] the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution __ of 2023 indicating the intent to annex the unincorporated properties North-Northeast of the Salt Lake City International Airport and near the Salt Lake County border with Davis County pursuant to UCA 10-2-418. A public hearing will be held by the City Council to accept comments regarding the proposed annexation. Date: (notice must be published within 14 days of the adoption of the resolution and give at least a 3-week notice to the public hearing) Time: 7:00 PM Location: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah The municipal legislative body will annex the area unless written protests to the annexation are filed in the City Recorder’s office by the owners of private real property that: (A)is located within the area proposed for annexation; (B)covers a majority of the total private land area within the entire area proposed for annexation; and (C)is equal in value to at least 1/2 the value of all private real property within the entire area proposed for annexation All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building. For more information, including electronic connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings or call 801-535-7654. 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. The proposed legislation is available for review through the following methods, using file number Z [assigned file number]: •Electronically: https://tinyurl.com/proposedleg •Physical Copy: Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office Published: [date published], Utah Public Notice Website. KEEP POSTED UNTIL [date of hearing] MEMO - City Initiated Annexation August 2023 Final Audit Report 2023-08-21 Created:2023-08-21 By:Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAwrQ74gg43TDcwv15UsrM1Y3PcH10AoEj "MEMO - City Initiated Annexation August 2023" History Document created by Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) 2023-08-21 - 6:28:05 PM GMT Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-08-21 - 6:29:24 PM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) E-signature obtained using URL retrieved through the Adobe Acrobat Sign API Signature Date: 2023-08-21 - 7:02:58 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-08-21 - 7:02:58 PM GMT TAYLORSVILLE RIVERTON KEARNS BLUFFDALE SOUTH JORDAN HERRIMAN WEST JORDAN COPPERTON Data Sources: Salt Lake County Planning & Transportation, Rio Tinto Kennecott Great Salt Lake Camp Williams ML Yellow Fork Canyon Rose Canyon RR MN AG ML MPC RC MB MPC C R MPC I MN MPC MM MC MC MPC MM I MN I INLAND PORT SC L Limited Development Until Post- Mine Closure (2040+) Unincorporated Boundary SLCo Boundary Municipalities Inland Port** Future Land Uses AG - Agriculture C - Commercial MM - Mountain Multi Use I - Industrial L - Lake MPC - Master Planned Communities MC - Mountain Communities ML - Military MN - Mining MB - Mine Buffer RC - Recreation Conservation R - Residential RR - Rural Residential SC - Shoreline Conservation (AG & Habitat) 0 2.5 51.25 Miles Future Land Uses* AG MB MM *Due to the unknown timing of mine closures future land uses are subject to change. This map should periodically be updated based on input from landowners, stakeholders, and the public. **Inland Port is shown for reference purposes only SALT LAKE CITY WEST VALLEY CITYMAGNA 48 West General Plan Chapter 2 - Land Use Figure 2.10 Future Land Use Map UTAH WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION Northpoint Small Area Maps and Narrative Submitted via email 3.2.23 To: Salt Lake City Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council, and Salt Lake County Regional Development Re: Improvements Needed in Northpoint Small Area Plan – Highlighting Conservation Values Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council members, Dina Blaes, Director of the Office of Regional Development and Helen Peters, Director Salt Lake County Regional Planning & Transportation: Please accept and fully consider the enclosed maps and comments on behalf of Audubon Rockies, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, Utah Waterfowl Association, and the Jordan River Commission. Collectively, we appreciate the efforts of the Mayoral office, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop these lands thoughtfully as the state of Utah experiences unprecedented growth. With that in mind, we respectfully submit these comments and associated maps for your consideration as you develop a more robust Northpoint Small Area Plan. The unique scenic qualities of these lands are not only highly valued by residents but are a strong attractant to new potential residents. Great Salt Lake wetlands and riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River not only provide a recreational asset and moneys for the City and County but are incredibly important for maintaining water quality and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitat for resident and migrating wildlife. Agricultural lands support the economy, also support wildlife, and are deeply part of Utah’s culture. Thus, efforts are needed to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. In addition to increasing property value1, these areas will increase the 2200 West Corridor’s resiliency to drought and floods. The state of Utah has been proactive in efforts related to addressing the declining condition of Great Salt Lake. We hope that the following content, which highlights the conservation areas - wetlands and uplands of the Great Salt Lake shoreline – will similarly result in your leadership to preserve these resources and the traditional uses of the landscape. 1 Review of the impact of urban parks and green spaces on residence prices in the environmental health context. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490231 Maps of Important Conservation Areas Figure 1. GSL Wetlands Relative to the Northpoint Small Area. Juxtaposition of ecologically sensitive areas of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem (wetlands and uplands of the Southshore area) and the developed landscape are illustrated. Utah Geological Survey wetlands data (shown in greenish yellow) were used to illustrate the close proximity of GSL wetlands to the Northpoint Small Area plan area and the rest of the Salt Lake City boundary (https://gis.utah.gov/data/water/wetlands/ 2021). These wetland data are not indicative of wetland jurisdiction designation, but are important for showing habitat identification and hydrologic connectivity with Great Salt Lake. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data were validated by UGS by examining aerial imagery, on-the- ground assessment and field verifying to improve accuracy of the NWI data. Among the areas of interest to our organizations is the proposed Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA), located within the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The SHA begins in the northwest corner of Salt Lake City’s Northwest Quadrant and includes the entire Natural Area designated in the Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Master Plan (adopted 2016, http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/NorthwestQ/NWQ.pdf). The proposed SHA, outlined in orange with white diagonal lines, is primarily composed of privately held land used for agriculture, duck clubs and other wildlife conservation, and a small amount of residential land. Some of the land is owned by the Federal government. Taking actions to preserve the natural character of the area, its traditional uses and open space, are critical. We acknowledge that there are vested property rights within the area that need to be respected. We propose the City develop financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain the open space and historic cultural heritage of these identified lands within the Northpoint Small Planning Area. An example tool is a Transfer of Development Rights Program, although there are additional good land preservation tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Natural Area, outlined in green, is nested between conservation lands to the west and duck club conservation and agricultural lands to the north, and creates a boundary between sensitive lands and the Utah Inland Port Authority (outlined in black). The Natural Area includes many wetland features formed by an abandoned portion of an ancient Jordan River delta that are hydrologically connected to Great Salt Lake. From there, the SHA goes through wetlands managed for duck hunting and connects in an eastward direction outside the north perimeter of Salt Lake City International Airport with a portion of the Northpoint Small Area, outlined in brown. From the Northpoint Small Area, the SHA continues in a northwestern direction connecting with uplands that are largely agricultural and surrounded by prime Great Salt Lake wetland habitat on the western and northern sides and is adjacent to the Jordan River and Legacy Nature Preserve on the eastern side. This portion is mostly within Salt Lake County and already designated part of the SHA of the Salt Lake County West General Plan (2022)2. The green cross-hatched areas in the Northpoint Small Area indicate areas where Land Preservation Tools identified in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan could be applied to conserve land to implement low-impact development to neighboring communities and transition to an ecologically relevant buffer to Great Salt Lake wetlands. Figure 2. Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area. These areas are of local and global conservation value. NGO conservation areas are colored purple, and duck club conservation areas are within the green area. It is important to note that agricultural use is located throughout both areas, and that both areas have significant greenbelt status. a) Whether NGO, duck club, or agricultural, all serve an important role in sustaining the ecological health and cultural heritage of the area. The conservation and duck club areas together contain approximately 20,000 acres of managed Great Salt Lake wetlands of different types. b) BirdLife International has identified over 13,600 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) worldwide. Five of them are designated at each bay of Great Salt Lake, including Farmington Bay and its wetlands. These IBAs form the core of a wider network of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)—critically important sites for the persistence of global plant and animal diversity. c) One key function of Great Salt Lake wetlands and nearby uplands is all the habitat resources they provide the hundreds of avian species that depend on them. Each year, birds come to the lake by the millions and as we are witness to habitat loss on the lake due to long-term drought and habitat loss, managed wetlands become an increasingly critical resource for migrating and nesting birds. These wetlands contribute to the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Designation of Great Salt Lake. d) Many of the wetlands are also designated by the 2009 Utah Legislature as a Migratory Bird Production Area (MBPA). As Max Malmquist, Audubon’s Saline Lakes Program, wrote in the March 16th 2021 Audubon Rockies Newsletter: “The 2021 amendment of this law sets further protections of MBPAs: “The act calls for counties in which MBPAs are located to encourage the continuity, development, and viability of these areas, and gives them the “highest priority of use” status, which highlights their importance to migratory birds. Many MBPAs are directly adjacent to Great Salt Lake, are essential in maintaining continuity among wetlands, and play a key role in water inflows to the lake.” 2 The Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA) originally designated in the Salt Lake County West General Plan (SLCWGP, adopted 2022) “consists of the Great Salt Lake and wetlands, agricultural lands, shoreline and waterfowl habitat, and agrarian residential” (SLCWGP Plan Area Map, Figure 1.3, pg. 7, and pg. 22). Additional Ecological Considerations Components of the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan is central to the continued productivity and ecological value of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River. By preserving its existing natural character and traditional land uses in a robust plan, the outcome will: establish a robust natural boundary between mounting pressures of the developed landscape that burden people, wildlife and their habitat alike with unsafe air, water, noise, and light pollution provide a natural barrier to invasive plants and pests that threaten agricultural lands and wildlife areas prevent impacts to hydrological connectivity with the lake and sustains other important wetland functions such as groundwater recharge and flood attenuation prevent the built landscape from reaching the edge of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the lower reach of the Jordan River The guiding principle for Ch. 6, the Natural Environment in Plan Salt Lake is to minimize impact on the natural environment (adopted 2015). “Over the next 25 years, we will strive to protect and restore critical wildlife habitat, sensitive natural lands, and open space. These environments are crucial to water supply and quality and to the ecosystems that sustain us. We will work to preserve and restore riparian corridors in and around our community.” An improved Northpoint Small Area Plan that considers the cultural and ecological benefits of preserving the aforementioned lands will not only apply the above guiding principle, but result in a development scenario that is more resilient to changing environmental conditions and economically sound. Landowners within the Northpoint Small Area currently zoned BP can utilize financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain open space and the cultural heritage of the land. could participate in a Transfer of Development Rights Program, is one of many tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Chapter 4, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022) that maintain open space. Land proposed for development in the Land Preservation Tools Area (green cross-hatched): will be entitled to review and opt for land conservation tools in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022). will allow for some low-impact building, with the ultimate goal of minimizing impacts associated with built environments to nearby families and ecologically sensitive areas. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and welcome the opportunity to work together in the future to address the challenges of balancing these various values along the 2200 West Corridor Sincerely, Heidi M. Hoven, PhD Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary Audubon Rockies 231 W 800 S, Ste E Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Heidi.Hoven@audubon.org rockies.audubon.org/gillmor Lynn de Freitas Executive Director FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake 150 South 600 East, Suite 5D Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 https://www.fogsl.org/about/about-friends Soren Simonsen, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP Executive Director Jordan River Commission PO Box 526081 Salt Lake City, UT 84152-6081 sorensimonsen@utah.gov JordanRiverCommission.com MyJordanRiver.org Jack Ray Utah Waterfowl Association j.ray.pine@outlook.com https://www.facebook.com/groups/263929757011728 Cc: Rachel Otto Chief of Staff OFFICE of the MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Rachel.Otto@slcgov.com WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM WWW.SLC.GOV Councilman Darin Mano Chair, City Council SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION darin.mano@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV Cindy Gust-Jenson Executive Director, Office of the City Council at SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Cindy.Gust-Jenson@slcgov.com Jason Wolf Director of Canyons Management 2001 S. State Street S2-100 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575 JWolf@slco.org https://slco.org/regional-development/contact-us/ Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Wetlands Relative to the the Northpoint Small Area Plan Utah Geological Survey Wetlands Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 1 Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Shoreline Heritage Area Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary SLC Corp Duck Club Conservation Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 2 Attachment E March 7, 2023 Summary of Public Hearing Comments Summary of Comments in Support • No data showing the development would have a negative impact to the Great Salt Lake • Industrial development was a positive for the area • The distance from 2200 West to the Great Salt Lake was greater than portrayed • The beauty of the plan was that it gave everyone the ability to do with their property as they saw fit • Lack of infrastructure that would allow a housing development in the Northpoint area • Property needed to be put to use • Thanked staff for hard work on the plan • Agriculture used and polluted water more than warehouses • Thanked the Council for listening to everyone • Residential values were going down in the area • Areas should be zoned to accommodate the Airport with commercial zonin g • Land values should increase due to the industrial zoning • Plan promoted sustainable building guidelines • Lack of available land increased rental rates for businesses and small business took the brunt of the problem • Would create high paying jobs for citizens of Salt Lake City • Plan included aspects that protected the wetlands and Great Salt Lake • Great middle ground for those residents that wished to stay and those that wished to sell for future development • Residents would be completely surrounded by warehous e zoning and the plan took into account those residents that wished to remain in area • Requested to approve the plan without restrictions for light industrial and as scheduled Summary of Comments in General Opposition • Salt Lake did not need additional warehouses • There was no transportation options for the area other than cars which would increase pollution • Similar cities with warehouse developments were now trying to fix the problems these developments caused • The uniqueness of the area needed to be protected • Complete a comprehensible review of the impacts of development in the area before the plan moved forward • Providing City services to the area would be difficult • Jobs would be menial and not necessary as there were plenty of jobs to be had • Requested the Council send the plan back to the drawing board and make sure it was not negatively impacting the area • The area was one of the last oases in Salt Lake that was being turned into warehouses • There was no reversing the impact of development when the land was gone • Development would impact air quality and health/well being of the citizens of Salt Lake • Loss of almost 60 single family residences was not appropriate • Thanked the Mayor for intervening with distribution centers in the area • The plan would impact the Rudy Reclamation facility • Plan would hollow out many of the natural aspects of the land and harm the nesting sites of migratory birds • 3200 West should remain unpaved and gated • Encouraged Council to develop conservation programs to protect the w etlands, open spaces, air quality, Great Salt Lake and wildlife throughout the entire area • It was imperative that the citizens did not want this development • Wait until the Inland Port was up and running before this development was done • Plan was not sustainable • Support plans that helped the area and did not deter from the natural beauty of the State • Safety for residents along 2200 West was imperative • A community should have been constructed, not a warehouse district • City should take into consideration the impacts the development was having on the current residents • Business Park zoning afforded the restrictions the community wanted in the area • Create an ordinance that would place restrictions on this development to protect the wetlands, lake and neighborhood • A comprehensive review of the shoreline was needed to look at the impacts this development would have on wetlands and air quality • Need more open space, trails and parks, not warehouse space • Council Members were the representatives that should look to the future to determine what was best for the City • The Great Salt Lake should be designated as a National Park • Uniqueness of the area should be protected not committed to industrial development • Protect the Jordan River in the area • Plan Salt Lake goals needed to be adequately reflected in the plan • Plan was inconsistent with the conservation goals and land preservation in the area • A 180-day moratorium on more development was a great idea • Housing should be a priority, not forcing people from their homes • Creation of a green belt around Salt Lake • Please vote no on the plan Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 1/12/2023 9:06 Rachel White rachelwx@gmail.com Northpoint Master Plan for development of SLC's NW quadrant Dear City Council Representative Fowler, First, thank you very much for your time and service to the residents of Salt Lake City. City Council members do a critical and often-thankless job that requires a lot of work, and I appreciate your time and dedication. The reason I am contacting you today is to ask that the Salt Lake City Council create a transfer of development rights program as part of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, as suggested by the leadership of Salt Lake City's Planning Commission. * The northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City is not an appropriate place for non-agricultural development, such as light manufacturing and warehouses. * The lands around the Jordan River and wetlands to the west are sensitive and important habitat for wildlife and especially migrating birds. * Non-agricultural development increases pollution for the surrounding residents that already bear a disproportionate burden of pollution from nearby industry and the I- 215 freeway. * Property owners should have access to a transfer of development rights program that would enable them to engage in development in locations away from wetlands, such as infill locations. Such a program would increase Salt Lake City's ability to protect open space on the western edge of the city which is important to the health of the Great Salt Lake. A recommendation will be coming to the City Council regarding the rezoning of parcels of land in this area at approximately 2760, 2828, & 2800 N. 2200 West. Please reject the rezoning of these parcels to something other than agricultural uses, and work with the city attorneys to create a transfer of development rights program that will enable desired development to occur in a more appropriate location. Thank you very much for your time to read and consider my comments. Sincerely, Rachel White 2/22/2023 9:53 Nigel Swaby nigelcdr@yahoo.com Ordinance: Rezone at approximately 130 North 2100 West Dear Council Chair Mano, I am writing to share my opinion on the rezone and removal of the property at 130 North 2100 West from the airport overlay zone. First, I'm concerned about the optics of removing a "safety" protection from a vulnerable class of people who will reside in the 94 proposed deeply affordable units. I think the City should be considering removing or modifying barriers like the airport overlay zone altogether. This country hasn't had a major airline crash since 2009. Airports like La Guardia in Manhattan have 71 flights per hour over a highly dense population without major incident. The airport overlay zone doesn't promote safety, it prohibits residential development. It's very concerning the exception is for this poorer population who have extremely limited choices. Secondly, the continued existence of the airport overlay zone limits development choices in other areas. Right now you're considering the Northpoint small area plan which suggests an upzone from agricultural to business park or manufacturing/warehouse. The overlay is one of the artificial barriers which prevents you from considering housing as an option. Remove the overlay zone or allow a waiver to be instituted for those developers who will build housing. It makes no sense to upzone from agricultural to manufacturing when the surrounding properties are residential and the surrounding residents are opposed to manufacturing. Finally, I'd like to return to the subject property at 130 N 2100 W. While I admire the work the operator of the property does, I'm concerned how nearly 140 units of deeply affordable housing came into being with zero community engagement. The former Airport Inn became a "temporary" homeless shelter behind closed council doors with no public feedback. Then Switchpoint purchased it to become permanent deeply affordable housing with residents of a similar demographic to those who used it as a temporary shelter. The same thing is happening at this current subject property. I'll restate that Switchpoint is a good operator, but what happens to neighborhoods when a less savory operator uses these precedents to make their case? We're seeing what that looks like right now at the former Ramada Inn on North Temple. In summary, I support removing the airport overlay or creating a waiver system for all housing within its boundaries. Thank you for your consideration. Nigel Swaby Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 2/23/2023 17:07 Natalee Thompson venus489@gmail.com In regards to the 2200 West corridor in Northpoint Hello, I am a resident in the Northpoint Area on the east side of 2200 West. 2620 North 2200 West to be precise. The boundaries of this road (2200 West), are not necessarily public. Did you know that because it was built out as a farm road so the farmers could actually move equipment and livestock through this corridor. It’s the only reason the road exists? This is also the same with the dirt road on 3000 west, although I am not sure who owns that road. At my address, the one residence south of me, and north down the road to a least the entrance of the construction site, WE ALL OWN INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE EAST LANE of 2200 west. There are metal plug indicators on the road to designate this boundary. We have had our property surveyed and recorded 3 times since we have lived at this address to settle various disputes. They are all recorded with the county (apparently, there is no collaboration between what happens between this 2 government bodies) At my address, there are no easements. The power is an aerial easement we own the pole. The water line access, there is no easement either. If public utilities comes to service the line or dig up anything they must have permission. In my view, every time a construction truck uses my property to wreak havoc, this is trespassing. Is anyone doing homework? Isn’t County>City? Is there no cross referring at all between these entities before decisions are made? Is the onerous on the community? We thought you worked for the community. The decision making with regard to, the build out of this area is outlandishly wrong, it is frustrating, also maddening. The city planners seem to only care about, that the area get as built out, not how it gets built out. There does not seem to be any regard for the existing community, which consists of people, or the ecology in this sensitive area. As all of you make the decisions that march us toward ecological devastation, I would like to add to your plate, the choice you are making to absolutely ruin this area. You don’t understand what you are looking at, and if you do understand, give a care, PLEASE. Why is there not a long term plan in place? As in a 100 year plan? As constituents we should not have to endure the shenanigans of term to term fluctuations in policy with each new mayor or governor. It is truly mind boggling! Why do the people with the most to gain, always the people that run roughshod over communities? WHAT IS GOVERNMENT EVEN GOOD FOR? What is zoning good for if it can be changed on a LARK. The city is creating a dystopian future one neighborhood at a time. I respect what you all must endure. I am weary of objectivity, pragmatism and decorum. Natalee B. Thompson 3/3/2023 14:59 Heidi Hoven heidi.hoven@audubon.org Comments on behalf of Audubon Rockies, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, Utah Waterfowl Association, and the Jordan River Commission re: Northpoint Small Area Plan Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council members, Dina Blaes, Director of the Office of Regional Development and Helen Peters, Director Salt Lake County Regional Planning & Transportation, Please accept and fully consider the enclosed maps and comments on behalf of Audubon Rockies, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, Utah Waterfowl Association, and the Jordan River Commission. Collectively, we appreciate the efforts of the Mayoral office, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop these lands thoughtfully as the state of Utah experiences unprecedented growth. With that in mind, we respectfully submit these comments and associated maps for your consideration as you develop a more robust Northpoint Small Area Plan. The unique scenic qualities of these lands are not only highly valued by residents but are a strong attractant to new potential residents. Great Salt Lake wetlands and riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River not only provide a recreational asset and moneys for the City and County but are incredibly important for maintaining water quality and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitat for resident and migrating wildlife. Agricultural lands support the economy, also support wildlife, and are deeply part of Utah’s culture. Thus, efforts are needed to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. In addition to increasing property value[1], these areas will increase the 2200 West Corridor’s resiliency to drought and floods. The state of Utah has been proactive in efforts related to addressing the declining condition of Great Salt Lake. We hope that the following content, which highlights the conservation areas - wetlands and uplands of the Great Salt Lake shoreline – will similarly result in your leadership to preserve these resources and the traditional uses of the landscape. Kind regards, Heidi M. Hoven, Ph.D. 3/6/2023 13:43 Casey Call casey@tomstuart.com Support For The Northpoint Small Area Plan Support For The Northpoint Small Area Plan See attached letter Thanks Casey Call Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 3/7/2023 12:02 Rebecca Burrage keithbecky@gmail.com Northpoint Dear Council members, I am a Salt Lake County resident, but I wanted to let you know that I am opposed to the Northpoint project for many reasons. I was told that half of that property is owned by SL County, and I feel I should have a say about this issue. We will be severely affected by worsening air quality and the diversion of water from Great Salt Lake that will increase with this project. I am a birder, and this project is yet another threat to migratory birds. Primarily, this is so unfair to residents of Northpoint . Best wishes, Rebecca Burrage 3/7/2023 20:19 Jon Jensen jenseits@protonmail.com Northpoint Small Area Plan I wish to express my profound opposition to warehouse or any other like industrial or other development in the Northpoint Area, and I urge the council and mayor to likewise oppose such development. At a time of catastrophic climate change, air pollution and devastation decline and diminishment of biodiversity, it is urgent, and necessary - to say nothing of morally and ethically incumbent - to strictly protect that open space that remains, especially that portions of the Great Salt Lake shoreline remain undeveloped, this being critical, shrinking habitat for millions of migratory shorebirds and waterbirds. Furthermore, a warehouse development in Northpoint would mar the rural character of the area, and destroy the quality of life - indeed could displace and drive out - of the residents who call Northpoint home. No warehouse district development in Northpoint! 3/8/2023 15:56 Justin Dolling justindolling8@gmail.com Northpoint Small Area Plan comments Dear Council Members, My name is Justin Dolling, President of the Rudy Reclamation and Sportsman Club, an adjacent property owner to the Northpoint Small Area Plan boundary. Our land, 1,870 acres, has been managed as a vital wetland and upland complex associated with the Greater Great Salt Lake Ecosystem for over 100 years. We are concerned with recent proposals to develop this area of Salt Lake County/Salt Lake City as it relates to our ability to exist on the landscape well into the future. As you aware the Great Salt Lake is in peril and every little effort to protect this ecosystem is critical. We strongly encourage council members to adopt the most environmentally friendly approach to this planning effort as possible. I appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Justin Dolling, President Rudy Reclamation and Sportsman Club 3/8/2023 15:57 Phillip Eilers phillip.eilers@cushwake.com Ordinance: Support Northpoint Small Area Plan Dear Council members, My name is Phillip Eilers and I’m a resident in Salt Lake City. I am here tonight to document my support for the Master Plan update. In my mind, once the 400+ acres of Swaner land got approved for industrial development, it was the beginning of the entire area (Northpoint) to be re-evaluated again to support an industrial of M-1 zone. This plan will allow this area to develop into an industrial and manufacturing center that will generate great jobs and economic benefits for Salt Lake City and its residents. Thank you to city staff, planning commission, and city council for all your hard work. Phillip Eilers Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 3/8/2023 15:59 Rebecca Auger rebeccaauger26@gmail.com Ordinance: Northpoint small area plan As a current land owner of this area, I am in favor of the proposed zoning changes impacting the Northpoint area for the following reasons; Because of the approved zoning changes surrounding my land, large commercial buildings will now surround my property, leaving my property with nearly no value as agricultural land. My property will now have large commercial buildings to the side of us, a widened road with mass amounts of traffic, a freeway running alongside the East of the property,iand canal running the length of the property filling the land with mosquitoes. Most of the homes in this area have little to no market value based on its surroundings. Because of now market value, why would homeowners make necessary improvements to their home and property? Our home was built in the 70's and I see no reason to invest good money in an area that will not grow in value with the current zoning. I foresee this area becoming even more run down with transient individuals occupying the area. I understand individuals who have the desire to stay in their home and with the proposed changes they will continue to be able to do so. This area is not beautiful agricultural land any longer and master planning needs to be thought through. I've seen this very issue in many cities throughout our state. There are pockets of industrial/commercial areas with a few run down residential homes in between and every single pocket of homes have become dilapidated. The proposed changes would bring a lot of tax revenue to the area which would allow for the city and county to improve other areas for proposed "open spaces" or natural habitat. I challenge anyone who is disputing the proposed change if they are even familiar with the property and area in question? Have you walked the property to see what is at stake and what makes sense? Since zoning changes have already been approved in the surrounding area, I implore you to approve the North Point zoning changes. Your decision today will decide if several homeowners' property become worthless rendering them unable to capitalize on the value of their hard earned investment. Thank you, Rebecca Auger 3/8/2023 16:05 Jim Larkin jim@larkinlandscaping.com North point small area plan Jim Larkin I live in the boundaries of the North point small area plan I own 10+ acres at 2200 W. 2828 N., Salt Lake City. I’m writing tonight to inform you of my family support for the Northpoint small area master plan. We run a small family business and want to voice our support as we move forward in our lives and make plans for the future it would be nice to be able to continue our current plan this process has been going on for sometime now. On March 21 when the city Council has its vote we would sure appreciate it for the vote of approval so that we can continue with some of the business plans that we’ve made We see the economic growth that’s going on in the area which isn’t quite conducive to the type of business we run so we found other property and plan to move into another agricultural area. I Vote in favor of the north point small area master plan Without changes and limitations as to distribution and other limitations. I appreciate The city staff planning commission and city council for your time and work I’ve been to the meetings and it’s not a small task. Sincerely JimLarkin 3/8/2023 16:11 Jean Tabin jeantabin@gmail.com Northpoint Small Area Master Plan Please do not approve the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan until a comprehensive analysis on how to protect the shoreline of The Great Salt Lake has taken place through the Shoreline Heritage Area Presentation Plan. I have concerned that the above Northpoint plan sets up a warehouse district that will add to pollution and be destructive to wetlands and the surrounding Great Salt lake. The Northpoint should be preserved as a unique community of homes, agriculture and local businesses, not warehouses and possible manufacturing. We need to do what’s best for its residents and what’s best to protect the wetlands and the Great Salt lake. It seems horrific that more warehouses near are lake and migratory birds could be under consideration. I am a physician working in Salt Lake This is bad for the health of our people and bad for Utah I am sorry I could not make the meeting. Thank you, Jean Tabin 3/13/2023 15:39 Steve Starr s.starr@ghid.org Northpointe Council meeting I’ve attached a letter in favor of the Northpointe approval that is scheduled for March 21st, 2023. I had only a few minutes to speak last Tuesday and I had more I would like to say. Thank you for your time and concern in this matter. Steve Starr Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 3/14/2023 14:33 Steven Keyser minecodecamp@gmail.com Northpoint Plan We (Moonlake Farms) have a lease (70yr) with purchase option on 15ac of property located at 2601 N 2200 W SLC located within the Northpoint area. I just noticed the new plan significantly impacts our property - however, we have not received a single notice of any of the meetings on this redevelopment effort? The report notes we have an engineering plan in place with SLC but we have not received any notice whatsoever of zoning amendments that significantly impact our development plans, our business and the value of our property? I'm not sure who did the work on this plan, but in terms of our property, the mosquito infestation makes it unbearable to be on the property from spring to fall. Developing anything park-like on the west side of 2200W between mosquito abatement and the Swanner project will be a complete waste of money. It's not conducive to recreational use whatsoever and any installation installed for that purpose will require maintenance for an area that really can't be used. To be clear we are 100% opposed to designating any wetlands and open space or expanded setbacks for the same on our property and will vigorously oppose the same. As far as natural wetlands? There are no wetlands on the south border of our property except right at the ditch. Has anyone tested the water in rudy ditch? Pretending this is some sort of nature preserve is a stretch. The water is filthy and certainly contaminated with pesticides, chemicals and other street runoff. We develop net zero projects. A better incentive plan might be providing better density and setbacks for installing solar panels, using insulated slabs and wall systems, using heat pumps that are driven by solar power, and installing battery storage to charge off peak. You want cleaner air and water? Build better buildings on the site that use less energy and support zero emission shipping systems. Utilize the high water table for geothermal heat pumps. Use the area for the resources it provides. Encourage all electric shipping operations. Encourage all electric transportation and charging from rooftop and parking lot solar. Pretending this area is a rich viable wetlands is not what anyone who's stepped foot on the property would say. There's a very good reason nobody's lived on these properties. I'd encourage the people making these claims to visit anytime in the spring, summer or fall. Or force them to camp out for 48 hours. I guarantee they'd change their tune and importantly never come back. You would not choose to hike here unless forced. Can you please forward me the hearing information from last week? Thank you Steven Keyser Moonlake Farms 3/16/2023 15:47 Kathy Larkin hello@larkinlandscaping.com Northpoint small area Good afternoon, Thank you for your email- I would like to vote IN FAVOR of the Northpoint Small Area Plan. I own property at 2828 North 2200 West SLC- we have our landscaping business, a hobby farm, greenhouse and apiary located on the property. We enjoy our time there, however, we are of retirement age and this is a wonderful opportunity for us to sell and receive enough money to live on. The area already has 5 large warehouses built and another 400 acres across the street from us being developed. We understand this is how the area is moving and we have property that could accommodate the continuing growth. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Sincerely, Kathy Larkin 3/20/2023 8:58 Jan ellen BURTON jjanellenb@msn.com Northpointe--Warehouse Jobs I previously spoke out at the city council meeting on March 7 regarding my opposition to the rezoning of the Northpointe area. I have since been checking out warehouse jobs. The average full time warehouse worker in the US is paid $32,744 per year or $15.74/hour. The entry level salary is typically $29, 250.--this is according to google, and of course this varies some from state to state. However, there are a number of jobs currently available to substantiate that claim. A warehouse employee would not typically make more than $38,000 per year. Not "high paying", by any means. A warehouse manager in Utah can get $66,750/year. In Wyoming, this could be $80,000. Of course, Utah is lower paying with the minimum wage still being $7.25. The warehouse manager is in charge of ALL the operations. Information regarding the Elwood Inland Port in Illinois (the largest inland port) indicates about 60% of the jobs are temporary or supplied by temporary agencies—no benefits. Someone at a meeting said the percentage of non-permanent workers in warehouses was about 63%--so, similar statistics. The US Federal Poverty Guidelines used to determine financial eligibility for certain programs sets the 2023 guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at $30,000 for a family of 4. So, do we want to set up jobs so the people of Utah can apply for federal subsidies? Where does this make sense? Additionally, by adding warehouses we are increasing the health risks for the overall population of SLC. Why would we add LOW paying jobs in areas particularly at risk for health problems, when the people who have those jobs cannot afford health insurance? Jan Ellen Burton SLC 84105 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 3/21/2023 13:43 Skyler Peterson skyler.peterson@nmrk.com Northpoint Small Area Plan Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I'm writing to you in hopes of you approving the Northpoint Small Area Plan tomorrow. As a long time real estate agent in Salt Lake City, I could go on and on about the benefits of industrial warehousing on the economy and the end consumer (your constituents). Without digressing further, I ask you to please finally put this matter to rest tomorrow and vote to approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Skyler Peterson, 7/20/2023 9:53 Steve McCutchan stevemplan@gmail.com Proposal to Expedite Completion of Northpoint Small Area Plan and Permit Development by XCEL Development I reviewed the Northpoint Small Area Plan (the Plan) and found that it should be revised. This is based upon the Plan's reliance on old data from Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) and the City's Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (AFPP), the part of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restricts development in proximity to the Airport. I also believe the AFPP should be revised as it is also out of date. The reason I believe they are out of date is the information included in SLCIA's Master Plan 2022 and SLCIA's agreement with XCEL Development in February 2021 to not contest our efforts to annex to North Salt Lake and develop a residential community. SLCIA received an Avigation Easement over XCEL Development's property. I prepared a detailed letter (Attached) that outlines my concerns and makes recommendations for a quick resolution. The draft letter is addressed to Nick Norris and Krissy Gilmore (City Planning Staff) but can be revised to be addressed to whomever you believe is the best person to consider the letter's contents. Dave and I are looking for your advice as to how to proceed. In the letter, I propose to prepare a Draft Addendum to the Plan that will solely revise the sections where I have concerns leaving most of the Plan as is. Also, I propose to prepare a revised Draft AFPP that follows FAA Part 150 airport land use compatibility guidelines. There are examples at major airports near metropolitan areas around the West. XCEL Development would pay my expenses. I would revise the drafts under City Planning Staff's direction. Let me know if there is anything else you need. My letter is attached. Steve 8/8/2023 9:18 Steve Starr 1/2 sstarr0690@yahoo.com Northpoint Small Area Plan Dear Members of the City Council, I hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing as a concerned resident of the Northpoint Small Area Plan to express my growing worries about the direction our community is taking due to the unrestrained development that has taken place over the past few years. As a member of this neighborhood for 20 years, I have seen firsthand how this uncontrolled expansion is negatively impacting our way of life and safety. Firstly, I must highlight the significant consequences that have arisen due to the rampant growth in our area. With the continuous influx of construction projects and new developments, we have witnessed the erosion of the unique charm that once defined our neighborhood. Green spaces and local landmarks have disappeared, replaced by faceless structures that do not harmonize with the existing character of our community. This degradation of our environment has led to a loss of identity, lower property values, the safety of ourselves and our families, and leaving many of us feeling disconnected from the place we once proudly called home. Moreover, the burden of increased traffic congestion has taken a toll on our daily lives. The influx of commercial establishments has overwhelmed our infrastructure, leaving us residents facing difficulties commuting to work, accessing essential services, and even jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Our streets have become hazardous due to speeding oversized construction vehicles and inadequate road maintenance, putting the lives of our small community residents at risk. Furthermore, it is disheartening to witness how our concerns have been overlooked by the City Council's decisions to halt any further growth and development in our area. While we understand the importance of controlled growth, this decision has left us in a precarious situation. The sudden halt in the decision for future development has led to stagnation. The residents who wanted to leave and that were under contract to sell their property, which would have given them an opportunity to have a better life, are left out here dealing with the chaos that you, the City Council approved. We now get to live with being burdened with all the construction and development, the large construction vehicles that race down our rural two-lane road exceeding the posted speed limit, at times forcing us to swerve to miss being hit by them. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Contact: Email Subject Description 8/8/2023 9:18 Steve Starr 2/2 sstarr0690@yahoo.com CONTINUED!! Northpoint Small Area Plan The past decisions that were made to allow the current development have negatively impacted our property values and decreased any potential for us to sell in the future. I implore the City Council to reevaluate their stance on development in our area and consider adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates the well-being and interests of the existing residents. We are the ones left living out here with the mess you have already created. The City Council wants to hold up progress in an area that is already being developed with buildings I have personally heard them say vocal and in text messages that they want to see developers build something other than huge warehouses. How can you tell one developer that they can’t build warehouse- type buildings, while a 300+ acre development is currently underway for the exact same building type that you are refusing? I encourage all of you on the City Council to visit our area for a few days and see for yourselves the headache and struggle that we the residents have to deal with on a daily basis, then ask yourselves, if you were given an opportunity to sell your property to a developer and move somewhere else and not have to deal with what is happening in our area for foreseeable future. I can almost guarantee that if you were in fact dealing with what we are dealing with you would want out as well. You are not protecting anyone out here from developers ruining our way of life, in fact, you are doing the exact opposite of this, you are forcing us to stay and deal with your poor decisions regarding the development already approved. Stop standing in the way of an area that is clearly going to be developed and let us move on with our lives and not have to suffer in our area that is already ruined. There is nothing you can do to preserve what we once had out here and there is no saving it. As a concerned citizen of this area, I stand ready to work alongside the City Council and other relevant stakeholders to find a viable solution that will benefit all members of our community. Town hall meetings and open dialogues will foster trust and understanding between residents and decision-makers, ultimately leading to more informed and equitable decisions. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to recognize the urgency of our concerns and take swift action to rectify the detrimental effects of development in our area. I also urge City Council members to reach out to the actual residents living in the area for their thoughts and wishes regarding the changes happening, instead of calling on volunteers and other spokespersons to speak on behalf of this matter to meet City Council members’ agendas. We are the ones living out here and our opinions and thoughts should have more weight than the anti-development citizen living in the avenues of Salt Lake City! Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to witnessing positive changes that will serve us in our small community. Sincerely, Steve L. Starr 8/17/2023 13:52 Colette Ruff ruffcolette@gmail.com 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 UTAH WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION Northpoint Small Area Maps and Narrative Submitted via email 3.2.23 To: Salt Lake City Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council, and Salt Lake County Regional Development Re: Improvements Needed in Northpoint Small Area Plan – Highlighting Conservation Values Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council members, Dina Blaes, Director of the Office of Regional Development and Helen Peters, Director Salt Lake County Regional Planning & Transportation: Please accept and fully consider the enclosed maps and comments on behalf of Audubon Rockies, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, Utah Waterfowl Association, and the Jordan River Commission. Collectively, we appreciate the efforts of the Mayoral office, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop these lands thoughtfully as the state of Utah experiences unprecedented growth. With that in mind, we respectfully submit these comments and associated maps for your consideration as you develop a more robust Northpoint Small Area Plan. The unique scenic qualities of these lands are not only highly valued by residents but are a strong attractant to new potential residents. Great Salt Lake wetlands and riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River not only provide a recreational asset and moneys for the City and County but are incredibly important for maintaining water quality and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitat for resident and migrating wildlife. Agricultural lands support the economy, also support wildlife, and are deeply part of Utah’s culture. Thus, efforts are needed to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. In addition to increasing property value1, these areas will increase the 2200 West Corridor’s resiliency to drought and floods. The state of Utah has been proactive in efforts related to addressing the declining condition of Great Salt Lake. We hope that the following content, which highlights the conservation areas - wetlands and uplands of the Great Salt Lake shoreline – will similarly result in your leadership to preserve these resources and the traditional uses of the landscape. 1 Review of the impact of urban parks and green spaces on residence prices in the environmental health context. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490231 Maps of Important Conservation Areas Figure 1. GSL Wetlands Relative to the Northpoint Small Area. Juxtaposition of ecologically sensitive areas of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem (wetlands and uplands of the Southshore area) and the developed landscape are illustrated. Utah Geological Survey wetlands data (shown in greenish yellow) were used to illustrate the close proximity of GSL wetlands to the Northpoint Small Area plan area and the rest of the Salt Lake City boundary (https://gis.utah.gov/data/water/wetlands/ 2021). These wetland data are not indicative of wetland jurisdiction designation, but are important for showing habitat identification and hydrologic connectivity with Great Salt Lake. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data were validated by UGS by examining aerial imagery, on-the- ground assessment and field verifying to improve accuracy of the NWI data. Among the areas of interest to our organizations is the proposed Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA), located within the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The SHA begins in the northwest corner of Salt Lake City’s Northwest Quadrant and includes the entire Natural Area designated in the Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Master Plan (adopted 2016, http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/NorthwestQ/NWQ.pdf). The proposed SHA, outlined in orange with white diagonal lines, is primarily composed of privately held land used for agriculture, duck clubs and other wildlife conservation, and a small amount of residential land. Some of the land is owned by the Federal government. Taking actions to preserve the natural character of the area, its traditional uses and open space, are critical. We acknowledge that there are vested property rights within the area that need to be respected. We propose the City develop financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain the open space and historic cultural heritage of these identified lands within the Northpoint Small Planning Area. An example tool is a Transfer of Development Rights Program, although there are additional good land preservation tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Natural Area, outlined in green, is nested between conservation lands to the west and duck club conservation and agricultural lands to the north, and creates a boundary between sensitive lands and the Utah Inland Port Authority (outlined in black). The Natural Area includes many wetland features formed by an abandoned portion of an ancient Jordan River delta that are hydrologically connected to Great Salt Lake. From there, the SHA goes through wetlands managed for duck hunting and connects in an eastward direction outside the north perimeter of Salt Lake City International Airport with a portion of the Northpoint Small Area, outlined in brown. From the Northpoint Small Area, the SHA continues in a northwestern direction connecting with uplands that are largely agricultural and surrounded by prime Great Salt Lake wetland habitat on the western and northern sides and is adjacent to the Jordan River and Legacy Nature Preserve on the eastern side. This portion is mostly within Salt Lake County and already designated part of the SHA of the Salt Lake County West General Plan (2022)2. The green cross-hatched areas in the Northpoint Small Area indicate areas where Land Preservation Tools identified in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan could be applied to conserve land to implement low-impact development to neighboring communities and transition to an ecologically relevant buffer to Great Salt Lake wetlands. Figure 2. Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area. These areas are of local and global conservation value. NGO conservation areas are colored purple, and duck club conservation areas are within the green area. It is important to note that agricultural use is located throughout both areas, and that both areas have significant greenbelt status. a) Whether NGO, duck club, or agricultural, all serve an important role in sustaining the ecological health and cultural heritage of the area. The conservation and duck club areas together contain approximately 20,000 acres of managed Great Salt Lake wetlands of different types. b) BirdLife International has identified over 13,600 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) worldwide. Five of them are designated at each bay of Great Salt Lake, including Farmington Bay and its wetlands. These IBAs form the core of a wider network of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)—critically important sites for the persistence of global plant and animal diversity. c) One key function of Great Salt Lake wetlands and nearby uplands is all the habitat resources they provide the hundreds of avian species that depend on them. Each year, birds come to the lake by the millions and as we are witness to habitat loss on the lake due to long-term drought and habitat loss, managed wetlands become an increasingly critical resource for migrating and nesting birds. These wetlands contribute to the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Designation of Great Salt Lake. d) Many of the wetlands are also designated by the 2009 Utah Legislature as a Migratory Bird Production Area (MBPA). As Max Malmquist, Audubon’s Saline Lakes Program, wrote in the March 16th 2021 Audubon Rockies Newsletter: “The 2021 amendment of this law sets further protections of MBPAs: “The act calls for counties in which MBPAs are located to encourage the continuity, development, and viability of these areas, and gives them the “highest priority of use” status, which highlights their importance to migratory birds. Many MBPAs are directly adjacent to Great Salt Lake, are essential in maintaining continuity among wetlands, and play a key role in water inflows to the lake.” 2 The Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA) originally designated in the Salt Lake County West General Plan (SLCWGP, adopted 2022) “consists of the Great Salt Lake and wetlands, agricultural lands, shoreline and waterfowl habitat, and agrarian residential” (SLCWGP Plan Area Map, Figure 1.3, pg. 7, and pg. 22). Additional Ecological Considerations Components of the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan is central to the continued productivity and ecological value of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River. By preserving its existing natural character and traditional land uses in a robust plan, the outcome will: establish a robust natural boundary between mounting pressures of the developed landscape that burden people, wildlife and their habitat alike with unsafe air, water, noise, and light pollution provide a natural barrier to invasive plants and pests that threaten agricultural lands and wildlife areas prevent impacts to hydrological connectivity with the lake and sustains other important wetland functions such as groundwater recharge and flood attenuation prevent the built landscape from reaching the edge of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the lower reach of the Jordan River The guiding principle for Ch. 6, the Natural Environment in Plan Salt Lake is to minimize impact on the natural environment (adopted 2015). “Over the next 25 years, we will strive to protect and restore critical wildlife habitat, sensitive natural lands, and open space. These environments are crucial to water supply and quality and to the ecosystems that sustain us. We will work to preserve and restore riparian corridors in and around our community.” An improved Northpoint Small Area Plan that considers the cultural and ecological benefits of preserving the aforementioned lands will not only apply the above guiding principle, but result in a development scenario that is more resilient to changing environmental conditions and economically sound. Landowners within the Northpoint Small Area currently zoned BP can utilize financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain open space and the cultural heritage of the land. could participate in a Transfer of Development Rights Program, is one of many tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Chapter 4, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022) that maintain open space. Land proposed for development in the Land Preservation Tools Area (green cross-hatched): will be entitled to review and opt for land conservation tools in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022). will allow for some low-impact building, with the ultimate goal of minimizing impacts associated with built environments to nearby families and ecologically sensitive areas. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and welcome the opportunity to work together in the future to address the challenges of balancing these various values along the 2200 West Corridor Sincerely, Heidi M. Hoven, PhD Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary Audubon Rockies 231 W 800 S, Ste E Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Heidi.Hoven@audubon.org rockies.audubon.org/gillmor Lynn de Freitas Executive Director FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake 150 South 600 East, Suite 5D Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 https://www.fogsl.org/about/about-friends Soren Simonsen, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP Executive Director Jordan River Commission PO Box 526081 Salt Lake City, UT 84152-6081 sorensimonsen@utah.gov JordanRiverCommission.com MyJordanRiver.org Jack Ray Utah Waterfowl Association j.ray.pine@outlook.com https://www.facebook.com/groups/263929757011728 Cc: Rachel Otto Chief of Staff OFFICE of the MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Rachel.Otto@slcgov.com WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM WWW.SLC.GOV Councilman Darin Mano Chair, City Council SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION darin.mano@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV Cindy Gust-Jenson Executive Director, Office of the City Council at SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Cindy.Gust-Jenson@slcgov.com Jason Wolf Director of Canyons Management 2001 S. State Street S2-100 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575 JWolf@slco.org https://slco.org/regional-development/contact-us/ Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Wetlands Relative to the the Northpoint Small Area Plan Utah Geological Survey Wetlands Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 1 Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Shoreline Heritage Area Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary SLC Corp Duck Club Conservation Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 2 Victoria Petro Eschler District #1 Councilmember victoria.petro- eschler@slcgov.com Alejandro Puy District #2 Councilmember Alejandro.puy@slcgov.com Chris Wharton District #3 Councilmember chris.wharton@slcgov.com Ana Valdemoros District #4 Councilmember ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com Darin Mano District #5 Councilmember darin.mano@slcgov.com Dan Dugan District #6 Councilmember dan.dugan@slcgov.com Dan Dugan District #7 Councilmember amy.fowler@slcgov.com RE: SUPPORT FOR THE NORHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN As a resident of the Salt Lake City area, I am writing to document my support for the Northpoint Small Area Plan Update that was approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on December 14, 2022. I support the Northpoint Small Area Plan Update and believe landowners in the area should have the right to transition their land use from agricultural to light industrial and manufacturing uses while participating in the economic growth of the area. The Northpoint Small Area Plan outlines a framework for responsible development that will generate one of the most sustainably developed light industrial and manufacturing areas in all of Salt Lake City. The design provisions which will drive sustainable development include: 1. Setbacks from critically endangered and sensitive wetland areas, 2. Max frontage restrictions to support smaller buildings which would reduce traffic and air pollution, 3. Building material restrictions that are compatible with the natural surrounding environment, 4. And, landscaping requirements which would promote pollinator friendly and sustainable habitats for the critical wildlife surrounding this area. These provisions will enhance the surrounding area and drive smaller, manufacturing focused developments while naturally limiting the amount of heavy distribution uses. Additionally, these unique design features will be the driving force in creating high-paying jobs and generating long term economic growth for the area. Incorporating these design features is the appropriate approach to future development. Conversely, any adjustments to specific land use tables will simply complicate, delay, and negatively impact economic growth as well as land valuations. Please consider my recommendation to expeditiously approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan Update and prevent any further delays. Thank you, Casey Call 324 East Pace Lane NSL, UT 84054 Dear City Council Members, My name is Steve Starr, I live at 3138 North 2200 West, Salt Lake City, Utah. I am a resident of the Northpointe area which is under review for development. I had the opportunity to listen to the meeƟng that was held on Tuesday, March 7th. I was not prepared to speak that night; however, I was given a 2- minute opportunity. I took a moment to express my opinion and I am in favor of this being approved on March 21st, 2023. I listened to everyone speaking that night, I am deeply concerned that most of the people who are opposed to this development are not residents out in this area and have no idea of what is happening currently and what has taken place over the past 7 years. This was once a small rural area with liƩle to no traffic on the 2-lane rural road. During the past 7 years, we have witnessed the development of large warehouses (4) with number 5 being built right now on the West side of 2200 West. The new mosquito abatement complex is now located on this road as well. AddiƟonally, there is a start of a new construcƟon project for the Swaner property located in the area, with all the development that has already been approved. Our small rural area and way of life are no longer an opƟon. With all the development that has taken place surrounding us, we no longer wish to live in this locaƟon. We have been offered a fair and respecƞul price to sell to a developer who wants to develop this area, we have been under contract with this developer since March of 2022. During this Ɵmeframe, our life has been put on hold. Normally we spend Ɵme and money on the upkeep of our property, however, with the possibility of us being bought out by this developer we decided not to do any large-scale projects or spend any substanƟal amount of money last year on our property. Our lives have been in a holding paƩern for over a year now, and we are geƫng frustrated with the delay in the decision on this project. During the public comment period in Tuesday’s meeƟng, I had a very difficult Ɵme believing in all the environmental enthusiast’s claims about the impact that this development would have on our water quality in the valley. Not one person who spoke from the environmental point of view relaƟng to water quality menƟoned how these 60 residents who live in the area are on small sepƟc systems for their sewer, and how the sepƟc systems are harmful to the environment and the water aquifers. Here are staƟsƟcs pertaining to sepƟc sewer systems: The average person uses 60 gallons of water per day. The average person per household in this area is 3-4. Everyone in this area is using a sepƟc tank sewer system. There are 60 sepƟc sewer systems in this area. Average household uses 180-240 gallons a day. Over the course of 1 years’ Ɵme that equals 3,942,000-5,256,000 gallons of sewage water being leached into our water aquifers and impacƟng our water quality. I did not hear once during the public comment on how sepƟc systems negaƟvely impact the water quality, I understand the reason why they would choose not to menƟon this in their comments, as it would be counter-producƟve to their agenda, however, I feel that it needs to be brought to light. Another comment I kept hearing repeatedly from people speaking that night, that once again do not live in this area, is how the “60 residents are being forced out” I am one of these 60 residents living in this area and I have never been coerced or forced by any developer to move from my home. The interac Ɵons that my wife and I have had with the developers have been professional and courteous. I would like the record to show that I am one of these 60 residents, and I am not being forced out, and I would like these comments to be removed from your process when making your decision. I find these comments to be slanderous and false. I am a resident in this area, and I can speak for myself and do not need others to falsely speak on my behalf. To sum up everything, my wife and I have enjoyed living in this area for the past 23 years, however, with the addiƟon of the large warehouses and other large buildings surrounding us that have been approved to build in our rural area we feel like it is Ɵme for us to move on. A developer has given us an offer that we can use to move to an area that will meet our needs and not force us to stay in an area where the city will not give permits to fix failing sepƟc systems, or if we choose to do any substanƟal building on our property we will not have to fight with a city that will not issue permits for any type of building. The developments that have already been allowed out in our rural area have destroyed the rural appeal, nothing at this point can save it, at least give those that have an opportunity to leave, to leave with the offer from the developers. Don’t force us to stay in an area that the city has already permiƩed developers to develop with buildings that will only drive down my property value. Sincerely, Steve Starr Stephen G. McCutchan Land & Community Planner PO Box 382 Draper, UT 84020 (801) 557-6945 stevemplan@gmail.com July 19, 2023 Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 S State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Discussion of Possible Revisions to the January 2023 Adop�on Dra� Northpoint Small Area Plan and Airport Flight Path Protec�on Overlay District (AFPP) I have been following the Northpoint Small Area Plan (the Plan) on behalf of XCEL Development. XCEL Development owns 126 Acres east of 2200 West between 2800 North and 3300 North, as shown on the right. XCEL Development wants to annex to Salt Lake City and develop the property. Based upon recent ac�ons by the Salt Lake City Interna�onal Airport (SLCIA), I found sec�ons that should be reconsidered, changing some of the Plan's basic land use premises. Specifically, I believe that the SLCIA Master Plan 2022 includes current and future airport/aircra� noise impact contours that show that Northpoint, and specifically XCEL Development's property, are not "exposed to high levels of aircra� noise" as included in the AFPP and by reference in the Plan. Addi�onally, on February 26, 2021, SLCIA entered into an agreement with XCEL Development whereby XCEL Development granted SLCIA an Aviga�on Easement over Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 2 their property and in return, SLCIA would not contest XCEL Development's ongoing proposal to annex to North Salt Lake and build a residen�al development. I believe that these changes in SLCIA policies toward residen�al development in Northpoint necessitate looking at the Plan’s overall land use approach, specifically whether residen�al development should be permited. Development Constraints, Page 62 of the Plan: The Plan makes the following statement: "This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area." The statement references development poten�al limita�ons because of noise impact contours and the AFPP Influence Zones. It refers to Graphic 2.1 Constraints Analysis for Northpoint (at right), which shows the majority of Northpoint in the "yellow" color interpreted to be in the middle of the legend between "Most suitable" and "Least suitable." This graphic is developed based on the Plan's Appendix C – Constraints analysis. The Constraints for XCEL Development's property were "Airport Influence Zones," "Noise Contours" and "Prime Ag Soils." The Opportunity Areas were "Large Parcels" and "Access to Transporta�on." Based on SLCIA's recent ac�ons, I believe the Airport Influence Zones and Noise Contours constraints are no longer valid. I agree that most of XCEL Development's land Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 3 is Prime Ag Soils, but it isn't easy to con�nue farming surrounded by new industrial development and I-215. Development Constraints, Pages 62 – 63 of the Plan: The Plan makes the following statement: "Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses including maximization of flight times between 7am and 10pm. It has also implemented adjusted flight routes in pursuit of reduced disruption. As residential uses should be limited in Northpoint because of these constraints, there are other uses and opportunities for development that are more compatible with the airport." The Plan refers to Influence Zones A and B, part of the AFPP. XCEL Development's property is within Zone B. The AFPP states the following regarding Influence Zones A and B. "Airport influence zone A is that area exposed to very high levels of aircraft noise and having specific height restrictions." "Airport influence zone B is that area exposed to high levels of aircraft noise, and having specific height restrictions." Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 4 The AFPP refers to the aircraft noise experienced in Zones A and B and "very high levels" and "high levels," respectively. The American Speech- Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) website characterizes loud noises as shown in the figure at left. Using the ASHA list of "Extremely Loud" and "Very Loud" sounds, I would consider the overhead aircraft noise heard in Zones A and B to be in the range of 112 dBA ("very high levels") to 91 dBA ("high levels") or, as seen in the ASHA table, from a rock concert or chainsaw to a passing motorcycle or operating gas mower. The AFPP would lead someone to believe that the airport/aircraft noise levels experienced in Northpoint, at a minimum, would be from 91 to 75 dBA. Noise Impact Contours Included in SLCIA Master Plan 2022 As part of FAA Part 150 Requirements, the SLCIA Master Plan 2022 performed new airport/aircraft noise impact modeling studies. These studies are performed using FAA Approved modeling software and techniques. The findings of the new noise impact modeling studies are located in Section 1.0 of the Master Plan 2022, Inventory of Existing Conditions. Beginning on Page 92 under the "Noise and Noise Compatibility Land Use" heading, the Master Plan 2022 includes the following statement. "All residential areas are considered compatible with cumulative noise level below DNL 65 dBA." 65 dBA is the FAA Part 150 threshold where residential development is prohibited. The report further states the following. (https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/loud-noise-dangers/) Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 5 "There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the updated DNL 65 dBA noise contour." Figure 1-43 – 2017 Noise Contour Map is on Page 95 of the SLCIA Master Plan and is shown at right. The figure illustrates airport/aircraft noise impact contours ranging from 75 to 60 DNL. On Page 92, it states: "The measurement of aircraft noise impacts on land uses is prescribed by the FAA as a Day-Night Sound Level (DNL). The DNL is based on sound levels measures in relative intensity of sound, (decibels or dB) on the "A- weighted scale" or dBA over a time-weighted average normalized to a 24-hour period. DNL has been widely accepted as the best available method to describe aircraft noise exposure." The figure at right is an enlargement of Figure 1- 43 that shows the Northpoint boundary in bold blackline. Labels have been added to depict the 60 and 65 decibel contours. Blue contours are the noise impact contours for the 2037 Forecast DNL Contour. Black contours are the 2017 Base Year DNL Contour. The figure illustrates the following. - The 2017 Base Year shows that all the private land in Northpoint is outside of the 60 DNL contour. Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 6 - Over half of Northpoint is outside of the 2037 Forecast 60 DNL Contour. - All of Northpoint is outside of the 2017 Base Year 65 DNL Contour. - All private Northpoint land is outside the 2037 Forecast 65 DNL Contour. Summarizing what is learned from the noise impact contours of the SLCIA Master Plan 2022 Noise Contour Map: - When measured against FAA Part 150 Regula�ons, Northpoint could accommodate residen�al development of any type. - There is no eviden�ary basis for the noise level descrip�ons included for AFPP Zones A and B, "Very High Levels" and "High Levels," respec�vely. Northpoint Small Area Plan Revisions Made through an Addendum Most of the Plan provides a path to manage land uses in Northpoint. I believe that revisions can be made to those sec�ons that include references to the AFPP and airport/aircra� noise impact contours by preparing an addendum. The addendum would recommend specific, limited revisions that only addressed the Plan's AFPP, airport/aircra� noise impact contour-related sec�ons and land use determina�ons. Preparing and reviewing the Northpoint Small Area Plan has taken years. We need to find an expedited method to prepare an addendum. I recommend that I be allowed to prepare a dra� addendum for the City's review and approval, with XCEL Development paying my expenses. XCEL Development would not be involved in the dra� prepara�on. Once a dra� is prepared, City Staff would review it, and I would make revisions solely based on their recommenda�ons. I believe all will agree that I have the experience and working knowledge to prepare the dra� addendum. Over the past five years, I have extensively worked to understand Northpoint, the City's AFPP, SLCIA's Master Plan 2022 and FAA Part 150 Regula�ons. Nick Norris, Planning Director Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Department July 19, 2023 Page 7 I could prepare the addendum in one week to keep momentum on the City Council's review and approval of the Northpoint Small Area Plan. AFPP Revisions From my work on XCEL Development's North Salt Lake annexa�on proposal, I researched airport impact zones (AOZs) across the western United States. I was comparing the County's AOZ and the City's AFPP with how other similar metropolitan ci�es with large airports addressed FAA Part 150 and airport-adjacent land use compa�bility. I could provide the City with examples found and recommend a revised AFPP that used FAA Part 150 regula�ons as the basis for land use compa�bility. Based on those examples, recommenda�ons, and discussions with your Staff, I could prepare a Dra� AFPP revision for your considera�on and approval. XCEL Development would have no involvement in the revised dra� AFPP but would pay my expenses. A dra� revised AFPP will be provided to City Planning a week a�er the Plan addendum is delivered. XCEL Development is commited to following through with its applica�on to annex to Salt Lake City and develop its property. My exper�se and experience can be used to expedite revisions to the Northpoint Small Area Plan and the AFPP. They can be a "Win- Win" for the City, the property owner and others hoping to complete the Northpoint Small Area Plan. Very truly yours, Stephen G. McCutchan UTAH WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION August 31, 2023 TO: Darin Mano, Chair, District 5, Salt Lake City Council Victoria Petro, Vice Chair, District 1, Salt Lake City Council Alejandro Puy, RDA Chair, District 2, Salt Lake City Council Chris Wharton, District 3, Salt Lake City Council Ana Valdemoros, District 4, Salt Lake City Council Dan Dugan, RDA Vice Chair, District 6, Salt Lake City Council Sarah Young, District 7, Salt Lake City Council CC: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff, Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office Laura Briefer, Director, Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Dina Blaes, Director, Salt Lake County Office of Regional Development Nick Norris, Director Salt Lake City Planning Nick Tarbet, Sr. Policy Analyst, Salt Lake City Council RE: Requests regarding the Northpoint Small Area Plan from the Shoreline Heritage Area Working Group Great Salt Lake and its ecosystem, including aquatic life in open water, wetlands, uplands, and wildlife, are in imminent peril. Water conservation and wet winters will mean little if human development and use of the ecosystem fragments, surrounds, or paves over the freshwater marshes, other wetlands, and adjacent uplands that comprise the shoreline of Great Salt Lake. The shoreline is essential to over 80% of the bird species that rely on Great Salt Lake. Some of the most critical shoreline wetlands — and those most urgently at risk — are in or adjacent to Salt Lake City. However, the most current draft of the North Point Small Area Plan does not reflect the vision and protection of sensitive lands adopted in Plan Salt Lake (2015), and will greatly exacerbate habitat fragmentation. The current Northpoint Vision Map (see draft Northpoint Small Area Plan, p. 16) does not reflect the important conservation tools for the protection of critical sensitive lands elaborated elsewhere in the plan. Additionally, approximately half of the land within the Northpoint small area is unincorporated, and the City’s draft plan for this area is incompatible with the Salt Lake County West General Plan (adopted in May 2022) that specifically identifies and recommends protection of these sensitive lands of their Shoreline Heritage Area within and adjacent to the Northpoint small area through similar preservation tools. It is unimaginable that they City may implement a specific plan that contradicts its own comprehensive plan policy recommendations to “expand natural land and watershed protection acreage,” and “Preserve natural open space and sensitive areas to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem functions through…reduction in habitat fragmentation,” (see Plan Salt Lake, p. 27), while also ignoring County’s West General Plan sensitive land policies for those areas currently in its jurisdiction, which are similar to and entirely consistent with Plan Salt Lake. *We urge the City to join Salt Lake County by formally adopting a Shoreline Heritage Area and to embody that policy in its Northpoint Small Area Plan and other City actions and programs. A new Alternative Northpoint Vision Map that integrates the Shoreline Heritage Area and applies the preservation tools identified within the Northpoint Small Area Pan is attached. *A Shoreline Heritage Area is consistent with Plan Salt Lake and Salt Lake County’s West General Plan. Adopting this policy now will 1) implement Mayor Mendenhall’s and the City Council’s commitment in the recently adopted City Budget to create a “Great Salt Lake Shoreline Preserve” and 2) provide a timely catalyst for enacting ordinances and pursuing land preservation tools and programs within the Shoreline Heritage Area that honor private property rights, while allowing economic growth in a way that also ensures the preservation of healthy lake habitat and the cultural heritage associated with it. With construction booming, there is no time for delay. Hesitation will only condemn a natural legacy to irretrievable and immeasurable loss. Sincerely, Heidi M. Hoven, PhD, Conservation Specialist Soren Simonsen, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP Audubon Rockies Gillmor Sanctuary Executive Director, Jordan River Commission Lynn DeFreitas, Executive Director Jack Ray, President, Utah Waterfowl Assoc. Friends of Great Salt Lake Rudy Duck Club Dave Deisley, Attorney & Birder Cindy Cromer, Citizen Planner SLC Corp W 2 1 0 0 N N 4 0 0 0 W Fo x b o r o D r 67 W C e n t e r S t W 3 3 0 0 N N 3 2 0 0 W N Rose Park Ln N 2 2 0 0 W L e g a c y P k w y W 1 7 0 0 N W 2 1 0 0 N N 3 2 0 0 W N P e r i m e t e r R u d y C a n a l W e s t B r a n c h Ci t y D r a i n J o r d a n R i v e r Recl a m a t i o n D i t c h 215Salt Lake City N o r t h S a l t L a k e SALT LAKE CO. DAVIS CO. Special Conservation Zoning for the Northpoint Small Area Northpoint Small Area Shoreline Heritage Area Primary Sending Area (TDR) Special Conservation Zoning/Secondary Sending Area Jordan River Riparian Buffer Airport Preservation Area North Point Eco- Industrial Area Area of Development Freshwater Emergent Wetland Other Wetland SLCo. - DavisCo. Salt Lake City North Salt Lake 16 Protected Open Space 2 2 0 0 W 2 9 0 0 W W Center St 3 2 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r Rudy CanalReclaimation Ditch Ci t y D r a i n We s t B r a n c h L e g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Powe r E a s e m e n t Ro c k y M o u n t a i n Po w e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland Natural Open Space Business Park / Industrial Transitional Land Uses Airport Expansion DRAF T September 2022 Northpoint Small Area Plan Draft SLC Corp W 2 1 00 N 0 0 W 67 W C e n t e r W 3300 N N 3 2 0 0 W N R o se P a rk L n N 2 2 0 0 W L e g a c y P k w y W 1700 N W 2 100 N N 3 2 0 0 W N P e r ime ter Rudy Cana l West Bra n c h City D r a i n J o r d a n R i v e r Reclamat i o n D i t c h 215Salt Lake City N o r t h S a l t L a k e SALT LAKE CO. DAVIS CO. Special Conservation Zoning for the Northpoint Small Area Northpoint Small Area Shoreline Heritage Area Primary Sending Area (TDR) Special Conservation Zoning/Secondary Sending Area Jordan River Riparian Buffer Airport Preservation Area North Point Eco- Industrial Area Area of Development Freshwater Emergent Wetland Other Wetland SLCo. - DavisCo. Salt Lake City North Salt Lake Alternative Northpoint Small Area Plan Vision Map A proposed revision to the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan that improves consistency with adopted city and county plans to improve and expand critical Great Salt Lake Shoreline habitat, avoid further fracturing of critical habitat, restore natural ecological and hydrologic functions of the integral riparian, wetland and upland systems, and preserve historical community identities and activities, including Indigenous Knowledge, associated with this area and its connection to heightened coordinated Great Salt Lake preservation efforts. All economic development opportunities are retained and even enhanced by transferring those to more appropriate locations, rather than this ecologically sensitive area. PROPOSED NORTHPOINT VISION MAP City Council Briefing // September 5, 2023 NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN PLNPCM2022-00687 Salt Lake City // Planning Division STUDY AREA 2100 N 3200 N Salt Lake City // Planning Division CONTEXTCURRENT ZONING EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OVERVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division The key highlights of this Plan include: •Recognizes the intense development pressure the area is under. •Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics . •Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on agricultural uses and important wildlife habitats . •Recommends methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light . •Updates future annexation potential . GOALS OF THE PLAN VISION MAP Natural Open Space Areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. Transitional The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the inevitable impacts of Business Park/Industrial development on residential properties. Light Industrial The majority of the Plan Area may convert to industrial and business properties. Airport Airport owned property Salt Lake City // Planning Division Salt Lake City // Planning Division DESIGN STANDARDS Image 3: Design Standards Examples •Buffering and Setbacks •Maximum Building Frontage •Standards for New Development •Water Conscious Development •Airport Conflict Mitigation •Additional Standards for Transitional Areas •Standards for Natural Open Space IMPLEMENTATION: CRITICAL PATH I 2900 W/2200 W Redevelopment and Construction Evaluate Feasibility of Acquiring City -Owned Open Space •Land adjacent to Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 W are priority areas. Development Code Updates •Northpoint -specific development code as the preferred implementation path . •Incorporate incentive -based tools for preserving open space . •Review landscaping requirements . •Amend Lowland Conservancy Overlay to include canals and drains buffers . Salt Lake City // Planning Division IMPLEMENTATION: OTHER ITEMS •Require Local Area Utility Plans •Develop Environmental Impact Standards •Implement Wetland Buffers •Coordinate Police and Fire Service and Infrastructure •Support Annexation of Contiguous Parcels AMEND THE MAJOR STREET PLAN •2900 W – new north -south connector •3200 W – remain unimproved and change from a Collector to a Local Street •Airport road connecting to 2100 N THE TOOLKIT The Land Preservation Tools: •Regulatory: Clustering, Sensitive Landscape Studies •Incentive Based: Conservation Easements, Purchase/Transfer of Development Rights Program •Land Acquisition: Land Exchange Financial Tools: •Tax increment areas, public infrastructure districts, special investment areas, impact fees REVISIONS TO DRAFT PLAN The following changes were made following Counci l direction: •Stronger Language: should vs will. Included a statement to make plan a binding document. •Business Park: Removed reference to Business Park land use from vision map. •3200 W: Added clarification that development cannot be accessed from 3200 W, and that 3200 W will remain unimproved on Major Street Plan. •Vision Map: Added proposed buffers to vision map. •Wetland Buffer: Removed flexibility in wetland buffer width to straightforward 300 feet. •Bird -Friendly Design: Added a design standard to support bird-friendly design. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Krissy Gilmore / Senior Planner Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com NORTHPOINT Small Area Plan Salt Lake City Adoption Draft, March 2023 DRAFT 2 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................4 Location .................................................................................................................6 Plan Context and Purpose .....................................................................................7 Guide to this Plan ...................................................................................................8 Executive Summary .............................................................................................10 Chapter 2 The Vision ....................................................12 Constraints to the Vision .....................................................................................14 Land Use Categories ............................................................................................15 Vision Map ...........................................................................................................16 Design Standards ................................................................................................18 Chapter 3 Implementation ...........................................30 Critical Path Implementation Items ....................................................................32 Additional Implementation Items ........................................................................34 Chapter 4 The Toolkit ....................................................36 Using the Toolkit ..................................................................................................38 Land Preservation Tools .......................................................................................40 Financial Implementation Tools ..........................................................................46 DRAFT Appendix A Existing Conditions Appendix B Public Input Appendix C Constraints Analysis Appendix D Full Financial Analysis Appendix E Major Street Plan Amendment DRAFT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6 Location The Northpoint Plan Area is located just north of Downtown Salt Lake City, near Farmington Bay and the Great Salt Lake. The Plan Area is bounded to the east by Interstate 215 and is comprised of mainly agricultural, industrial and residential uses. Northpoint lies within the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, adjacent to vital environmental resources including the Jordan River and playas and wetlands associated with the Great Salt Lake. Over half of the property in Northpoint is currently under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County and consists of agricultural uses, business park development, industrial and commercial zoning. Environmental considerations greatly influence the future growth and development of the area. Directly south of Northpoint is Salt Lake City International Airport, which provides opportunities for and constraints to the potential development within Northpoint. The airport continues to expand through ongoing renovations and is currently being guided by the 2022 Salt Lake International Airport Master Plan. Its proximity is a defining factor of the Plan Area. Northpoint is also adjacent to several recreational areas including the Wasatch Mountain Range, with its many trails, the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, and the Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex. Introduction Overview Graphic 1.1 | Northpoint Plan Area DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 7 Esri,H ERE,Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMapc ontributors,andt he GISu serc ommunity Jurisdiction Plan Context and Purpose In 2000, a Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted with goals to eliminate potential land use conflicts between the Salt Lake International Airport, future development, and the existing agricultural lifestyle. Other notable planning efforts for this region include the 1992 Northwest and the Jordan River/Airport Plan which address the Northpoint Plan Area, the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Jordan River, the Salt Lake Airport, and surrounding land; the 2020 Blueprint Jordan River Plan which illustrates a cohesive vision for the River as it stretches through multiple jurisdictions; the 2021 Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan; and the 2021 Salt Lake County West General Plan. The northwest portion of Salt Lake City is limited by multiple layers of constraints, mostly environmental, but also due to airport activity, connectivity, and social equity issues. It is one of the largest growth areas for the City, but quite possibly, the most difficult to develop. This Plan addresses the natural environment, built environment, and community attributes. Many factors contribute to constraints facing the area, however many attributes act as opportunities. The Northpoint Small Area Plan Update is a response to the rapid pace of growth and change in the northwest portion of Salt Lake City and the anticipated new business park and light industrial uses in the area. The key goals of this Plan are to: »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the plan area. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Graphic 1.2 | Northpoint Jurisdictions Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Plan Effectiveness The Northpoint Small Area Plan, including the Design Standards in chapter 2, is intended to be a binding document and any zoning map amendments or redevelopment shall follow the standards established within the Plan. DRAFT 8 Guide to This Plan Plan Salt Lake Northpoint Small Area Plan Land Use Code and Zoning Ordinances Design Standards Incentives Tools and Actions Introduction This document is intended to support Salt Lake City’s overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake while also providing tailored tools to help the Plan Area grow appropriately. Once the Northpoint Small Area Plan is adopted, its supplemental recommendations will guide applicants to develop within the scope of the Community’s Vision. This plan should be referenced when discretionary land use decisions are being made. These recommendations include, design standards, land acquisition tools, regulatory tools, and incentive based tools. Master plans detail the vision, policy, and framework of the community that will guide growth and development over time. As the plan area transitions from greenfield and rural residential to light industrial, this plan outlines specific design standards and action steps the City can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 9 Public Process This planning process included one- on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and City and ounty staff, a public open house, two public questionnaires, and a property owner- specific questionnaire. With several applications active in the Plan Area at the time this project started, it became apparent early on that habitat preservation and residential quality of life were primary concerns. This shaped the Plan, shifting focus from land use recommendations to tools available to the City to preserve habitat, mitigate impacts of new development on residents, water and air quality, and wildlife, and determine appropriate improvements to existing infrastructure. 195 820 DRAFT 10 Executive Summary The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a detailed master plan for the Northwestern Community of Salt Lake City. The Plan Area contains large amounts of underdeveloped land, nestled between wetlands from the Great Salt Lake to the west and urban growth to the east. Additionally, parts of the Plan Area are fragmented with unincorporated County land and airport-owned property. A clear plan is needed to address the development pressures in the Plan Area, which continue to increase despite natural constraints. The Northpoint Small Area Plan aims to guide future development based on the previously adopted community plans and future land uses that the City has identified as appropriate to the area. While many property owners intend to retain their property as agricultural land, redevelopment and new development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial and manufacturing. The Plan contains three elements to guide growth into the future: Vision Map The Northpoint area has experienced growth that can conflict; industrial development adjacent to agriculture and residential uses, and developments adjacent to or abutting critical habitat areas (i.e. wetlands and upland). Industrial development has begun, and is expected to continue, to creep into this area of Salt Lake City. Understanding this reality, the Northpoint Vision is to balance the anticipated growth of light industrial and manufacturing uses with the existing and continued residential and agricultural uses of the area. This will be accomplished through outlining mitigation strategies for high-impact development directed at preserving quality of life for residents and the natural environment. Design Standards The design standards are directly connected to the anticipated future development in the area. Building and site design have the ability to affect built environments in impactful ways. When applied with a clear vision in mind, design standards can shape development that reduces visual and physical land use conflicts. The standards touch on each land use designation and provide clear direction as to how the area should be built. Although the standards are separately outlined in the plan, they are implied to be implemented with the other action items. Implementation What separates the plan from a design standards manual, is the comprehensive action items that are addressed in the implementation chapter. The action items range from strategies to best preserve open space and critical habitats, recommends further study for service and infrastructure needs, annexation of unincorporated properties within the Plan Area, and funding tools that will help the Plan Area grow responsibly. These elements can be applied to the area as a whole and provide different initiatives aside from traditional zoning regulation guidance. There are three action items identified as “critical path”, being the most critical to complete once this plan is adopted. These action items are: »Services and Infrastructure | Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W »Built Environment and Design | Adopt Development Code Updates and Codify the Design Standards Herein »Natural Environment and Preservation | Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 11 Goals of this Plan »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Vision Map Categories See more on page 16 Key Design Standards See more on page 20 Critical Implementation See more on page 32 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Areas where development is limited to passive recreational amenities TRANSITIONAL Areas that are currently residential. New development will be subject to impact mitigation measures LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Areas anticipated to develop as Light Industrial AIRPORT Areas owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport Limit maximum building frontage along 2200 W Maintain buffers between new development and existing wetlands, canals, drains, and the Jordan River Maintain a 65-foot buffer between new development and existing residential Allow clustering of buildings to maximize buffers Emphasize appropriate building materials and encourage native landscaping Services and Infrastructure Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 W and construct 2900 W Built Environment and Design Create a Northpoint specific development code and codify the Design Standards Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring sensitive lands as city-owned open space How Will We Get There?DRAFT CHAPTER 2 THE VISION 14 Constraints to the Vision As discussed in Chapter 1, the Plan Area consists of several development constraints ranging from sensitive wetland habitat to airport influence zone regulations. Mapping these constraints is a crucial first step in determining the areas most suitable for new development and identifying areas that should be preserved as habitat and open space. The Constraints Map illustrates the results of this analysis and may be used to prioritize sensitive lands for preservation or acquisition. For a detailed analysis of development constraints and opportunities used in this analysis, see Appendix C. Constraints reviewed in this analysis included: »Designated Wetlands »Salt Lake City International Airport-Owned Properties »Utility and Open Space Easements »Airport Influence Zones (A, B, C) »Viable Agriculture »Airport Noise Contours Using the Vision Map and Design Standards The Vision Map in this chapter is intended to show where additional standards are necessary to ensure future development is compatible with existing residential, agricultural, and sensitive habitats. To use this chapter, review the Vision Map and accompanying Design Standards. It is intended that the following design standards be incorporated into Salt Lake City Zoning and Development Code to apply to new development in the Plan Area. The Northpoint Vision Overview Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ¯ Most suitable for development Least suitable for development NORTHPOINT CONSTRAINTS MAP Graphic 2.1 | Constraints Analysis for Northpoint DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 15 Natural Open Space Purpose: Natural Open Space areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. The Natural Open Space district aims to connect critical habitats in the least fragmented way possible considering development trends in the Plan Area. Applicability: These areas include designated wetlands, uplands, existing recreational amenities, and areas connecting them. All designated wetlands, uplands, and other sensitive lands fall under the Natural Open Space district. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be limited to passive recreational opportunities, trailheads, and small parking areas to serve recreational uses. Adjacent land uses will be subject to mitigation. Transitional Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the impacts of light industrial development on residential and agricultural properties. Applicability: New development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial with a focus on manufacturing land uses. There are no properties in the Plan Area that are identified for new residential development. Use Standards: Residential properties shall be subject to natural habitat impact mitigation standards such as buffering critical areas from all development. Should any residential properties transition to Industrial, all Industrial standards will apply. Light Industrial Purpose: Business and light industrial development is anticipated in the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area will convert to light industrial, manufacturing, or business properties. Applicability: The industrial district applies to properties that do not contain significant constraints such as wetlands, uplands, existing residential, or other major limitations. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be reviewed closely for impact to existing residents and sensitive lands and may require additional mitigation designs focused on protecting the natural environment and quality of life of existing residents. Airport Purpose: These areas are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport, though there are no plans currently to develop these areas. Applicability: The Airport district applies to properties that are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be limited to passive recreational opportunities, natural open space, and utility and infrastructure needed for the Salt Lake International Airport. Land Use Categories DRAFT 16 Protected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland* Natural Open Space Light Industrial Transitional Land UsesProtected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Airport *Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Vision Map is intended as a general guide for wetland areas, but specific wetland delineation should be done when land is developed. Identification of wetlands primarily involves the determination of three factors: the predominance of wetland vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and signs of hydrology. 75 ft Canal/Drain Buffer 100 ft Jordan River Buffer DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 17 Without Design Standards With Design Standards Smaller buildings facing existing residential and major roadways, largest buildings in the middle of development. Greater attention to building design (i.e. building materials, lighting, landscaping, etc.). Allow clustering of buildings in favor of preserving connected habitat and critical open space. No restrictions on building size near/facing existing residential. Typical industrial development styles can disturb natural habitat with disruptive materials, lighting, hazardous landscaping and fencing, etc. Minimum lot sizes and open space requirements force buildings to be oriented in an inefficient way, taking up more native land than needed. EFFECT OF DESIGN STANDARDS DRAFT 18 Design Standards Land Use Light Industrial Transitional Minimum Setback of New Development Designated Wetlands 300 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Canals and Drains 75 ft 75 ft Jordan River 100 ft1, 2 100 ft1, 2 Existing Residential 65 ft 65 ft Maximum Continuous Building Frontage on 2200 W 400 ft 250 ft 1 | Should preserve uninterrupted connection between wetlands and uplands. 2 | Should include and maintain a planted stormwater mitigation element such as a bioswale. Setbacks and Buffers Buffers and setbacks are intended to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and provide important habitats for wildlife that utilize buffer areas. While setbacks shown in this document are intended to extend from the natural feature (i.e., designated wetland or canal) to any impervious built surface of new development (i.e., sidewalks, parking lots), specific details will be determined when the setback is adopted into code. Setbacks from natural features may include landscaping and stormwater management. Required setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential are intended to extend from new structure to existing residential structure(s). Setbacks from residential structures may include sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A maximum building length along 2200 West is recommended to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial development on longstanding agricultural and residential uses, as well as maintain habitat connections. Smaller setbacks in the transition area are intended to allow flexibility for residential development under the existing zoning. As development intensity increases with the development of light industrial land uses, the greater setbacks apply. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 19 Preferred Buffer for Development Adjacent to Wetlands/Uplands * When buffer is applied during development of a property the City must consider the potential for a regulatory taking of property. DRAFT 20 Design Standards 1 | Habitat Mitigation Standards 1.1 | Grading Limitations Considering limitations to grading can help minimize impacts to native vegetation. It is important for only areas planned for development to be cleared and graded as it can allow for natural drainage courses to be maintained and reduces the need to manage stormwater flows. ◊ Soil cover or ramps shall be included to allow for movement of wildlife through the drainages. ◊ Excavation methods such as installation of underdrains shall be required. ◊ Vertical drop structures and concrete lined channels are prohibited. ◊ Use of large angular rip-rap for erosion control shall be limited. ◊ Non-structural features that also provide riparian habitat shall be considered. ◊ Development shall relate the building to the natural site by stepping buildings and avoiding mass leveling of the site. 1.2 | Fencing and Walls Fences and walls can be barriers to wildlife and impede the movement of wildlife between habitat areas. Although fencing can be used to exclude wildlife, it should be applied in very specific areas that do not restrict larger wildlife movement and migration patterns or access to food, water, shelter, or potential mates. ◊ Fencing shall be permeable to allow for the safe passage of animals and facilitate wildlife movement through existing or constructed wildlife corridors. ◊ Natural barriers for privacy purposes shall consist of natural materials where possible, such as boulders, densely-planted vegetation, or rip-rap. ◊ Decorative fencing features that could be hazardous to wildlife shall be prohibited including: »Pointed or narrow extensions at the top of fences. »Wires that may entangle animals. »Hollow fence posts that are open at the top when birds or other small animals may become entrapped in an open cavity. Standards for All New Development Graphic 2.3 | Native Landscaping DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 21 1.3 | Dark Sky Lighting Lighting is an important element in built environments that allows for a perceived sense of safety at night. However, without appropriate design and placement, outdoor light fixtures can sometimes be inefficient. Outdoor lighting in the Plan Area should be designed in a way that benefits the built environment without negatively impacting the natural environment. Artificial lighting can disrupt wildlife’s natural patterns and behaviors. Graphic 2.4 | Dark Sky Friendly Lighting ◊ Lighting in non-functional spaces is prohibited (i.e. architectural and landscape lighting is not necessary for function of built environments). ◊ Light fixtures with motion or heat sensor may be used to keep lights off when lighting is not required. ◊ Lighting should consist of International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved fixtures. ◊ Electronic message centers (EMC) shall be switched off completely after 11pm (or 30 minutes after the close of business for on-premises signs, whichever is later), and remain off until one hour before sunrise. ◊ EMCs applications for traffic and safety information shall be exempt from curfew. ◊ Light fixtures shall be selectively placed and fully shielded (i.e. light shall only be emitted downward and not above an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the light source). ◊ Lights shall be directed away from natural areas. ◊ Lighting shall use timers to automatically turnoff outside of hours of operation. ◊ Outdoor lighting shall be a color temperature of 3,000 kelvin or less.DRAFT 22 Design Standards 2 | Water Conscious Development 2.1 | Landscaping Regulating native species in landscape design can lead to low-maintenance and water-wise environments that reflect the natural environment in the built environment. Additionally, habitat value can be increased when landscaping isn’t overly manicured. However, weeds and invasive species should be controlled so that they do not compete with native species for necessary water and nutrients. ◊ Landscaped areas shall follow Low Impact Develpoment (LID) principles. ◊ Landscaping shall consist of native, adaptive, and drought-tolerant plantings. ◊ New construction shall follow the Salt Lake City Tree Protection and Preservation Policy. ◊ Landscaping shall not require modifications to the native soil. ◊ Minimize irrigated landscape areas and utilize naturalized swales. ◊ Fertilizers and herbicides shall be prohibited. ◊ Development adjacent to wetlands and uplands shall adhere to the buffer requirements herein and include on-site stormwater management. Graphic 2.5 | Stormwater Runoff Design 2.2 | Stormwater Management As undeveloped land becomes developed with hard surface materials, loss of permeable surfaces will have a direct affect on stormwater runoff. It is essential to avoid stormwater contact with industrial materials and activities and to avoid point-source pollution and degradation of the wetlands, uplands, and other natural habitat. There are comprehensive best management practice guides that can help applicant navigate the best solution for the specific use. ◊ Significant new development resulting in a change of land use shall include environmental impact mitigation measures and align them with current executive orders and master plans. ◊ Embankments and spillways shall be designed and approved by engineers that specialize in stormwater management and ecologically friendly design. ◊ Stormwater systems shall not diminish water flow to wetlands. ◊ Sedimentation systems shall be used. »Sediment systems are more efficient with pollutants associated with metals, organic compounds, and other oxygen-demanding substances. There are limitations with sediment systems as small particles do not always settle therefore the substances in the industrial stormwater discharge should be evaluated prior to implementation. ◊ Detention ponds shall be utilized with an underdrain to outlet to allow water to slowly release into proper stormwater systems. ◊ Retention ponds shall be utilized to regularly contain water on site and via infiltration. ◊ Infiltration systems shall be utilized to capture and infiltrate runoff in order to reduce runoff volume. »i.e. Infiltration Trenches, basins, bio-retention systems and underground infiltration tanks. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 23 Graphic 2.9 | Porous Surface Street Edge Graphic 2.8 | Native Landscaping Graphic 2.7 | Bioswale Graphic 2.6 | Bioswale 3 | Airport Conflict Mitigation Aviation adjacent to the Plan Area has been around for many years. Similarly to the rest of Salt Lake Valley, the Airport, too, has grown and anticipates further growth into the future. It is important to account for current and future impacts. 3.1 | Noise Regulation programs like Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise, should be implemented on airport owned properties as to mitigate the impacts of noise. This program was established by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and sets forth the measure that a specific airport operator has taken to reduce the impacts of noise. 3.2 | Land Use Compatibility Local land use planning such as this plan can better prepare for the implications of planning around airports, and other airport- related development. Land use decisions around the airport properties shall account for the impacts and determine whether the proposed use is appropriate. This can be hindered when multiple jurisdictions regulate the surrounding lands, however, there are tools such as annexation to consolidate regulatory authority and ensure that only appropriate land use decisions are made.DRAFT 24 Graphic 2.10 | Natural Design Elements Graphic 2.11| Natural Building Materials Graphic 2.12 | Interior Courtyard 4 | Visual Design Conscious design can help enhance compatibility between various uses and ensure that development fits in with the surrounding natural environment as best as possible. ◊ Units (and open space required by code) shall be organized or “clustered” in an efficient manner on properties where doing so will allow for larger habitat buffers. ◊ Building frontages along 2200 W shall not exceed 400 ft in length. ◊ Uninterrupted horizontal expanses of 100 ft in length of any opaque material, including opaque glass, shall be prohibited on building frontages visible from public streets. ◊ Natural building materials, colors, and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features shall be included in the exterior of buildings to mitigate the contrast of the built and natural environment. ◊ Follow bird-friendly window and building design by mitigating reflective and transparent conditions. New construction and major renovation projects shall incorporate bird-friendly building materials and design features, including those recommended by the American Bird Conservancy publication Bird- Friendly Building Design. ◊ Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. ◊ Mechanical systems/equipment shall be shielded with barriers such as foliage and fences. ◊ Buiding designs should have a variety of unit sizes to accommodate different uses and the structural layout should also allow for flexibility. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 25 Standards for Transitional Areas Development within Transitional Areas will be held to the standards previously mentioned with the following additional standards. 1 | Industrial Land Use Mitigation As industrial developments increase in the Plan Area, it is essential to recognize the compatibility issues associated with industrial land uses and be able to mitigate issues through building and site design. Industrial developments intrinsically contain issues with noise, odor, dust, traffic, light, air quality, and visual/design elements, therefore mitigation is necessary. 1.1 | Noise Industrial uses can have implications on noise that can affect adjacent land uses and also the natural environment. Noise can be classified into two different types: airborne and structure borne. Airborne is from the source to the receiver and can travel in all directions whereas structure-borne is vibrations through materials. Regardless of noise type, mitigation efforts should be in place prior, during, and after development. The following strategies are ways to mitigate the unwanted and unnecessary noise impacts due to industrial development. ◊ Noise impacts shall be mitigated by absorption, barriers, and/or damping. »Absorption works towards dissipating airborne acoustic sound waves. The best sound-absorbing materials are acoustic foam, fabric panels, or underlayment. Common building materials do not absorb most sound whereas softer materials, such as carpet, foam padding, and fiberglass insulation are more efficient in dissipating noise. »Physical barriers such as a berm or spatial separation that account for height, distance, thickness, and material type can contribute to the extent of mitigation. »Damping reduces acoustic vibration within a structure or wall. ◊ Building masses such as U or L shaped forms are preferred as they can contribute to noise mitigation through spatial separation. ◊ Interior courtyards or garden spaces may be incorporated as they can be an effective noise mitigation strategy by providing quiet and light-filled spaces. ◊ Vegetation shall be high and dense when used for noise mitigation for significant effectiveness. ◊ Air-conditioning units shall be substituted for pressurized plenum space where possible. A plenum is a separate interior space provided for air circulation for heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning. Graphic 2.13 | Existing Residential in the Plan AreaDRAFT 26 Design Standards 1.2 | Odor Unlike other externalities of industrial uses, odor can be difficult to measure due to its subjective nature. However, there are some measures that can be taken to address the duration, frequency, intensity, and location of noxious odors. ◊ Mitigating odor shall start at the source of the emitter, such as food operations, traffic emissions, chemical facilities, mechanical equipment pollution, and material handling. Operational and engineering best practices can mitigate odors prior to being released in the environment. ◊ If emissions cannot be prevented, various solutions shall be requierd such as: »Plantings and trees to absorb and mask unpleasant smells as well as act as visual screening. Additionally, plantings can act as ozone generator which eliminates odorous substances through oxidation and are low maintenance. Odor mitigation foliage include field maples, peace lily, serviceberry, sansevieria. »Dispersion to reduce consolidated emissions. Dispersion can look like increased separation between odor source and receivers to allow for dilution or contain the dispersion in an enclosure to prevent odors dispersing. »Location of open tanks and storage piles. Limit the presence of smells such as locating open tanks and storage piles away from residential and high-occupancy areas. »Structure design elements. The operability and placement of windows and doors can also prevent intrusion of odors. 1.3 | Air Quality Permitting land uses and occupants that engage in sustainable processes and produce minimal emissions is the most effective way to mitigate air quality issues. In circumstances where this is unavoidable, exhausting air with ventilation can be effective and dilution can be used to mitigate the impacts ventilation can have on the surroundings. ◊ Apply in-room air cleaners and vegetation barriers to help mitigate localized air pollution. ◊ Use air filters and electronic air cleaners such as ionizers in duct-mounted and portable cleaners. »i.e. activated carbon is an adsorbent media air filter. ◊ To address on-site and off-site disturbances, green roofs shall be required on any new building over 25,000 square feet and at least 50% of the roof area shall be devoted to green roof area. ◊ Extensive venting should be used when possible. ◊ Operable windows shall be used to provide direct ventilation where they do not conflict with noise mitigation strategies. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 27 1.4 | Traffic and Loading Industrial development brings different vehicular traffic expectations. The challenge lies in balancing street level, building, and occupant needs. It is essential that industrial land uses contain loading and unloading infrastructure as the traffic associated with the use can have compatibility issues with adjacent non-industrial uses. Certain elements such as parking, loading bays, elevators, access points, noise, and aesthetic can have implications on the area. Establishing design standards can allow for the mitigation of incompatibilities between the movement of people, vehicles, and goods. ◊ Spatial Separation: Land uses that produce heavier traffic scenarios shall be placed away from residential units. ◊ Vertical Stacking: Flat-roof style structures may be implemented for upper-floor parking and loading. ◊ Access: Access shall be allowed from more than one side of a site to allow for better separation of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle access to reduce the risk of collisions and large distribution vehicles. ◊ Laneways: Laneways shall be sensitive to pedestrian spaces by carving out walkable space in the building mass. This includes vegetation, dark sky-friendly lighting, and amenities for pedestrian use. ◊ Shared lobbies: Mixed-use buildings (including industrial and/or office spaces) may require shared lobbies to foster community and interaction among tenants. »It is important to ensure that there are not substantial conflicts between uses that have safety implications. ◊ Location: Additional considerations for industrial and non-industrial compatibilities includes proximity to future public transit which can reduce parking demands and activate streets for more complete neighborhoods. These locations should be evaluated if public transit plans are implemented in the Plan Area. Graphic 2.14 | SLC Air Quality DRAFT 28 Design Standards Standards for Natural Open Space Natural open space consists of critical habitat, regionally significant agriculture, and connecting open spaces. Development in these areas is restricted to passive recreational amenities. 1 | Wetland Design Standards 1.1 | Planting Wetlands are home to very beneficial habitats that can support carbon sequestration and improve water quality. As development increases, mitigating the impacts on wetlands is essential for the area. Plant species is an example of a simple design standard that can be incorporated into properties in a close proximity to this critical habitat. ◊ Require native plant species to promote a healthy wetland habitat in the face of increasing development. ◊ Non-native/invasive species mitigation: Upkeep of vegetated areas shall be a continuous effort of property owners. This includes proper management of invasive and non-native plant species that may have a negative impact on the natural wetland habitat. »Utilizing natural mitigation techniques will be required as to avoid run-off from herbicide and pesticide product. Graphic 2.15 | Outdoor Pavilion Graphic 2.16 | Natural Landscaping Graphic 2.17 | Nature-Inspired Design Graphic 2.18 | Birds at the Great Salt Lake Graphic 2.19 | Education Center DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 29 1.2 | Trails and Boardwalks Integrating boardwalks and trails adjacent and into wetlands can provide educational and leisure activities for the community in and beyond the Plan Area. Access to these critical areas must be designed in a way that protects the natural habitat while also providing experiences that are otherwise experienced by only a few individuals. It is important to take inventory of the wetland and partner with ecologists before implementing a trail system. ◊ Working group: Educational and recreational programming is a welcomed amenity, however, start up can be difficult without willing partners and active volunteers. Establishing a working group can help implement a well-rounded, comprehensive wetland program. ◊ Trail Kiosk and Parking: Integrating educational and recreational opportunities with the wetlands can benefit those beyond the Plan Area. Therefore, establishing a trail kiosk and parking area will provide more convenient access to this amenity area. ◊ Connectivity: Connecting the wetlands to the upland environment can help the user experience the relationship between the two environments. ◊ Signage: Creating a recognizable sign program can help users identify the trails and remain on trail. The program can also include interpretive signage that indicates points of interest, or educational information about the wetlands and uplands. ◊ Trail type: It is important to evaluate what type of trails are appropriate in and around the wetland to mitigate the impacts on the natural environment. Purposeful design can also help mitigate unnecessary costs for development and maintenance. »Trails rather than boardwalks are appropriate in areas where there is raised ground through the wetland or around the wetland. Soft-surface trails require little investment. »Boardwalks are needed where adjacent lands are flat (vegetation is tall) and allows for the ground beneath to remain somewhat natural. Graphic 2.23 | Wildlife Viewing and Fishing Access Graphic 2.22 | Informational Signage Graphic 2.21 | Boardwalk-Style Trail Graphic 2.20 | Natural Multiuse Trail DRAFT CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION 32 Implementing the Vision Implementation refers to the actions Salt Lake City should take to ensure the Plan Area develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. The most time-sensitive implementation actions are included as critical path items. Following the critical path items is a list of additional action items recommended to achieve the vision of this Plan. A critical element in planning for any area is considering water sources and needs. Any development in this area must adhere to Salt Lake City water-related plans and policies. Critical Path Items Critical path items are actions that will be abided by the City prior to and as development occurs. Each critical path item will fall into at least one of the following categories: built environment/design, services and infrastructure, and natural environment/preservation. These categories were identified throughout the planning process and are integrated into the various sections of the Plan. The following items are classified as an immediate need, as development pressures area already present in the Plan Area. Services and Infrastructure Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Various City Departments 2900 W is intended to be developed with the Scannell-Swaner Subdivision and will serve as an additional major arterial road in this Plan Area. The redevelopment of 2200 W and the construction of 2900 W should consider increased vehicle volumes and incorporate pedestrian and biking infrastructure. Below is a list of potential funding opportunities for this action. For a detailed analysis of these tools and their applicability in the Plan Area, see the Financial Implementation Analysis in Appendix D. »Tax Increment Areas »Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) »Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) »Impact Fees »Municipal Energy Tax Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There has been a large amount of support for the preservation of open space in the Plan Area, as it serves as a cultural and historical landmark for the region and critical habitat for wildlife. Acquiring and preserving available open space in this area for passive recreation is a high priority. Land adjacent to the Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 West were identified as a high priority for preservation. For a list of recommended land acquisition tools, see Chapter 4. Implementation Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 33 Built Environment/Design Adopt Development Code Updates Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There are several zoning designations within the Plan Area including Light Manufacturing (M- 1), Business Park (BP), and Agricultural/Rural Residential (AG-2, AG-5, and Salt Lake County A-2). Although some properties will likely remain agricultural or rural residential, it is anticipated that this area will slowly redevelop into primarily light manufacturing with preserved open space areas. General Development Code Updates The simplest way to encourage development consistent with the City’s vision for the Plan Area is to adopt minor edits to these zoning categories. While the City Council may eventually adopt an overlay for the Plan Area, the following Zoning Code updates are “low-hanging fruit” the City can quickly implement. »Review landscape requirements to prohibit turf lawns and encourage native plantings in keeping with wetland preservation, particularly in interface areas. »Consider a reduction in minimum lot size if clustering for preservation areas. »Reconsider setbacks in the zoning code if preserving native habitat to allow more flexibility of the building envelope. »For existing Business Park properties, eliminate the requirement of an agricultural buffer in favor of an environmental buffer (keep residential proximity protections when agriculture is a residential use). »Amend the Riparian Corridor Overlay zone to include wetland protection buffers. »Amend the Lowland Conservancy Overlay zone to include canals and drains in the Plan Area. Northpoint Specific Development Code The preferred approach to implement the vision for the Plan Area is a Northpoint-specific development code. A Northpoint-specific code should include: »Adopting the Design Standards from Chapter 2 of this document, which includes the recommended setbacks and buffer areas, landscape requirements, building materials and design standards, etc. »Incentive-based tools for preserving open and sensitive lands, such as allowing an increase in the maximum building façade length if preserving a larger amount of open space or buffer area than required. DRAFT 34 Create a local area utility plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Require a local area utility plan to determine future Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) service availability and to ensure utility services can be provided based on the anticipated future land use associated with new development. City policy is that upon the development of a property, the developer will be required to identify and provide all utilities necessary to serve their development, including water, sewer, and stormwater. A local area utility plan shall be provided to SLCDPU for review to support any development application, to ensure adequate service availability, and to identify impacts on existing systems. Amend the Major Street Plan and 3200 West Development Restrictions Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Transportation Division Amend the Major Street Plan to reflect the proposed roadway alignment of 2900 W and the realignment of 2100 North to access the airport. Additionally, remove 3200 W as a collector street on the Major Street Plan. 3200 W will remain an unimproved dirt road and barrier for adjacent wetlands to the west. To limit impacts of new development on wetland habitat, new development is prohibited from fronting 3200 West and is prohibited from being accessed from 3200 West. Development features, such as signage or lighting, may not be located in the yard area abutting 3200 West. See Appendix E for the recommended Major Street Plan amended map. Develop environmental impact standards and align them with current executive orders and master plans. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Department of Public Utilities Create standards for new development that mitigate the impact of said development on nearby habitat and sensitive areas. These standards may include elements such as water saving best practices, dark sky ordinances, landscaping requirements, etc. Additional Implementation Items The following list includes recommended key action items to achieve the vision for the Northpoint Plan Area. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 35 Require a buffer of 300 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem and impact to this habitat area by new development must be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring there is an adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies a 300 foot buffer from wetland areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay Zone or a new Northpoint specific development code. Coordinate with Salt Lake County to provide efficient police and fire services in the Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: City Council To provide adequate emergency services to this area, the development of a joint Police/Fire station may be required in the Plan Area. Coordinate with the Police and Fire Department to acquire funding and land in the Plan Area for a new shared facility. Support the annexation of contiguous parcels within the Plan Area. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The City supports the annexation of contiguous parcels in this Plan Area for future development and redevelopment. DRAFT CHAPTER 4 TOOLKIT 38 Using the Toolkit The Northpoint Small Area Master Plan process spanned fifteen months and included one-on-one interviews, workshops, and other public events. As expressed by project participants, key desired outcomes for the future of the Plan Area include: »Create a program to support a variety of incentives to maintain or improve property values while preserving open space. »Identify a future land use plan that allows industrial and business development while maintaining quality of life for existing residential areas and preserving natural habitat. »Locate future development in a manner that can support the efficient provision of city services. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce impacts to the environmental features and wildlife habitat associated with the Great Salt Lake. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. »Recommend tools to acquire and/or preserve open space. »Recommend strategies to improve traffic flow and safety on 2200 W. These desired outcomes suggest that while development in the Plan Area is in high demand, policies and strategies need to ensure that development is designed and arranged in a manner that respects the area’s sensitive landscape. Toolkit Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 39 A variety of tools have been developed to protect natural open space and locate, configure, and design new development in a manner that protects both existing habitat and natural open spaces. The preservation tools described and analyzed in this Chapter represent existing and potential strategies for the protection of habitat and open space in the Plan Area. Tools have been categorized as regulatory, incentive, or land acquisition. This is not an all-inclusive listing of tools, but an inventory that details each potential tool, and provides examples. In addition to land preservation tools, this chapter covers financial tools available to fund improvements to or reconstruction of 2900 W. The benefits and limitations of each tool have been compiled from a number of sources, including university research, other localities’ experiences, practical knowledge, and reports by individuals who have made their own evaluations. The implementation tools presented in this Chapter constitute a menu of options that can be considered to achieve the objectives of this Plan.DRAFT 40 Land Preservation Tools Regulatory based tools may be used to protect sensitive lands and agricultural areas within the Plan Area. These tools could be implemented by Salt Lake City through adoption of new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Development Code Updates Code updates establish supplemental land development requirements within a specific area requiring special attention, such as an environmentally sensitive area. Clustering of Lots and Open Space/Cluster Development Clustering is defined as a development pattern typically for residential use, in which homes are grouped together rather than evenly dispersed over the land as in a conventional development. Benefits Limitations »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in design for developers »Can apply to multiple areas within a city »Time and cost effective »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures Benefits Limitations »Protects the natural resources of an area »Creates wider wildlife buffers »Creates opportunity for greater profits by consolidating required open space into larger, more impactful sizes »Reduces impact of development on watersheds »Reduces cost to provide municipal public services depending on how clustering is accomplished »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developersDRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 41 Special Standards and Design Guidelines Additional regulations in new development or redevelopment projects can include standards for elements like lighting, landscaping, building materials, noise, and landscape buffers. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in site design while preserving area character and sensitive lands »Additional zoning requirements »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developers »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce unless bonus criteria are clearly spelled out in an ordinance or policy document Sensitive Landscape Studies Studies can determine additional steps that should be taken to mitigate impact of new development to existing habitat. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Offers insight into specific site requirements for mitigation »Additional zoning requirements »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce because requirements and study results may vary based on specific sites of participants were in support of clustering lots and open space of participants were in support of development code updates of participants were in support of sensitive landscape studies of participants were in support of special standards 47% 30% 62% 37% Regulatory Based Tools DRAFT 42 Incentive Based Tools Conservation Easements Conservation easements are voluntary and legally binding agreements between a landowner (public or private) and a qualifying organization (also public or private), in which permanent limitations are placed on a property’s use and development. Conservation easements limit land to uses identified in the easement, and thus protect it from development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowners may receive income, estate, and/ or property tax benefits »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners »Since program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land or specific areas to be protected Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development pressures »Landowner is paid to protect their land »Local government can target locations effectively »Utilizes free market mechanisms »Land remains in private ownership and on tax rolls »Can be complex to administer »Receiving area must be willing to accept higher densities »Can be a difficult program to establish, especially in areas without city zoning »May require cooperative agreements among several local governments to establish sending and receiving zones Incentive based tools are voluntary and mostly based on the willingness of the landowner to sell title or an easement on their property. Where public access and use are desired, fee- simple ownership control is preferred through donation, purchase, or bargain sale of land to a government entity, conservation organization, or public charity. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 43 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) PDRs refer to the purchase of development rights on certain parcels of land by a unit of government or a non-profit entity. Once purchased, a conservation easement is placed on the property. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowner is paid to protect their land, while allowing for ongoing use »Local government can target desirable locations effectively »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Program is voluntary »Can be costly for local unit of government, therefore land is generally protected at a slower rate »Land remains in private ownership, typically with no public access »Because the program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land Preferred Development Sites Also known as priority or target development areas, these are locations that have been identified by a local government as favored for residential, commercial, and office growth based on adopted growth management policies and plans. Development can involve new construction, redevelopment, and/or adaptive reuse of buildings. Local governments may offer incentives, such as reduced fees or increased housing density to developments in these areas in order to make them more attractive to developers. Benefits Limitations »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Local government can target locations effectively »Can be low cost to local unit of government »Can be a difficult program to establish and administer »Not a permanent solution, delays development in sensitive areas »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners of participants were in support of conservation easements of participants were in support of TDR Programs of participants were in support of PDR Programs of participants were in support of Preferred Development Sites 56% 30% 47% 25% DRAFT 44 Land Acquisition Tools Mutual Covenant A mutual covenant is an agreement between adjoining landowners to control future land uses through mutually agreed upon restrictions. Lease A lease is an agreement between agency and landowner to rent the land in order to protect and manage sensitive resources. Benefits Limitations »Permanent covenants can be enforced by any of the landowners or future landowners of the involved properties »Significant incentive to comply with restrictions, since all parties are aware of use controls »Can reduce property taxes »Loss in market value from mutual covenants does not qualify as a charitable deduction for income tax purposes »High cost Benefits Limitations »Low cost approach to site protection »Landowner receives income and retains control of property »An alternative for preservation-minded landowners not ready to commit to sale of permanent easement »Restrictions can be included in the lease to direct the activities of the conservation agency on the land »Short-term protection strategy »Leases are not permanent Acquisition and management of open space can be combined with regulatory measures to broaden the effectiveness of a preservation program. These tools preserve open space and their functions in the long-term. Although typically the most expensive solution, acquisition is the strongest and surest means of protection. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 45 Land Exchange Land exchange is the process by which land sought to be protected may be exchanged for another parcel that is more suitable for development Benefits Limitations »Lower acquisition costs »Scattered properties can be exchanged for a single, larger parcel »Complicated process »Not widely known and rarely used »Subject to IRS regulations »Property owners must be willing to participate, and properties must be of equal value »High cost Land Banking/Land Purchase Land banking occurs when land is purchased and reserved for later use or development. Land could be leased for immediate use (e.g. agriculture or athletic fields) or held for eventual resale with restrictions. The local government functions as a land trust. Benefits Limitations »Local government proactively identifies and purchases resource land »Lowers future preservation costs by working as a defense against future increases in land prices, speculation, and inappropriate development »High cost »Requires large upfront expenditures »Public agency must have staff to handle land trust functions of acquisition, management, lease, or resale of participants were in support of Lease Agreements of participants were in support of Mutual Covenants of participants were in support of Land Banking of participants were in support of Land Exchange 29% 31% 27% 38% DRAFT 46 Financial Tools Overview Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in the full Financial Implementation Report in Appendix D. This chapter contains with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. Market Analysis Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN). Based on vacant acreage in the Plan Area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 47 Financial Tool | Tax Increment Areas Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated Plan Area are split into two components: »(i)Base Revenues | The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and »(ii)Incremental Revenues | These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the Plan Area. If a Plan Area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the Plan Area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a Plan Area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the Plan Area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: »Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) »Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) »Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Plan Area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. DRAFT 48 Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of Plan Areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Plan Area” (CRA). Existing Plan Areas will be allowed to continue, but all new Plan Areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a Plan Area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the Plan Area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. »Relatively easy to create. »10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. »Flexible uses of funds. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 49 Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined Plan Area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. »Relatively easy to create. »Requires cooperation between at least two entities. »Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. »Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. »No affordable housing requirement. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT 50 Tax Increment Bonds Tax Increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given Plan Area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted Plan Area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a Plan Area. »Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. »Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. »Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. »Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency. »Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types. »Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. »Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose. »Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 51 Financial Tool | Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. »Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. »Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally-allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. »Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. »Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs. »Ongoing PID governance »Can reduce the need for impact fees. »Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. »Cost is much lower than other development financing. DRAFT 52 Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. Benefits Limitations »Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond »Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment »No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created »Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator »Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance »The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA »Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge »Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 53 Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/ trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11- 36a which includes the following major steps. »Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee »Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee »Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing »Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Benefits Limitations »New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development »Adds additional costs to development »Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest »Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficienciesDRAFT APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS 56 Water and Air Quality Air Quality Salt Lake City is often faced with some of the worst air quality in the world. Major declines in air quality typically occur during the summer or winter due to the Salt Lake Valley’s unique geographical makeup and position. In the summer, wildfire smoke often travels east from California, Oregon, and the region’s mountain ranges adding to pollution from cars, industry, and other elements leading to harmful ozone levels. In the winter, close proximity to the Wasatch Mountains leads to temperature inversions in which cold air gets trapped under a layer of warm air, acting like a lid keeping pollutants from escaping. During the winter, air pollution sources are transportation (50%); area sources (e.g., gas stations, auto-body shops, etc.) (35%); and industry (15%). The Plan Area experiences these same seasonal issues with air quality, as well as consistent impacts due to proximity of both the Salt Lake City International Airport, and I-215. I-215 limits connectivity to residential neighborhoods and services in both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City. With few daily services, such as grocery stores, within the expanded area, residents contribute to higher trips and higher mile traveled, exacerbating air quality issues. Graphic 1.3 | Regional Air Quality | Source: AirNow.Gov Graphic 1.4 | SLC Air Quality | Source: Scott Winterton Deseret News Existing Conditions DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 57 Water and Wetlands The presence of wetlands adjacent to the Jordan River Delta and at the edge of the Great Salt Lake is the most pertinent environmental issue in the area. Roughly 75% of Utah’s wetlands surround the Great Salt Lake, providing environmental and socioeconomic benefit. The wetlands surrounding the Northpoint Subarea are part of an intricate and diverse ecosystem. Wetlands benefit the environment by acting as sponges to capture, store, and slowly release water, storm buffers, groundwater and aquifer recharge, and sediment traps. Wetlands also serve as critical habitat areas by providing food, shelter, and resting places. Wetland benefits extend to provide recreational and agricultural opportunities. Graphic 1.5 | Wetlands Surrounding Northpoint | Source: National Wetlands Inventory A portion of these wetlands are designated playas, categorized by their dry, hollowed-out form that fill with water during rainstorms and by underlying aquifers. The Great Salt Lake is the largest saltwater lake in the Northern Hemisphere, meaning as the playas fill and eventually evaporate, they leave large salt deposits behind. Freshwater forested and shrub wetlands are found adjacent to the area and are typically associated with woody plants such as willows. The current historic high water elevation for the Great Salt Lake is 4,211 feet last reached in 1986, and causing dramatic flooding. As of November 2021, the Lake’s water level has dropped to the lowest in recorded history at 4,190 feet, likely due to the extreme drought conditions the state is facing. In response to the unpredictability of the Lake, most planning agencies identify the contour of 4,217 feet, as the limit of safe development. There are no sites within the Plan Area that fall below this elevation. DRAFT 58 Soil Types The soil types within Northpoint vary and provide considerations for the types of development that can be accommodated in the Plan Area. The soil types dominating the area are fine sandy loam, silt loam and silty clay loam. Most of these soils have a water table depth between zero and fifty inches and are subject to the effects of frost. These high water table depths affect drainage and compressibility which impact new development potential. In addition, the soil types that dominate the area can cause problems for septic systems and filter fields, making it harder to maintain water quality. Natural Environment Graphic 1.6 | Recreational and Natural Landmarks Near Northpoint Graphic 1.6 | Prime Agricultural Soil | Source: National Resource Conservation Service DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 59 Hazards The greater Salt Lake City area faces natural hazards that impact rate and location of development. As climate change continues to exacerbate extreme weather events, planning with these common hazards in mind can help maintain the safety and comfort of the community. Clean air and water supply are among the top concerns of Salt Lake residents. In August of 2021, Salt Lake City was ranked the worst air quality of any major city in the world by IQAir.com, prompting residents to take extra precautions. The Salt Lake County Health Department released tips to stay safe during extreme air conditions such as staying indoors with windows shut, avoiding exercise, and wearing masks outdoors. The area, along with many other parts of the state, is currently under exceptional drought conditions, with fire restrictions and irrigation allotment reductions in place. Salt Lake City also experiences threats of extreme heat, wildfire, debris flows, flooding and earthquakes. Graphic 1.7 | Utah Drought Conditions | Source: National Drought Mitigation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. Summer 2021 Drought Conditions The Salt Lake City has proposed land use amendments to prevent large water users from being located within The City that may have a significant impact on The City’s water resources. The new limit for industrial and commercial land uses is 300,000 GPD (based on an annual average) of potable/culinary water. DRAFT 60 Wildlife and Habitat The Great Salt Lake and surrounding wetlands are a crucial habitat for many species of animals. With 400,000 acres of wetlands, birds of regional and national importance are drawn to the area as a sanctuary for breeding and eating. Every year, millions of birds from 338 different species stop here to feed during migrations. Among the most common species observed in the Plan Area are the European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Northern Pintail, and Canada Goose. Although the Farmington Bay area is classified as freshwater, the northern-most regions of the Great Salt Lake can be composed of nearly 28% salt. This creates a wide diversity of habitats for many different plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and insects such as the Monarch Butterfly which is now on the endangered species list. European Starling DOMINANT BIRD TYPES IN NORTHPOINT Canada Goose. Red-winged Blackbird Yellow-headed Blackbird Northern Pintail DWR Bird Habitat Boundaries Graphic 1.8 | Dominant Bird Species in Northpoint Graphic 1.9 | Bird Habitat | Source: Department of Wildlife Resources GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 61 Organizations There are many organizations with interest in the Plan and surrounding areas, including the Duck Clubs, Salt Lake City International Airport, and Friends of the Great Salt Lake. The Friends of Great Salt Lake is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and increase public awareness and appreciation. The Rudy Duck Club, founded in 1909 and named after the original land owner Frank Rudy, acquired land and associated water rights in the early 1900s to preserve the ecosystem for private duck hunting. Agriculture The top producing crops in Salt Lake City, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, are wheat, hay, vegetables, pumpkins, and sweet corn. Within the Plan Area, current residents also own a variety of livestock. The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within these lots there has been a pattern of subdividing larger lots into small lots for family members. There is a rich history of the agricultural lifestyle within Northpoint that the community desires to be preserved. According to the State Soil Conservation Service, the Plan Area contains prime farmland located north of 2800 North on the eastern side of 2200 West. Water Related Land Uses Graphic 1.10 | Water-Related Land Uses | Source: ESRI Living Atlas DRAFT 62 Built Environment Airport The Salt Lake International Airport, located just south of the Plan Area, is one of the busiest airports in North America. The airport is also a major hub for Delta airlines and provides approximately 370 flights per day from its location. As the airport inherently produces high noise volumes and air quality issues, it has a significant impact on the surrounding areas and determining appropriate land uses in Northpoint. The Salt Lake Airport recently adopted a new Master Planning process, the first since 1998, to provide guidelines for future airport development and to optimize existing facilities for future aviation demand and increase airport capacity. The resulting strategic vision illustrates locations for a third parallel runway and Concourse C which are not anticipated to be built within the next twenty years. The City has formally regulated the land uses surrounding the airport to protect the greater community and reduce negative impact. In 1971, zoning ordinances were adopted allowed within Northpoint and in 1983, the zoning ordinances were supplemented with regulations that prohibited incompatible uses like residential housing. Development Constraints Existing development within Northpoint experience consequences from their proximity to the airport and overhead flights. Some existing residences face increased risk for airplane crashes and high noise levels from the consistent flights. The Department of Airports recommends limiting the number of new residences allowed in Northpoint to reduce harm for the community in the future. The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) does not provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects located in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. As a result, this Plan considers alternative uses within those zones. The Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City own several parcels surrounding the airport that were purchased to preserve as undeveloped. This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area. Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NORTHPOINT BOUNDARY SLC Airport-Owned Parcels Graphic 1.11 | Parcels Owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport | Source: Assessors Parcel Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 63 including maximization of flight times between 7am and 10pm. It has also implemented adjusted flight routes in pursuit of reduced disruption. As residential uses should be limited in Northpoint because of these constraints, there are other uses and opportunities for development that are more compatible with the airport. Economic Contribution The Salt Lake City International Airport, is a key driver of the local and regional economy. Through protecting airport infrastructure and facilities from adjacent land uses that reduce or eliminate its ability to function at the highest capacity, the Salt Lake City International Airport can continue to act as an asset to the greater community. SLC Airport Noise Contours SLC Airport Protection Overlays Graphic 1.12 | SLC Airport Noise Contours | Source: SLC GIS Data Graphic 1.13 | SLC Airport Overlays | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 64 Land Use Industrial and Business Uses Within the Plan Area, there lies existing manufacturing zoning (M-1) that serves as a buffer between the airport and Interstate 215 (I-215). In July 2016, the City Council changed the zoning of properties located along 2200 W between 2100N and North Temple Street to Light Manufacturing (M-1) to implement area master plans and maximize economic development potential. Light Manufacturing (M-1) allows for light industrial uses that produce little to no impact on neighboring properties and results in a clean, attractive industrial setting. This use is compatible with the adjacent airport and is less impacted by the negative aspects of nearby I-215 than residential uses. The M-1 designation allows more types of business than the Business Park (BP) designations. The more significant differences between the two zoning districts are related to open space and building location requirements. The BP designation requires 15% open space, while M-1 requires no open space. M-1 also has reduced setback requirements. Approximately half of the Plan Area is designated BP. The intent of the BP designation is to provide an attractive environment for modern offices, light assembly and warehouse development, and to create employment and economic development opportunities in a campus-like setting. Graphic 1.14 | SLC and SLCo Zoning | Source: SLC, SLCo, and North Salt Lake GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 65 Agricultural and Residential Uses The Plan Area contains several agricultural zones under both City and County jurisdiction, including Salt Lake City’s (SLC) AG-5 and AG-2, and Salt Lake County’s (SLCo) A-2 zone preserves agricultural uses on lots no less than two acres and, similarly, AG-5 provides for agricultural uses on no less than five acres. The A-2 zone allows for low-density residential and supporting agriculture as a conditional use, on a minimum lot size of one acre. Zone Minimum Lot Area Front Setback Primary Uses M-1 (SLC) 10,000 sq.ft.15 ft.Light Manufacturing BP (SLC) 20,000 sq.ft.30 ft.Business/ Office AG-2 (SLC)2 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family AG-5 (SLC)5 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family A-2 (SLCo)1 acre 30 ft.Single-Family Graphic 1.15 | Residential in the Plan Area DRAFT 66 Utilities Broadband The Plan Area is serviced by a mix of fixed wireless and wireline (cable, dsl and fiber)broadband internet. Within the census tract that Northpoint occupies, 10.60% of households are without internet access. The companies serving the area are Centurylink for local exchange, Rocky Mountain Power for electric utility territory and Dominion Energy for natural gas. The Utah Broadband Plan adopted in January 2020 set a goal to “Utilize best practices to encourage continued expansion of broadband deployment and increase speeds for everyone to 25 Mbps or better in communities throughout Utah”. The Plan Area currently has network speeds of 90.47/28.05 Mbps and its max advertised consumer download speeds are 10,000.00 Mbps. Active Building Permits and Recent Development There are currently a few active building permits within Northpoint that congregate along the 2200 W roadway and fall under the M-1 and BP zoning designations. A new development called Moonlake Farms has an active engineering permit and is among one of ten active permits for growing cannabis in Utah. Along the 2100N roadway, two new multi-tenant warehouse building have active permits as well. A key development proposal currently is the Swaner Subdivision, a 434-acre master planned development with about 5 million square feet of industrial on the C shaped parcel shown to the right currently zoned BP. This development would likely be cause for improvements on 2200 West to account for new increase in traffic. A new 2900 S bypass road is also proposed as part of the development. Another development conversation in this area is a proposed annexation petition for the land in the northeast section of the plan area. This proposed annexation was initiated by the landowners who wish to annex their land into Salt Lake City for the purpose of light industrial. A prior annexation conversation contemplated residential, however, that annexation was not pursued since Salt Lake City has determined that new residential would not be supported in the Plan Area. Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Ut a h I n l a n d Po r t A u t h o r i t y Proposed Swaner Subdivision Proposed North Salt Lake Annexation 22 0 0 W 2100 N 3200 N Graphic 1.16 | Active Applications DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 67 Industrial Wastewater The Salt Lake City Corporation’s pretreatment program oversees industrial wastewater discharged into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Industrial wastewater treatment, to reduce or eliminate conventional and toxic pollutants, prior to discharge into to the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) is required and regulated under the Clean Water Act. Salt Lake City is also undergoing redevelopment of its Water Reclamation Facility. The wastewater system will address new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah’s Department of Water Quality to reduce pollution and transform aging infrastructures. The Water Reclamation Center is located about a mile to the east of Northpoint and is replacing the old structure, which was 55 years old. Service Areas The Salt Lake City Public Utilities service area covers most of Northpoint with the exception of a portion to the north, just south of the Jordan River and a portion on the southern boundary. The remaining area is considered unincorporated territory. Though there are few sewer lines to this area, development is encroaching from the southeast and slowly extending utilities with it. Many residential and agricultural properties in this area rely on septic sewer systems. Street Lighting Public Utilities within Salt Lake manages and maintains more than 15,000 street lights, including those in Northpoint. The few residences and commercial customers within the area support street lighting through a monthly user fee, included in the bill for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The initial capital improvement program for street lighting in 2012 included a metric of converting the City’s entire inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps by the end of 2021. The continuous lighting maps do not extend into the Plan Area likely due to the lack of development in the area and the irregular Salt Lake City boundary. Irrigation Canals There are several irrigation canals running through Northpoint that serve the greater Salt Lake City area. The Rudy Drain runs diagonally across the study area from its connection to the Greater Salt Lake in the upper northwest quadrant to the lower southeast quadrant. Running along the western boundary is the Salt Lake City Canal Sewage. The southern boundary has a Reclamation ditch just north of the international airport. Graphic 1.17 | Utilities in Northpoint | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 68 Transportation The eastern edge of the Plan Area runs along I-215, which acts as the main transportation route for the larger area. As Northpoint currently has little development beyond a small portion of residential housing to the northwest and light industrial to the south, the transportation routes within the Plan Area consist mainly of gravel roads. 2200 W divides the area into clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. Recent development in the area has almost exclusively been, between the roadway and I-215. Other roads in the 2019 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts Plan Area include 3200W, a gravel road with minimal traffic that serves as the western boundary of the Plan Area, 3500N at the northern boundary, 2100N at the southern boundary, and several gravel and paved residential and commercial driveways. The main entries to the Plan Area are the exit from I-215 to 2100N from the south, and Center Street/3500N from the north. With increasing development pressure in the Plan Area, it will become increasingly important to make improvements to these interchanges and enhancements to 2200 W. Public Transportation The public transportation options that connect the Plan Area are limited. The 454 Green bus line extends to Airport Station on the south side of Salt Lake City International Airport but does not reach the Plan Area. The closest bus line to the area is the F522 Line running north/south on 2200 W. This bus line reaches the southern boundary and its final stop is near the Boeing warehouse. This bus line offers access to the light industrial and commercial businesses. This accessibility suggests that increasing the amount of industrial and commercial centers within the southern half of Northpoint would be supported by public transportation. Route 200 extends along Redwood Road to the southeast of Northpoint. However, this adjacent route is not Graphic 1.18 | Average Annual Daily Trips | Source: UDOT DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 69 accessible within a 15-minute walk of current homes of businesses within Northpoint. Bike Accessibility The major bikeways extending through the Plan Area are the Jordan River Trail, Parkway Trail, and a bike lane along 2200 W and 2100N. The bikeways along 2200 W and 2100N are designated medium comfort by Bike SLC. The painted bike lane disappears as the surroundings become more rural moving northbound through the Plan Area. These routes do not have high traffic but bikers must share the roads with vehicles in the same lanes. Economic Impact of Transportation Limited access to public transportation and the barrier of I-215 require households in the Plan Area to rely on personal vehicles or rideshare options to commute to and from work, errands, and schools. The Center for Neighborhood Technology recommends a household spend no more than 15% of their annual income on transportation. For a regional-typical household in this area, that means no more than $9,329. Households in this census block spend an average of $16,167- 175% higher than this benchmark. This is also higher than the Salt Lake City average of $13,211. Graphic 1.19 | Annual Driving Costs per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Graphic 1.20 | Utah Transit Authority Bus DRAFT 70 Less ResidentsM ore Residents 70 Northpoint Community Demographics Over the last decade, Salt Lake City has grown by roughly 14,000 new residents. Most of this growth has been concentrated in downtown Salt Lake City, Central City, and Sugarhouse, each of which grew by over 2,000 residents between 2010 and 2020. Northpoint falls within the Westpointe Community Council area, which saw a population decrease (-1.6%) over the last decade. Approximately 140 people live within the Plan Area in roughly 60 households. City Council District 1, which encompasses the Plan Area boasts the largest share of Hispanic or Latino Population (48%) of all Council Districts. Economy 105 people are employed within the Plan Area but live elsewhere, and 74 Northpoint residents commute out of the area for work. No residents both live and work within the Plan Area. Of the jobs within the Plan Area boundary, Wholesale Trade (30% of the jobs) and Transportation and Warehousing (22%) are the most common industries. In 2018, about 54% of those jobs within the Plan Area boundary provided less than $40,000 per year in salary, roughly 63% of the median household income for overall Salt Lake City residents at $63,971. 105 People Commute IN for work 74 People Commute OUT for work 0 People Live and Work in the Area Population by TAZ Graphic 1.21 | Commuting Patterns and Population | Source: U.S. Census 2019 Less Residents More Residents DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 71 Within and immediately outside of the Plan Area, major employers include the Salt Lake City International Airport, Amazon, and the Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement Center. Those who live in the Plan Area have a higher median household income than the City as a whole at $75,791 and tend to work in the service industry, transportation and utilities, or manufacturing. Housing There are about 60 homes within the Plan Area and 1,487 housing units in the associated census tract. Housing is concentrated east of 2200 W due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. Housing within the Plan Area is comprised entirely single-family housing units, some of which are agricultural properties. The Plan Area has a high rate of owner-occupied units at 85.4% and an average home value of $438,000. This is higher than the median price for the zip code as a whole at $346,900. The zip code saw a 24% increase in home prices between 2020 and 2021. The Center for Neighborhood Technology estimates that households within the Plan Area are spending on average, 47% of their income on housing and transportation costs every month. As Salt Lake County grows and expands west, combining housing and transportation costs into one number offers an expanded view of affordability by showing the impacts of a longer daily commute on the affordability of a community. The Center for Neighborhood Technology sets a housing and transportation spending benchmark of no more than 45% of a household’s income, rather than using the traditional rule of no more than 30% on housing alone. Funding the Future Salt Lake City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in May 2018. This increase will typically generate about $34 million a year in ongoing funding and is the first part of a funding strategy to address street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety. The Plan Area could benefit from funding for an affordable housing program and increased neighborhood safety. 47% Housing: 23% Transportation: 24% Graphic 1.22 | Housing and Transportation Costs as Percent of Income Per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology DRAFT 72 Community Amenities The Plan Area is bordered by the Jordan River connecting Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, and passing through three counties. Many sections of the Jordan River have access trails running parallel to the river and connect nearby parks. Although the Plan Area lies adjacent to the River, the formal trail stops to the to the east of I-215. Directly east of the Plan Area are the Regional Athletic Complex, Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, Westpointe Park, Northstar Elementary School, and Northwest Middle School. Only one crossing of I-215 allows for access to these areas. As shown below, I-215 severely limits access to community resources like schools, religious organizations, recreation, and other gathering areas. JORDAN RIVER OHV STATE RECREATION AREA JORDA N RIVER CENTER STREET TRAILHEAD COLISEUM FITNESS SPECTRUM ACADEMY FOXBORO ELEMENTARY NORTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEWOOD PARK GUADALUPE SCHOOL SALT LAKE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION REGIONAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX UNITY BAPTIST CHURCHWESTPOINTE PARK Graphic 1.23 | Amenities near the Plan Area I 2 1 5 B A R R I E R DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 73 Graphic 1.24 | Trailhead map of the Jordan River DRAFT APPENDIX B PUBLIC INPUT Appendix B: Public Input The public input process included various opportunities for engagement. One-on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county staff were conducted throughout the summer of 2021. Over 30 people attended a public open house in the spring of 2022, and two public questionnaires and a property owner-specific questionnaire were distributed over the course of the Northpoint Small Area project. The following is a record of the engagement and materials from the open house and survey results. Open House and Questionnaire Comments Report for Northpoint Property Owner Questionnaire Completion Rate:85.7% Complete 18 Partial 3 Totals: 21 Response Counts 1. What is your relationship with the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) Percent I own property here I live here I own a business here I work here 0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses I own property here 100.0%17 I live here 70.6%12 I own a business here 17.6%3 I work here 11.8%2 2. In the Northpoint area how important is the conservation of habitat and ecosystems to you? 77% Highly Important77% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Somewhat Not Important6% Somewhat Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 76.5%13 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Somewhat Not Important 5.9%1 Totals: 17 3. In the Northpoint area how important is commercial and residential development to you? 41% Highly Important41% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important18% Somewhat Not Important18% Somewhat Not Important 35% Highly Not Important35% Highly Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 41.2%7 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Somewhat Not Important 17.6%3 Highly Not Important 35.3%6 Totals: 17 4. Would you support conservation methods and tools that could provide financial compensation to landowners for the preservation of natural lands and habitats instead of development? 59% Highly Support59% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 24% Neutral24% Neutral 12% Highly Not Support12% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 58.8%10 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 23.5%4 Highly Not Support 11.8%2 Totals: 17 5. Would you support the continuation of existing land uses such as grazing, agriculture, habitat conservation, rural residential, and wildlife? 77% Highly Support77% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Highly Not Support6% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 76.5%13 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Highly Not Support 5.9%1 Totals: 17 ResponseID Response 4 No. 7 I am highly against any further building on the agricultural land out here. 8 The area is too close to the airport not to take advantage of this proximity to lessen the burden on existing infrastructure and lessen pollution. This can be done preserving habitat closer to the Great Salt Lake. 10 We need clean air and less big heavy trucks in this tiny road. We can't handle it. We pay our taxes just like everyone eon the east side we deserve more from the city. 13 Just because land in the area has always been zoned Business Park, it does not mean it should stay that way. I don't see how it was ever zoned BP or anything other than conservation when it is directly next to ecosystems that will be negatively impacted by development. I appreciate you asking for our opinions and for keeping the survey short, but I am somewhat disappointed in this survey as it feels lacking. It's not ideal to ask double barreled questions in surveys if you want honest answers. For example, my answer to supporting residential development is different than my answer to commercial development, but this survey can't reflect that. 14 I operate a recording studio off of 2200w and construction of anything will shut me down during construction and possibly forever. 15 Construction on 2200w is dangerous without some sort of alternate construction road in place before construction begins. 16 The area of 2200 west to 3200 west and 2100 north to 3300 north is a bird and wildlife refuge and one of the last open spaces in SL county. It needs to be preserved and not just overdeveloped like the rest of the valley is becoming. Thank you for your time. Robert Taylor 17 It would be the advantage of the area and ecology to think about NOT developing every lat inch of open space. This is a sensitive area. There is a high saturation of wildlife, migration and nesting areas here. It's a wetland. In a meet the committee was surprised to hear about the existence of wildlife. We see and experience it everyday. The delineation of preexisting residential areas should be recognized. This area was settled by ranchers and farmers who understood the doom of development. This area is a treasure and should be left alone OR very thoughtfully and carefully developed. The rate with which it is occurring now is always met with contempt and disagreement. There is another way and we should make a plan of best outcomes. 6. Is there anything you'd like to add? 20 I think the area can do both commercial and have some open space.. This area is not for residential? My opinion. I have seen residential next to airports and it's not nice at all.. 21 My family has been here for over 100 years. A lot of the older homes were built by family. Now with the restrictions of building and septic use. You can't let your children build a house on a 1/4 acre lot. I have had to have children move to wood cross to have there own home. The current restrictions render the ground useless for building anything. Yet keeping some space still for AG use. The bigger lots have all ready been sold to developers, the people left will be left with your open space weed patch and no money to move any where. ResponseID Response 7. Are you interested in recieving further information about this project and ways to get involved? 78% Yes please78% Yes please 22% No, thank you22% No, thank you Value Percent Responses Yes please 77.8%14 No, thank you 22.2%4 Totals: 18 Report for Northpoint Small Area Plan Questionnaire Completion Rate:54.7% Complete 41 Partial 34 Totals: 75 Response Counts 1. What is your affiliation with the Northpoint area? Percent I am a resident I work in the area I own property I am interested in owning property I am a business owner I visit the area Other - Write In 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Value Percent Responses I am a resident 29.7%19 I work in the area 17.2%11 I own property 31.3%20 I am interested in owning property 18.8%12 I am a business owner 9.4%6 I visit the area 25.0%16 Other - Write In 14.1%9 2. What is your level of support for special standards and design guidelines as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3. What is your level of support for requiring sensitive landscape studies as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 4. What is your level of support for development code updates as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5. What is your level of support for the clustering of lots and open space as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 6. What is your level of support for conservation easements as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7. What is your level of support for purchase of development rights (PDR) as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 8. What is your level of support for transfer of development rights as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 9. What is your level of support for preferred development sites as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 10. What is your level of support for lease agreements as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 11. What is your level of support for mutual covenants as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 12. What is your level of support for land banking as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 13. What is your level of support for land exchange as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) 22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 59% Fishing Access Along the River 59% Fishing Access Along the River 37% Wildlife Viewing Areas37% Wildlife Viewing Areas 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 22% Interpretive/Education Center22% Interpretive/Education Center 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 29% Boardwalks29% Boardwalks Value Percent Responses amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 22.0%9 Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 48.8%20 Fishing Access Along the River 58.5%24 Wildlife Viewing Areas 36.6%15 Trails Along Natural Resources 48.8%20 Interpretive/Education Center 22.0%9 Interpretive/Educational Signage 26.8%11 Boardwalks 29.3%12 ResponseID Response My emphasis on maintaining open-space natural area rather than developing a park-like area. None Great ideas for the community. This is such a treasure that is Salt Lake City. The land needs to be preserved for future generations, plus people are not having children there may not be the need for more development such as empty commercial buildings. Once you destroy land for development, you cant reverse the damage. All of the above amenities are wonderful. However, who maintains them and fronts the development costs? The land being discussed does not naturally produce any of the above items pictured. We are old salt flats that grow things with a lot of encouragement. We have been trying to improve the ground for 50 years and have done a lot of good. However, one year of not planting and working hard takes away 50 years of work. The farms out here would not be successful if all of the farmers did not have other larger farms somewhere else or other businesses that help support the farm. I support whatever developments come to this area that give the land owners the best benefits of their property. I know everyone wants what improves their community but don't forget the land owners and the work they have done for lifetimes and they need their rights reserved as well. This ground work for homes and businesses family like the Rudy's .Drechsel's.Swaner's Hinkley's family farmed this ground but it's no longer feasible for making a living and the ground is there retirement you want to take it from them shame on you None - not appropriate in industrial areas. none - not appropriate in industrial areas None. Not applicable for an industrial area. Restrooms. Solar panels on roof. Art. Shade none, not appropriate for industrial area none, not appropriate for industrial area none not appropriate on my land no water or for industrial area Most of these are not appropriate for an industrial area. 15. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) - comments None, not appropriate for industrial area none-not appropriate for industrial area ResponseID Response 16. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) 15% Painted Bike Lane15% Painted Bike Lane 12% Buffered Bike Lane12% Buffered Bike Lane 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street Value Percent Responses Painted Bike Lane 14.6%6 Buffered Bike Lane 12.2%5 Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17.1%7 Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22.0%9 Street with Porous Surface Edge 48.8%20 Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29.3%12 Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 4.9%2 Typical Curb and Gutter Street 19.5%8 ResponseID Response Most of these options do not seem appropriate for 2200 West. What ever the design needs to implemented consistently rather than in piecemeal blocks. Such approach expensive and dangerous. We really don't need curb and gutter or sidewalks unless this area gets over developments by commercial buildings then we will need more for the residents. I do not think traditional curb and gutter are needed for the area, but some sort of drainage is needed. It is a popular biking path that needs more safety for cyclists. 17. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) - comments 18. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 24% Natural Building Materials24% Natural Building Materials Value Percent Responses Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22.0%9 LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs)24.4%10 Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 51.2%21 Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 26.8%11 Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29.3%12 Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 75.6%31 Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 34.1%14 Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls)29.3%12 Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22.0%9 Natural Building Materials 24.4%10 ResponseID Response Empyhasis on keeping natural habitat and implementing "green" approaches Wildlife and nature are friendly. dense and limited cars/roads One of the major safety issues would be for the migratory birds, because this area is wetlands that is being destroyed. You would have to put the lights and windows in consideration. Again, all very nice, all of the ideas that have been presented over the last several years get voted down. It seems impossible to present something that people will get on board with. I want the land owners to be able to develop their properties with the highest value and regular farming is just not a viable option economically. Walkable design. Sustainable design. No grass. 19. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? - comments ResponseID Response 5 Place a moratorium on development until the plan is in place. 6 The construction of 2800W to pull traffic off of 2200W 7 3200 West should remain unpaved. There should be a buffer/natural area along the eastern side of 3200 West. 10 Affordable Housing. Salt Lake City is missing a big opportunity to fill the gap in affordable housing by using the acreage in this area. We are in a housing crisis, there is almost no land left to build in Salt Lake, this is a HUGE opportunity that Salt Lake could miss to build more units that are desperately needed. This is not the time for us to complain about open space. Look at the Governor's initiatives and play your part. The mayor and city council of Salt Lake are all about helping the homeless, but if we don't build more housing units the homeless population will only rise. I think the direction that it appears we are heading with this questionnaire needs to be reconsidered to include more, dense residential units for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 12 Need to address annexation issues and multi-jurisdictional service coordination issues NEED TO SAVE CROSS E RANCH possibly by having SL County purchase property with funding from a variety of institutional entities including USU, LDS Church, SLCity, Davis County, NSLCity, and Open Lands foundationsl Need 6 mo. moratorium on new development until Northpoint Small Area Plan is completed. 13 Plan is a waste of tax payer dollars. The market will decide the highest and best use of land in the area. 16 Ive researched what has been going on out here over the last few years, with some property owners exploring being annexed into North Salt Lake because of the regulation barriers that Salt Lake City has shown. Find compromise with the landowners or SLC may lose some of this unincorporated land and development opportunity in this area. 19 This is an industrial area and business park zoning already exists and makes sense for this project. There are already protections in place of wetlands and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 2200W is already master planned with a 90' ROW road section. Developers who develop with frontage along 2200W are already required to improve and widen the sections of 2200 W that abut their property. Many of the single family home-owners in this area are already under contract to sell their property to business park developers. There is no reason to plan this area with the preservation of existing single family homes as a goal. 20. What else should the Northpoint Small Area Plan address? 22 The valley and particularly the westside is already saturated with air quality issues. Any commercial development should exclude air pollution inputs. Additionally, water supply and quality are major issues for the state and communities which callks for restrictions on water use and waste. 24 Update the community. 26 density and walkability is best for wildlife 28 Wetlands and the fact that they are endangered. There is becoming less space for wildlife. USDA has programs for Urban Agriculture. 31 Please don't forget about the residents! This survey was focused on business development and none of the questions focused on also preserving the residential zoning in the area. We are already being bullied by developers to sell our land so they can rezone for business. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW REZONING FOR BUSINESSES IN THE VERY SMALL REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS. There are plenty of open spaces for developers to build that don't require forcing us out of our homes. 33 Setbacks and landscape areas along major roads. 34 Three points: 1. Leave 3200 West unimproved. 2. Restrictions on zoning changes until master plan is complete 3. Set aside buffer/open space lands clustered east of 3200 West. 37 The small area plan needs to think about both sides. There are a lot of neighbors talking about conservation of their lifestyle but I'm pretty sure none of them is making their living from farming. I love this area more than the average person but, I also know the realities of farming and maintaining a farm and or open space. The county could maintain or develop some trails and require certain landscaping. I know that those kinds of requirements exist in all developments. I prefer they allow the land owners the right to sell/develop their properties. There are many options for good development in this area. Residents (37ish houses) along 2200 west have been against a business park development, industrial, and residential. They want it to remain the same as always. However, that cannot happen nor should it. 39 The homeowner and people that own businesses out there 48 Zoning of specific areas to BP or M1 52 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. 54 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. ResponseID Response 58 This area should be light manufacturing/industrial. With the 435 acres of BP, this whole area should follow suit. More tax basis for city, great area for business, less water usage than farmers, etc. 59 Water use. 60 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 61 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 63 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 64 Designate this land as Business Park and/or Light Industrial 67 With the business park areas that have been approved, it makes the most sense for SLC to default to Business Park zoning for this North Point area. 70 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use nap 71 Designate this land as light 75 Do we have the water to build more? How will building in this area further impact the Great Salt Lake? Very concerned about maintaining open space and not further taxing our diminishing water systems. ResponseID Response APPENDIX C CONSTRAINTS Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend NorthPoint_Boundary -9 to -8 -7 to -6 -5 -4 to -3 -2 -1 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Constraint Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Wetlands (-3)Airport Owned (-3)Easements (-2) Airport Influence Zones (-2, -1)Prime Ag Soil (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Noise Contours (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Proximity to Services (+3)Underutilized (+2)Vacant (+1) Large Parcels (+1)Access to Transportation (+1) APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OPTIONS Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in this report, along with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. MARKET ANALYSIS Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN).1 Based on vacant acreage in the Northpoint area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates. 1 Source: Colliers, Salt Lake County Industrial Market Report 4Q 2021. 2 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 COMBINED COMPONENTS FOR FUNDING OPTIONS The available tools and issuing entities discussed in this report may be combined in a variety of viable options to arrive at the desired funding level for the Northpoint area. Possible funding mechanisms include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in following sections. Tax Increment Areas o Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) o Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) o Tax Increment Bonds Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Impact Fees Municipal Energy Tax TAX INCREMENT AREAS Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated project area are split into two components: (i)Base Revenues – The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and (ii)Incremental Revenues – These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the project area. If a project area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the project area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a project area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the project area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) 3 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Northpoint area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS (CRAS) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of project areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Project Area” (CRA). Existing project areas will be allowed to continue, but all new project areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a project area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the project area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. TABLE 1: COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Community Reinvestment Areas Disadvantages Community Reinvestment Areas Creates a new revenue stream.Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. Relatively easy to create.10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. Flexible uses of funds.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. The Northpoint area contains roughly 1,323 acres and five tax districts. All of the tax districts are within Salt Lake City, with the exception of Tax District ACT that is found within unincorporated Salt Lake County. 4 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 2: NORTH POINT EXISTING MARKET VALUES AND ACREAGE Property Values # of Parcels Total Market Value Residential Market Value Acres Tax District 13 63 $74,752,600 $30,700,900 666.83 Tax District 13 Q 3 $7,927,300 17.37 Tax District 13 I 3 $51,954,200 27.26 Tax District 13 R 14 $21,076,200 $1,529,600 27.01 Tax District ACT 47 $27,957,700 $12,251,900 584.37 TOTAL 130 $183,668,000 $44,482,400 1,322.84 Although there are five separate tax districts, districts 13 and 13Q include the same taxing entities; districts 13I and 13R also have the same taxing entities. The taxing entities and their tax rates are as follows: TABLE 3: TAX DISTRICTS AND TAXING ENTITIES Tax Rate Tax District 13 and 13Q Figure 1: Northpoint Tax Districts 5 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Tax Rate Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Salt Lake City School District 0.004809 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.011638 Tax District 13I and 13R Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.013934 Tax District - Unincorporated Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 TOTAL 0.013582 The market value of the property is much higher than the taxable value in the area for several reasons. First, primary residential development is taxed at 55 percent of market value. Agricultural property is in greenbelt status and taxed at extremely low rates, and public properties are tax exempt. Therefore, while the market value is nearly $184 million, taxable value is estimated at roughly $67.9 million. 6 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NORTHPOINT TAXABLE VALUE Estimated Taxable Value Tax Districts 13 and 13Q $37,500,000 Tax Districts 13 I and 13 R $20,400,000 Tax District ACT $10,000,000 Total Taxable Value $67,900,000 Taxable value will increase as development occurs in Northpoint. Of the 1,323 acres in Northpoint, approximately 437 acres are either vacant or held in agricultural use. TABLE 5: VACANT ACRES Vacant Acres Tax Districts 13 and 13Q Tax Districts 13I and 13R Tax District ACT Total Residential 8.34 19.81 28.15 Industrial 17.40 14.19 42.56 74.15 Agricultural 111.68 223.04 334.72 TOTAL Acres 137.42 14.19 285.41 437.01 For purposes of estimating future tax revenues, this study assumes that the residential and industrial vacant acres are developed as residential and industrial respectively and makes no assumptions about future development of the agricultural property. TABLE 6: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Amount Residential Development Undeveloped acres 28.15 Units per Acre 2 Units developed 56 Average market value per unit $600,000 Average taxable value per unit $330,000 Total residential taxable value $18,480,000 Industrial Development Undeveloped acres 74.15 Floor area ratio 0.2* Taxable value per sf $200 Estimated taxable value $129,193,733 *If the floor area ratio (FAR) can be increased to 0.3, then the estimated total taxable value would increase to nearly $194 million For purposes of analysis, this report assumes that the majority of the development takes place in the unincorporated County, as it has the largest amount of vacant acres. The table below shows projections of roughly $2 million per year in additional property tax revenues from this area. 7 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 7: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Tax Rates - ACT Incremental Revenues Generated Salt Lake County 0.001777 $262,416 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 $1,772 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 $28,944 Granite School District 0.007105 $1,049,222 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 $59,069 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 $7,531 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 $235,392 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 $291,360 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 $69,997 TOTAL 0.013582 $2,005,705* *If the industrial development assumptions are increased to a FAR of 0.3, rather than 0.2, then annual incremental property tax revenues generated increase to nearly $2.9 million annually. A portion of these revenues could be allocated to a CRA for a period of time in order to pay for needed improvements and infrastructure in the area. TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined project area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. 8 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 A TRZ is much like a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) in that a portion of tax increment is pledged to the project for a specified period of time. The agreement between the two or more public entities must include the following, as specified in Utah Code §11-13-227(2): Define the transportation need and proposed improvement Define the boundaries of the zone Establish terms for sharing sales tax revenue among the members of the agreement, if sales tax is to be included Establish a base year to calculate the increase of property tax revenue within the zone Establish terms for sharing any increase in property tax revenue within the zone Hold a public hearing regarding the details of the TRZ Property tax revenues that are shared between members of the agreement are required to be incremental (Utah Code §11-13-227(2)(e). In order to identify incremental revenues, a “base year” needs to be established. The law clearly allows for the sharing of both sales tax and property tax revenue among the members of the agreement. There are advantages to governance with TRZs, as compared to CRAs, for projects that span multiple jurisdictions. In fact, there are only a few redevelopment areas in Utah that currently overlap multiple communities. While such are allowed by law, governance can be tricky. For example, in a CRA spanning two cities, each city would have its own redevelopment agency. Who then governs the project area? Joint RDA board meetings can be held, each agency board can meet separately, or there can be a MOU designating one of the RDA boards as the lead agency. Experience dictates that concerns often arise when more tax increment is generated in one jurisdiction of the project area than in another. There are often concerns about equity in spending funds in the same jurisdiction from which they come. Each redevelopment agency involved has to submit its annual report detailing the increment generated and how funds were spent, further exacerbating this concern. The TRZ overcomes many of these problems. First, with a TRZ, there is no requirement for RDA involvement, and therefore no need for RDA meetings. The TRZ is simply governed by an interlocal agreement signed by the parties. TRZs have proven effective in other states when projects cross multiple jurisdictions. With a TRZ there is no requirement to measure in which community increment is generated and where funds are spent. The purpose is simply to achieve an overall project. And only one annual report has to be filed for the TRZ – not separate reports for each participating entity. Another advantage to TRZs is the ability to obtain the commitment of transportation agencies, such as UDOT or UTA, for specific projects. Interlocal agreements between the public entity with the land-use authority and a transportation agency will identify the specific projects associated with the TRZ. This will add another level of certainty to local planning efforts and will give these public entities some additional leverage in prioritizing needed transportation projects. 9 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding transportation projects with tax increment generated in Transportation Reinvestment Zones: TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Advantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Disadvantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Creates a new revenue stream.Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. Relatively easy to create.Requires cooperation between at least two entities. Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. No affordable housing requirement.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. TAX INCREMENT BONDS Tax increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given project area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted project area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Ratings on tax increment bonds are tied to the performance of the area or district, not to the creating government’s general fund. As a result, the ratings differ from those of the creating entity’s general obligation rating. The rating of tax increment bonds hinges on local economics, trends, and taxpayer diversity, with taxpayer diversity being the most highly correlated statistic. Rating agencies evaluate whether the tax increment revenues could survive the loss of one or more top taxpaying property owners, how debt service could be managed in the case of broad-based decline of assessed value, real estate trends and historical assessed values in the designated area, and the types of properties located or being developed in the tax increment area. The assessed value of hotels is the most volatile, followed by warehouses, commercial, condos, and last residential. Many issuers opt to offer tax increment bonds on a non-rated basis. It is virtually impossible to secure a rating for or sell a tax increment bond before the increment is actually flowing, unless there is recourse to the local government’s credit or some other enhancement. 10 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Typically, tax increment bonds carry longer terms (anywhere from 10 to 30 years) and are purchased at a fixed rate using larger denominations of $100,000. There is usually no recourse to either the issuer or the developers who may benefit from the bonds. Pledged revenues vary, but a typical pledge is a senior security interest in the tax increment revenues as well as any debt service reserve funds. The bonds are often offered via a limited public offering and most often sold to institutional buyers (primarily mutual funds and occasionally property/casualty insurers) using a limited offering memorandum. It is typical to see interest capitalized for at least two to three years to allow increment to begin flowing before debt service payments are required from that increment. Unspent proceeds, capitalized interest and reserve funds are held by a Trustee. Debt service coverage covenants vary based on type of tax increment revenue and other security features associated with the bonds, but minimum coverage requirements are almost always at least 1.25 times annual debt service. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding with tax increment bonds: TABLE 9: TAX INCREMENT BONDS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a project area. Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency.2 Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types.3 Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose.4 2 An RDA is a separate political subdivision which can enter into agreements with developers and issue the bonds. 3 It is difficult to estimate the time required for the “political” side of the process, which often requires significant information sharing between local government and developers, including a public hearing for approval of the Project Area Plan and Budget. Setting aside the political requirements, the bond issuance process usually takes three to five months. 4 Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that some or all the increment is not attributable to the creation of the tax increment area and that the new property value growth would have occurred anyway. 11 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Consequently, benefits beyond the improved infrastructure can be included in the area. This can be in the form of better landscaping, street lighting, public spaces, parks, trails, finishes, etc. These benefits aid in creating property appeal, property value increases and in attracting top quality businesses. The PID tool also represents a valuable option for cities who are reticent to bond with property tax revenues in a standard tax increment collection area. Bonding permits for upfront infrastructure costs to be covered, oftentimes expediting development that may not have otherwise occurred. A city may create a PID with no increase in the tax rate and use the PID as a conduit to issue bonds. In this approach, the city is not financially responsible for the bond payments, and the bonding does not affect the city’s credit rating. The process for starting a Public Infrastructure District begins with a citywide policy. This represents a “30,000-foot” view of the tool for the municipality and merely outlines the guidelines as to how a developer should submit for a PID. The PID policy may incorporate specific goals and vision statements of the city. Once a policy is adopted, a developer may submit a letter of intent to create a PID. This is reviewed by the city, and if approved, governing documents are required to be submitted and approved 12 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 by the City Council. The simple passing of a general PID policy does not require the City Council to approve governing documents or letters of intent. Consequently, the PID policy represents another tool that can be used when appropriate. As of 2022, several cities throughout Utah have adopted PID policies and multiple public infrastructure districts have been formed. TABLE 10: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages PIDs Disadvantages PIDs Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally- allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs.Ongoing PID governance Can reduce the need for impact fees.Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. Cost is much lower than other development financing. The current taxable value of North Point is approximately $68,000,000. The maximum mill rate allowed by Utah law is 0.015; however, districts are choosing to enact much lower rates. Politically, it would be nearly impossible to obtain the consent of the entire Northpoint area to create a PID. However, smaller sections that are wanting to encourage economic development could be developed as PIDs. The table below shows the amount of annual property tax revenues that could be generated for such a district given varying taxable values and varying tax rates up to the maximum of 0.015. TABLE 11: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ANNUAL REVENUES BASED ON VARYING MILL RATES AND TAXABLE VALUES Property Taxable Values 0.015 Mill Rate .0075 Mill Rate .004 Mill Rate $10,000,000 $150,000 $75,000 $40,000 $20,000,000 $300,000 $150,000 $80,000 $30,000,000 $450,000 $225,000 $120,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of 13 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment5 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if even 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, taxable value, market value, by linear foot frontage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. TABLE 12: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator 5 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e., acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. 14 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued IMPACT FEES Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11-36a which includes the following major steps. Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding projects with impact fees: TABLE 13: IMPACT FEES AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development Adds additional costs to development Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest 15 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficiencies MUNICIPAL ENERGY TAX Salt Lake City has enacted the municipal energy tax to the full 6 percent allowed by law on all taxable portions of electric and gas bills. Therefore, any development that takes place in Salt Lake City would generate this additional revenue that could be used to assist with economic development and infrastructure costs in Northpoint. The municipal energy tax applies only to development that occurs in Salt Lake City and not in Salt Lake County. APPENDIX E MAJOR STREETS PLAN AMENDMENT 2100 N ~2 9 0 0 W 32 0 0 W * 22 0 0 W 3300 N 3500 N 2950 N Salt Lake City Major Street Plan Amendment for Northpoint Area ¯ Legend Designation Arterials Local Streets Proposed Arterial Streets 0 640 1,280 1,920320 Feet *3200 W to remain unimproved SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan) An ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on December 14, 2022 on a petition by the City Council to adopt an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan as a geographically-specific part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and WHEREAS, at its December 14, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan. That the Northpoint Small Area Plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. SECTION 2. Effectiveness. The Northpoint Small Area Plan, including the Design Standards included in chapter 2, is intended to be a binding document and any zoning map amendments or redevelopment shall follow the standards established within the 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: ______________. Ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney March 7, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Northpoint Small Area Plan Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 17, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com 801-535-7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The update of the plan was funded to provide guidance on anticipated development in the area and to address annexation-related issues in the area. The Northpoint Small Area Plan adopted in 2000 includes the following goal: The purpose of the Northpoint Small Area Plan is to eliminate potential land use conflicts with the Salt Lake International Airport while preserving and enhancing the existing agricultural lifestyle. The original plan identifies land use issues related to the airport, agriculture, business park development, the environment, and infrastructure. The plan includes a land use map that identifies most of the land west of 2200 West as Business Park and the majority of the land east of 2200 01-31-2023 01-31-2023 West as Agriculture. The plan includes land that is located outside of the city boundaries for the purpose of future annexations. A 2019 development proposal to develop land in unincorporated portions of Salt Lake County along 2200 West for residential purposes was submitted to Salt Lake County. This proposal triggered an annexation proposal for the land to be annexed into North Salt Lake City because both the county and city land use regulations prohibited residential development so close in proximity to the airport. In response to the proposed annexation, the City Council funded an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The purpose of funding the update was to address development pressure in the plan area and to address potential annexations of unincorporated land. The RFP process started in December 2019. The RFP was scheduled to be published at the end of March 2020. Due to uncertainty related to the pandemic, the RFP was paused and not released to the public. The money was reallocated to the 2020-2021 budget cycle. The RFP process was relaunched in January 2021 utilizing the same RFP document that was produced in 2020. The RFP selection team included representatives from the Planning Division, the Airport, Transportation Division, Engineering Division, and a member of the Westpointe Community Council. After interviews, the selection committee chose Logan Simpson. The contract with the consultant was finalized in May 2021. A transmittal was sent to the City Council in July 2021, to satisfy the process identified in Resolution 14 of 2020. That briefing included the scope of work, timeline, and public engagement plan. SMALL AREA PLAN KEY CONCEPTS: The Northpoint Small Area Plan will guide the future development of the area by presenting a vision map, design standards and guidelines for private development throughout the area. The plan provides action steps the city can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. Key concepts of the draft plan include: • Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. • Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Image 1: Northpoint general vicinity • Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. • Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. • Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. PROCESS: The plan update process began in 2021 with a series of one-on-one engagement sessions with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county-specific staff. The goal of these engagement sessions was to provide attendees with a forum to identify the assets and weaknesses of the plan area and to explore the future of the area. A Steering Committee was also formed to provide specific guidance on the area and to review draft recommendations for the plan. The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from government agencies, landowners, environmental groups, etc. In addition, the engagement process included a public open house, two community event pop-up tables, Westpointe Community Council presentations, two public questionnaires, and a property owner-specific questionnaire. The Planning Commission met to review the small area plan first through a work session on July 27, 2022, and then again on October 26th, 2022 for a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission tabled the draft plan at that meeting with direction to allow additional time for public input and to consider revisions to the recommended wetland buffer. In response, Planning Staff met with the Westpointe Community Council at their November 9th meeting and engaged with stakeholders through email and one-on-one meetings. Modifications were made to the draft in response to the direction received from the Planning Commission and additional public input. Key changes included the addition of an action item to develop a Northpoint -specific development code, revisions to the wetland buffers that would allow some flexibility in buffer width in exchange for mitigation measures, and the addition of language that would limit distribution and logistical land use and promote manufacturing land uses. The Planning Commission reopened the Public Hearing at their December 14, 2022 meeting. During the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed limit on distribution land uses, if this limitation was necessary, and if there is a market for the area to be primarily manufacturing land uses. While there was some disagreement among members on this subject, they ultimately voted to remove the limitation on distribution land uses. The Commission also discussed wetland buffers and emphasized that open space preservation around wetlands is of high priority and recommended a 300-foot buffer rather than 200 feet. Planning Staff also recommended some minor changes to the draft in the Staff Report that were brought up in public comments. The Commission did not report concern with these changes, and the conversation generally indicated support. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: - The limit on distribution land uses be removed. - The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Based on the conversation, the Commissioners who voted no did so because one would like to see more open space preserved and does not support the vision for light -industrial development, and the other indicated that they were not in support of removing the limitation on distribution uses. PROPOSED DRAFT: The draft forwarded to the City Council includes modifications to the draft plan that address the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, as well as the recommended changes proposed by Planning Staff based on public comment: - Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” o Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. - Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. - Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space o In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. - Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) d) PC Agenda for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) f) PC Staff Report for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) g) PC Agenda for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) h) PC Minutes for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) i) PC Staff Report for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) City Council Public Hearing Notice 3) Northpoint Small Area Plan Draft 4) Public Comments Received 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 January 30, 2022 Dear City Councilmembers: As you consider adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, per City Code section 2.06.035.C.2, I am submitting a letter for your consideration. Section2.06.035 allows the city administration to provide a different recommendation than the Planning Commission by submitting a letter outlining the mayor’s position as part of the administrative transmittal. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is such a case. On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan with two modifications. First, to remove Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses in the plan area; and second, to increase the development buffer from wetlands from 200 feet to 300 feet. I applaud the Planning Commission for their dedication to preserving and protecting wetland areas by increasing the buffer width; however, I am concerned that removing the limit on distribution land uses will negatively impact the existing rural characteristics of the area, potentially increase the amount of air pollution generated by the future use of land in the area, and expand the amount of land in the City that is available for warehouse and distribution uses. The Northpoint plan boundary is unique within Salt Lake City and any future planning should be sensitive to the existing context and rural nature of the area. While development of the area is ongoing and that pressure will likely continue in the future, planning should promote an appropriate transition of land uses that can coexist with the existing rural residential and agricultural uses, as well as minimize impacts to the environment and natural habitat. Planning must also consider appropriate land uses to reduce exposure to air pollution created by airplanes taking off and landing from the Salt Lake City International Airport, especially as the airport considers lengthening existing runways that will further impact the Northpoint area. There are nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City that are currently zoned M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. It 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. If more area is allowed to develop with these uses it likely increases the amount of air pollution generated in the city through an increase in semi-truck traffic and requires more resources to maintain city streets. I recommend that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development. This vision can be achieved through prioritizing and expanding the recommended Northpoint specific development code, which is identified as a critical action item in the plan. Expansion of 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 the code recommendation could include limiting building footprints, lot coverage, and building height to encourage a greater mix of land uses and prevent large scale buildings that are only suitable for distribution. Additionally, the Council could consider restricting or limiting the uses in the land use tables within the Northpoint development code. In addition to my recommendation above, please consider the Northpoint Small Area Plan guidance for zoning assignment of annexation in the area. In future review of annexation petitions, I request that the Council also consider the recommended Northpoint Small Area Plan policies and development code in any development agreement to ensure the vision for the area is respected and realized. Thank you for your consideration, Erin Mendenhall Mayor SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan) An ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on December 14, 2022 on a petition by the City Council to adopt an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan as a geographically-specific part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and WHEREAS, at its December 14, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan. That the Northpoint Small Area Plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 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 the Northpoint Small Area Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 16, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” Northpoint Small Area Plan 1. CHRONOLOGY Northpoint Small Area Plan Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00687 May 2021: Contract with the consultant, Logan Simpson, finalized July 22, 2021: City Council briefing August 2021: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the project and stakeholder interview opportunities August 2021: Logan Simpson (consultant) held one-on-one meetings August 2021: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. August 12, 2021: Steering Committee meeting November 10, 2021: Westpointe Community Council presentation February 17, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 4, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 29, 2022: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the upcoming workshop and providing them with a QR code to obtain more information and take a property owner questionnaire. March 2 – 30, 2022: Property Owner Questionnaire March 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation May 16, 2022: Draft Concepts public workshop May 17 – June 30: Draft Concepts Online Questionnaire was available to the public June 27, 2022: Steering Committee meeting July 22, 2022: Draft Plan published and noticed for public review July 27, 2022: Planning Commission briefing August 2, 2022: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. September 20, 2022: City Council briefing on the draft plan October 18, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing October 26, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation November 16, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing December 14, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation December 15, 2022: Ordinance request sent to City Attorney’s Office December 16, 2022: Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan – A request by the City Council to revise and complete an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following link: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2022/10/13/northpoint-small-area-plan/ As part of their review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00687. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. (P 19-19) 4. NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DRAFT NORTHPOINT Small Area Plan Salt Lake City Adoption Draft, January 2023 DRAFT 2 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................4 Location .................................................................................................................6 Plan Context and Purpose .....................................................................................7 Guide to this Plan ...................................................................................................8 Executive Summary .............................................................................................10 Chapter 2 The Vision ....................................................12 Constraints to the Vision .....................................................................................14 Land Use Categories ............................................................................................15 Vision Map ...........................................................................................................16 Design Standards ................................................................................................18 Chapter 3 Implementation ...........................................30 Critical Path Implementation Items ....................................................................32 Additional Implementation Items ........................................................................34 Chapter 4 The Toolkit ....................................................36 Using the Toolkit ..................................................................................................38 Land Preservation Tools .......................................................................................40 Financial Implementation Tools ..........................................................................46 DRAFT Appendix A Existing Conditions Appendix B Public Input Appendix C Constraints Analysis Appendix D Full Financial Analysis Appendix E Major Streets Plan Amendment DRAFT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6 Location The Northpoint Plan Area is located just north of Downtown Salt Lake City, near Farmington Bay and the Great Salt Lake. The Plan Area is bounded to the east by Interstate 215 and is comprised of mainly agricultural, industrial and residential uses. Northpoint lies within the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, adjacent to vital environmental resources including the Jordan River and playas and wetlands associated with the Great Salt Lake. Over half of the property in Northpoint is currently under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County and consists of agricultural uses, business park development, industrial and commercial zoning. Environmental considerations greatly influence the future growth and development of the area. Directly south of Northpoint is Salt Lake City International Airport, which provides opportunities for and constraints to the potential development within Northpoint. The airport continues to expand through ongoing renovations and is currently being guided by the 2022 Salt Lake International Airport Master Plan. Its proximity is a defining factor of the Plan Area. Northpoint is also adjacent to several recreational areas including the Wasatch Mountain Range, with its many trails, the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, and the Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex. Introduction Overview Graphic 1.1 | Northpoint Plan Area DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 7 Esri,H ERE,Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMapc ontributors,andt he GISu serc ommunity Jurisdiction Plan Context and Purpose In 2000, a Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted with goals to eliminate potential land use conflicts between the Salt Lake International Airport, future development, and the existing agricultural lifestyle. Other notable planning efforts for this region include the 1992 Northwest and the Jordan River/Airport Plan which address the Northpoint Plan Area, the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Jordan River, the Salt Lake Airport, and surrounding land; the 2020 Blueprint Jordan River Plan which illustrates a cohesive vision for the River as it stretches through multiple jurisdictions; the 2021 Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan; and the 2021 Salt Lake County West General Plan. The northwest portion of Salt Lake City is limited by multiple layers of constraints, mostly environmental, but also due to airport activity, connectivity, and social equity issues. It is one of the largest growth areas for the City, but quite possibly, the most difficult to develop. This Plan addresses the natural environment, built environment, and community attributes. Many factors contribute to constraints facing the area, however many attributes act as opportunities. The Northpoint Small Area Plan Update is a response to the rapid pace of growth and change in the northwest portion of Salt Lake City and the anticipated new business park and light industrial uses in the area. The key goals of this Plan are to: »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the plan area. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Graphic 1.2 | Northpoint Jurisdictions Salt Lake City Salt Lake County DRAFT 8 Guide to This Plan Plan Salt Lake Northpoint Small Area Plan Land Use Code and Zoning Ordinances Design Standards Incentives Tools and Actions Introduction This document is intended to support Salt Lake City’s overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake while also providing tailored tools to help the Plan Area grow appropriately. Once the Northpoint Small Area Plan is adopted, its supplemental recommendations will guide applicants to develop within the scope of the Community’s Vision. This plan should be referenced when discretionary land use decisions are being made. These recommendations include, design standards, land acquisition tools, regulatory tools, and incentive based tools. Master plans detail the vision, policy, and framework of the community that will guide growth and development over time. As the plan area transitions from greenfield and rural residential to industrial and business park, this plan outlines specific design standards and action steps the City can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 9 Public Process This planning process included one- on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and City and ounty staff, a public open house, two public questionnaires, and a property owner- specific questionnaire. With several applications active in the Plan Area at the time this project started, it became apparent early on that habitat preservation and residential quality of life were primary concerns. This shaped the Plan, shifting focus from land use recommendations to tools available to the City to preserve habitat, mitigate impacts of new development on residents, water and air quality, and wildlife, and determine appropriate improvements to existing infrastructure. 195 820 DRAFT 10 Executive Summary The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a detailed master plan for the Northwestern Community of Salt Lake City. The Plan Area contains large amounts of underdeveloped land, nestled between wetlands from the Great Salt Lake to the west and urban growth to the east. Additionally, parts of the Plan Area are fragmented with unincorporated County land and airport-owned property. A clear plan is needed to address the development pressures in the Plan Area, which continue to increase despite natural constraints. The Northpoint Small Area Plan aims to guide future development based on the previously adopted community plans and future land uses that the City has identified as appropriate to the area. While many property owners intend to retain their property as agricultural land, redevelopment and new development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial and manufacturing. The Plan contains three elements to guide growth into the future: Vision Map The Northpoint area has experienced growth that can conflict; industrial development adjacent to agriculture and residential uses, and developments adjacent to or abutting critical habitat areas (i.e. wetlands and upland). Industrial development has begun, and is expected to continue, to creep into this area of Salt Lake City. Understanding this reality, the Northpoint Vision is to balance the anticipated growth of light industrial and manufacturing uses with the existing and continued residential and agricultural uses of the area. This will be accomplished through outlining mitigation strategies for high-impact development directed at preserving quality of life for residents and the natural environment. Design Standards The design standards are directly connected to the anticipated future development in the area. Building and site design have the ability to affect built environments in impactful ways. When applied with a clear vision in mind, design standards can shape development that reduces visual and physical land use conflicts. The standards touch on each land use designation and provide clear direction as to how the area should be built. Although the standards are separately outlined in the plan, they are implied to be implemented with the other action items. Implementation What separates the plan from a design standards manual, is the comprehensive action items that are addressed in the implementation chapter. The action items range from strategies to best preserve open space and critical habitats, recommends further study for service and infrastructure needs, annexation of unincorporated properties within the Plan Area, and funding tools that will help the Plan Area grow responsibly. These elements can be applied to the area as a whole and provide different initiatives aside from traditional zoning regulation guidance. There are three action items identified as “critical path”, being the most critical to complete once this plan is adopted. These action items are: »Services and Infrastructure | Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W »Built Environment and Design | Adopt Development Code Updates and Codify the Design Standards Herein »Natural Environment and Preservation | Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 11 Goals of this Plan »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Vision Map Categories See more on page 16 Key Design Standards See more on page 20 Critical Implementation See more on page 32 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Areas where development is limited to passive recreational amenities TRANSITIONAL Areas that are currently residential. New development will be subject to impact mitigation measures BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL Areas anticipated to develop as Business Park and Light Industrial AIRPORT Areas owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport Limit maximum building frontage along 2200 W Maintain buffers between new development and existing wetlands, canals, drains, and the Jordan River Maintain a 65-foot buffer between new development and existing residential Allow clustering of buildings to maximize buffers Emphasize appropriate building materials and encourage native landscaping Services and Infrastructure Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 W and construct 2900 W Built Environment and Design Create a Northpoint specific development code and codify the Design Standards Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring sensitive lands as city-owned open space How Will We Get There?DRAFT CHAPTER 2 THE VISION 14 Constraints to the Vision As discussed in Chapter 1, the Plan Area consists of several development constraints ranging from sensitive wetland habitat to airport influence zone regulations. Mapping these constraints is a crucial first step in determining the areas most suitable for new development and identifying areas that should be preserved as habitat and open space. The Constraints Map illustrates the results of this analysis and may be used to prioritize sensitive lands for preservation or acquisition. For a detailed analysis of development constraints and opportunities used in this analysis, see Appendix C. Constraints reviewed in this analysis included: »Designated Wetlands »Salt Lake City International Airport-Owned Properties »Utility and Open Space Easements »Airport Influence Zones (A, B, C) »Viable Agriculture »Airport Noise Contours Using the Vision Map and Design Standards The Vision Map in this chapter is intended to show where additional standards are necessary to ensure future development is compatible with existing residential, agricultural, and sensitive habitats. To use this chapter, review the Vision Map and accompanying Design Standards. It is intended that the following design standards be incorporated into Salt Lake City Zoning and Development Code to apply to new development in the Plan Area. The Northpoint Vision Overview Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ¯ Most suitable for development Least suitable for development NORTHPOINT CONSTRAINTS MAP Graphic 2.1 | Constraints Analysis for Northpoint DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 15 Natural Open Space Purpose: Natural Open Space areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. The Natural Open Space district aims to connect critical habitats in the least fragmented way possible considering development trends in the Plan Area. Applicability: These areas include designated wetlands, uplands, existing recreational amenities, and areas connecting them. All designated wetlands, uplands, and other sensitive lands fall under the Natural Open Space district. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, trailheads, and small parking areas to serve recreational uses. Adjacent land uses will be subject to mitigation. Transitional Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the impacts of Business Park/Industrial development on residential and agricultural properties. Applicability: New development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial with a focus on manufacturing land uses. There are no properties in the Plan Area that are identified for new residential development. Use Standards: Residential properties shall be subject to natural habitat impact mitigation standards such as buffering critical areas from all development. Should any residential properties transition to BP/Industrial, all BP/Industrial standards will apply. Business Park/Industrial Purpose: Business and light industrial development is anticipated in the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area will convert to light industrial, manufacturing, or business properties. Applicability: The BP/I district applies to properties that do not contain significant constraints such as wetlands, uplands, existing residential, or other major limitations. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be reviewed closely for impact to existing residents and sensitive lands and may require additional mitigation designs focused on protecting the natural environment and quality of life of existing residents. Airport Purpose: These areas are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport, though there are no plans currently to develop these areas. Applicability: The Airport district applies to properties that are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, natural open space, and utility and infrastructure needed for the Salt Lake International Airport. Land Use Categories DRAFT 16 Protected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland* Natural Open Space Business Park / Industrial Transitional Land UsesProtected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Airport *Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Vision Map is intended as a general guide for wetland areas, but specific wetland delineation should be done when land is developed. Identification of wetlands primarily involves the determination of three factors: the predominance of wetland vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and signs of hydrology. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 17 Without Design Standards With Design Standards Smaller buildings facing existing residential and major roadways, largest buildings in the middle of development. Greater attention to building design (i.e. building materials, lighting, landscaping, etc.). Allow clustering of buildings in favor of preserving connected habitat and critical open space. No restrictions on building size near/facing existing residential. Typical industrial development styles can disturb natural habitat with disruptive materials, lighting, hazardous landscaping and fencing, etc. Minimum lot sizes and open space requirements force buildings to be oriented in an inefficient way, taking up more native land than needed. EFFECT OF DESIGN STANDARDS DRAFT 18 Design Standards Land Use Business Park/ Industrial Transitional Minimum Setback of New Development Designated Wetlands up to 300 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Canals and Drains 75 ft 75 ft Jordan River 100 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Existing Residential 65 ft 65 ft Maximum Continuous Building Frontage on 2200 W 400 ft 250 ft 1 | Should preserve uninterrupted connection between wetlands and uplands 2 | Should include and maintain a planted stormwater mitigation element such as a bioswale Setbacks and Buffers Buffers and setbacks are intended to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and provide important habitats for wildlife that utilize buffer areas. While setbacks shown in this document are intended to extend from the natural feature (i.e., designated wetland or canal) to any impervious built surface of new development (i.e., sidewalks, parking lots), specific details will be determined when the setback is adopted into code. Setbacks from natural features may include landscaping and stormwater management. Required setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential are intended to extend from new structure to existing residential structure(s). Setbacks from residential structures may include sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A maximum building length along 2200 West is recommended to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial development on longstanding agricultural and residential uses, as well as maintain habitat connections. Smaller setbacks in the transition area are intended to allow flexibility for residential development under the existing zoning. As development intensity increases with the development of business park or light industrial land uses, the greater setbacks apply. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 19 Preferred Buffer for Development Adjacent to Wetlands/Uplands * When buffer is applied during development of a property the City must consider the potential for a regulatory taking of property. DRAFT 20 Design Standards 1 | Habitat Mitigation Standards 1.1 | Grading Limitations Considering limitations to grading can help minimize impacts to native vegetation. It is important for only areas planned for development to be cleared and graded as it can allow for natural drainage courses to be maintained and reduces the need to manage stormwater flows. ◊ Soil cover or ramps shall be included to allow for movement of wildlife through the drainages. ◊ Excavation methods such as installation of underdrains should be considered. ◊ Vertical drop structures and concrete lined channels should be avoided. ◊ Use of large angular rip-rap for erosion control should be limited. ◊ Non-structural features that also provide riparian habitat should be considered. ◊ Where possible, development should relate the building to the natural site by stepping buildings and avoiding mass leveling of the site. 1.2 | Fencing and Walls Fences and walls can be barriers to wildlife and impede the movement of wildlife between habitat areas. Although fencing can be used to exclude wildlife, it should be applied in very specific areas that do not restrict larger wildlife movement and migration patterns or access to food, water, shelter, or potential mates. ◊ Fencing shall be permeable to allow for the safe passage of animals and facilitate wildlife movement through existing or constructed wildlife corridors. ◊ Natural barriers for privacy purposes shall consist of natural materials where possible, such as boulders, densely-planted vegetation, or rip-rap. ◊ Decorative fencing features that could be hazardous to wildlife shall be prohibited including: »Pointed or narrow extensions at the top of fences. »Wires that may entangle animals. »Hollow fence posts that are open at the top when birds or other small animals may become entrapped in an open cavity. Standards for All New Development Graphic 2.3 | Native Landscaping DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 21 1.3 | Dark Sky Lighting Lighting is an important element in built environments that allows for a perceived sense of safety at night. However, without appropriate design and placement, outdoor light fixtures can sometimes be inefficient. Outdoor lighting in the Plan Area should be designed in a way that benefits the built environment without negatively impacting the natural environment. Artificial lighting can disrupt wildlife’s natural patterns and behaviors. Graphic 2.4 | Dark Sky Friendly Lighting ◊ Lighting in non-functional spaces is prohibited (i.e. architectural and landscape lighting is not necessary for function of built environments). ◊ Light fixtures with motion or heat sensor may be used to keep lights off when lighting is not required. ◊ Lighting should consist of International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved fixtures. ◊ Electronic message centers (EMC) shall be switched off completely after 11pm (or 30 minutes after the close of business for on-premises signs, whichever is later), and remain off until one hour before sunrise. ◊ EMCs applications for traffic and safety information shall be exempt from curfew. ◊ Light fixtures shall be selectively placed and fully shielded (i.e. light shall only be emitted downward and not above an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the light source). ◊ Lights shall be directed away from natural areas. ◊ Lighting shall use timers to automatically turnoff outside of hours of operation. ◊ Outdoor lighting shall be a color temperature of 3,000 kelvin or less.DRAFT 22 Design Standards 2 | Water Conscious Development 2.1 | Landscaping Regulating native species in landscape design can lead to low-maintenance and water-wise environments that reflect the natural environment in the built environment. Additionally, habitat value can be increased when landscaping isn’t overly manicured. However, weeds and invasive species should be controlled so that they do not compete with native species for necessary water and nutrients. ◊ Landscaped areas shall follow Low Impact Develpoment (LID) principles. ◊ Landscaping shall consist of native, adaptive, and drought-tolerant plantings. ◊ New construction shall follow the Salt Lake City Tree Protection and Preservation Policy. ◊ Landscaping shall not require modifications to the native soil. ◊ Minimize irrigated landscape areas and utilize naturalized swales. ◊ Fertilizers and herbicides shall be prohibited. ◊ Development adjacent to wetlands and uplands shall adhere to the buffer requirements herein and include on-site stormwater management. Graphic 2.5 | Stormwater Runoff Design 2.2 | Stormwater Management As undeveloped land becomes developed with hard surface materials, loss of permeable surfaces will have a direct affect on stormwater runoff. It is essential to avoid stormwater contact with industrial materials and activities and to avoid point-source pollution and degradation of the wetlands, uplands, and other natural habitat. There are comprehensive best management practice guides that can help applicant navigate the best solution for the specific use. ◊ Significant new development resulting in a change of land use shall include environmental impact mitigation measures and align them with current executive orders and master plans. ◊ Embankments and spillways shall be designed and approved by engineers that specialize in stormwater management and ecologically friendly design. ◊ Stormwater systems shall not diminish water flow to wetlands. ◊ Sedimentation systems may be used. »Sediment systems are more efficient with pollutants associated with metals, organic compounds, and other oxygen-demanding substances. There are limitations with sediment systems as small particles do not always settle therefore the substances in the industrial stormwater discharge should be evaluated prior to implementation. ◊ Detention ponds may be utilized with an underdrain to outlet to allow water to slowly release into proper stormwater systems. ◊ Retention ponds may be utilized to regularly contain water on site and via infiltration. ◊ Infiltration systems may be utilized to capture and infiltrate runoff in order to reduce runoff volume. »i.e. Infiltration Trenches, basins, bio-retention systems and underground infiltration tanks. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 23 Graphic 2.9 | Porous Surface Street Edge Graphic 2.8 | Native Landscaping Graphic 2.7 | Bioswale Graphic 2.6 | Bioswale 3 | Airport Conflict Mitigation Aviation adjacent to the Plan Area has been around for many years. Similarly to the rest of Salt Lake Valley, the Airport, too, has grown and anticipates further growth into the future. It is important to account for current and future impacts. 3.1 | Noise Regulation programs like Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise, should be implemented on airport owned properties as to mitigate the impacts of noise. This program was established by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and sets forth the measure that a specific airport operator has taken to reduce the impacts of noise. 3.2 | Land Use Compatibility Local land use planning such as this plan can better prepare for the implications of planning around airports, and other airport- related development. Land use decisions around the airport properties should account for the impacts and determine whether the proposed use is appropriate. This can be hindered when multiple jurisdictions regulate the surrounding lands, however, there are tools such as annexation to consolidate regulatory authority and ensure that only appropriate land use decisions are made.DRAFT 24 Graphic 2.10 | Natural Design Elements Graphic 2.11| Natural Building Materials Graphic 2.12 | Interior Courtyard 4 | Visual Design Conscious design can help enhance compatibility between various uses and ensure that development fits in with the surrounding natural environment as best as possible. ◊ Units (and open space required by code) shall be organized or “clustered” in an efficient manner on properties where doing so will allow for larger habitat buffers. ◊ Building frontages along 2200 W shall not exceed 400 ft in length. ◊ Uninterrupted horizontal expanses of 100 ft in length of any opaque material, including opaque glass, shall be prohibited on building frontages visible from public streets. ◊ Natural building materials, colors, and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features shall be included in the exterior of buildings to mitigate the contrast of the built and natural environment. ◊ Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. ◊ Mechanical systems/equipment shall be shielded with barriers such as foliage and fences. ◊ Common design elements shall be included in Business Park-zoned development. »Designs should have a variety of unit sizes to accommodate different uses and the structural layout should also allow for flexibility.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 25 Standards for Transitional Areas Development within Transitional Areas will be held to the standards previously mentioned with the following additional standards. 1 | Industrial Land Use Mitigation As industrial developments increase in the Plan Area, it is essential to recognize the compatibility issues associated with industrial land uses and be able to mitigate issues through building and site design. Industrial developments intrinsically contain issues with noise, odor, dust, traffic, light, air quality, and visual/design elements, therefore mitigation is necessary. 1.1 | Noise Industrial uses can have implications on noise that can affect adjacent land uses and also the natural environment. Noise can be classified into two different types: airborne and structure borne. Airborne is from the source to the receiver and can travel in all directions whereas structure-borne is vibrations through materials. Regardless of noise type, mitigation efforts should be in place prior, during, and after development. The following strategies are ways to mitigate the unwanted and unnecessary noise impacts due to industrial development. ◊ Noise impacts shall be mitigated by absorption, barriers, and/or damping. »Absorption works towards dissipating airborne acoustic sound waves. The best sound-absorbing materials are acoustic foam, fabric panels, or underlayment. Common building materials do not absorb most sound whereas softer materials, such as carpet, foam padding, and fiberglass insulation are more efficient in dissipating noise. »Physical barriers such as a berm or spatial separation that account for height, distance, thickness, and material type can contribute to the extent of mitigation. »Damping reduces acoustic vibration within a structure or wall. ◊ Building masses such as U or L shaped forms are preferred as they can contribute to noise mitigation through spatial separation. ◊ Interior courtyards or garden spaces should be incorporated as they can be an effective noise mitigation strategy by providing quiet and light-filled spaces. ◊ Vegetation should be high and dense when used for noise mitigation for significant effectiveness. ◊ Air-conditioning units should be substituted for pressurized plenum space where possible. A plenum is a separate interior space provided for air circulation for heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning. Graphic 2.13 | Existing Residential in the Plan AreaDRAFT 26 Design Standards 1.2 | Odor Unlike other externalities of industrial uses, odor can be difficult to measure due to its subjective nature. However, there are some measures that can be taken to address the duration, frequency, intensity, and location of noxious odors. ◊ Mitigating odor should start at the source of the emitter, such as food operations, traffic emissions, chemical facilities, mechanical equipment pollution, and material handling. Operational and engineering best practices can mitigate odors prior to being released in the environment. ◊ If emissions cannot be prevented, various solutions can be applied such as: »Plantings and trees to absorb and mask unpleasant smells as well as act as visual screening. Additionally, plantings can act as ozone generator which eliminates odorous substances through oxidation and are low maintenance. (Odor mitigation foliage include field maples, peace lily, serviceberry, sansevieria). »Dispersion to reduce consolidated emissions. Dispersion can look like increased separation between odor source and receivers to allow for dilution or contain the dispersion in an enclosure to prevent odors dispersing. »Location of open tanks and storage piles. Limit the presence of smells such as locating open tanks and storage piles away from residential and high-occupancy areas. »Structure design elements. The operability and placement of windows and doors can also prevent intrusion of odors. 1.3 | Air Quality Encouraging and supporting occupants that engage in sustainable processes and produce minimal emissions is the most effective way to mitigate air quality issues. In circumstances where this is unavoidable, exhausting air with ventilation can be effective and dilution can be used to mitigate the impacts ventilation can have on the surroundings. ◊ Apply in-room air cleaners and vegetation barriers to help mitigate localized air pollution. ◊ Use air filters and electronic air cleaners such as ionizers in duct-mounted and portable cleaners. »i.e. activated carbon is an adsorbent media air filter. ◊ Green roofs may be incorporated to address on-site and off-site disturbances. ◊ Extensive venting should be used when possible. ◊ Operable windows should be used to provide direct ventilation where they do not conflict with noise mitigation strategies. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 27 1.4 | Traffic and Loading Industrial development brings different vehicular traffic expectations. The challenge lies in balancing street level, building, and occupant needs. It is essential that industrial land uses contain loading and unloading infrastructure as the traffic associated with the use can have compatibility issues with adjacent non-industrial uses. Certain elements such as parking, loading bays, elevators, access points, noise, and aesthetic can have implications on the area. Establishing design standards can allow for the mitigation of incompatibilities between the movement of people, vehicles, and goods. ◊ Spatial Separation: Land uses that produce heavier traffic scenarios shall be placed away from residential units. ◊ Vertical Stacking: Flat-roof style structures may be implemented for upper-floor parking and loading. ◊ Access: Access shall be allowed from more than one side of a site to allow for better separation of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle access to reduce the risk of collisions and large distribution vehicles. ◊ Laneways: Laneways shall be sensitive to pedestrian spaces by carving out walkable space in the building mass. This includes vegetation, dark sky-friendly lighting, and amenities for pedestrian use. ◊ Shared lobbies: Mixed-use buildings (including industrial and/or office spaces) may require shared lobbies to foster community and interaction among tenants. »It is important to ensure that there are not substantial conflicts between uses that have safety implications. ◊ Location: Additional considerations for industrial and non-industrial compatibilities includes proximity to future public transit which can reduce parking demands and activate streets for more complete neighborhoods. These locations should be evaluated if public transit plans are implemented in the Plan Area. Graphic 2.14 | SLC Air Quality DRAFT 28 Design Standards Standards for Natural Open Space Natural open space consists of critical habitat, regionally significant agriculture, and connecting open spaces. Development in these areas is restricted to passive recreational amenities. 1 | Wetland Design Standards 1.1 | Planting Wetlands are home to very beneficial habitats that can support carbon sequestration and improve water quality. As development increases, mitigating the impacts on wetlands is essential for the area. Plant species is an example of a simple design standard that can be incorporated into properties in a close proximity to this critical habitat. ◊ Encouraging and/or requiring native plant species can promote healthy wetland habitat in the face of increasing development. ◊ Non-native/invasive species mitigation: Upkeep of vegetated areas should be a continuous effort of property owners. This includes proper management of invasive and non-native plant species that may have a negative impact on the natural wetland habitat. »Utilizing natural mitigation techniques should be encouraged as to avoid run-off from herbicide and pesticide product. Graphic 2.15 | Outdoor Pavilion Graphic 2.16 | Natural Landscaping Graphic 2.17 | Nature-Inspired Design Graphic 2.18 | Birds at the Great Salt Lake Graphic 2.19 | Education Center DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 29 1.2 | Trails and Boardwalks Integrating boardwalks and trails adjacent and into wetlands can provide educational and leisure activities for the community in and beyond the Plan Area. Access to these critical areas must be designed in a way that protects the natural habitat while also providing experiences that are otherwise experienced by only a few individuals. It is important to take inventory of the wetland and partner with ecologists before implementing a trail system. ◊ Working group: Educational and recreational programming is a welcomed amenity, however, start up can be difficult without willing partners and active volunteers. Establishing a working group can help implement a well-rounded, comprehensive wetland program. ◊ Trail Kiosk and Parking: Integrating educational and recreational opportunities with the wetlands can benefit those beyond the Plan Area. Therefore, establishing a trail kiosk and parking area will provide more convenient access to this amenity area. ◊ Connectivity: Connecting the wetlands to the upland environment can help the user experience the relationship between the two environments. ◊ Signage: Creating a recognizable sign program can help users identify the trails and remain on trail. The program can also include interpretive signage that indicates points of interest, or educational information about the wetlands and uplands. ◊ Trail type: It is important to evaluate what type of trails are appropriate in and around the wetland to mitigate the impacts on the natural environment. Purposeful design can also help mitigate unnecessary costs for development and maintenance. »Trails rather than boardwalks are appropriate in areas where there is raised ground through the wetland or around the wetland. Soft-surface trails require little investment. »Boardwalks are needed where adjacent lands are flat (vegetation is tall) and allows for the ground beneath to remain somewhat natural. Graphic 2.23 | Wildlife Viewing and Fishing Access Graphic 2.22 | Informational Signage Graphic 2.21 | Boardwalk-Style Trail Graphic 2.20 | Natural Multiuse Trail DRAFT CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION 32 Implementing the Vision Implementation refers to the actions Salt Lake City should take to ensure the Plan Area develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. The most time-sensitive implementation actions are included as critical path items. Following the critical path items is a list of additional action items recommended to achieve the vision of this Plan. A critical element in planning for any area is considering water sources and needs. Any development in this area must adhere to Salt Lake City water-related plans and policies. Critical Path Items Critical path items are actions that should be abided by the City prior to and as development occurs. Each critical path item will fall into at least one of the following categories: built environment/design, services and infrastructure, and natural environment/preservation. These categories were identified throughout the planning process and are integrated into the various sections of the Plan. The following items are classified as an immediate need, as development pressures area already present in the Plan Area. Services and Infrastructure Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Various City Departments 2900 W is intended to be developed with the Scannell-Swaner Subdivision and will serve as an additional major arterial road in this Plan Area. The redevelopment of 2200 W and the construction of 2900 W should consider increased vehicle volumes and incorporate pedestrian and biking infrastructure. Below is a list of potential funding opportunities for this action. For a detailed analysis of these tools and their applicability in the Plan Area, see the Financial Implementation Analysis in Appendix D. »Tax Increment Areas »Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) »Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) »Impact Fees »Municipal Energy Tax Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There has been a large amount of support for the preservation of open space in the Plan Area, as it serves as a cultural and historical landmark for the region and critical habitat for wildlife. Acquiring and preserving available open space in this area for passive recreation is a high priority. Land adjacent to the Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 West should be a high priority for preservation. For a list of recommended land acquisition tools, see Chapter 4. Implementation Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 33 Built Environment/Design Adopt Development Code Updates Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There are several zoning designations within the Plan Area including Light Manufacturing (M- 1), Business Park (BP), and Agricultural/Rural Residential (AG-2, AG-5, and Salt Lake County A-2). Although some properties will likely remain agricultural or rural residential, it is anticipated that this area will slowly redevelop into primarily light manufacturing with some preserved open space areas. General Development Code Updates The simplest way to encourage development consistent with the City’s vision for the Plan Area is to adopt minor edits to these zoning categories. While the City Council may eventually adopt an overlay for the Plan Area, the following Zoning Code updates are “low-hanging fruit” the City can quickly implement. »Review landscape requirements to prohibit turf lawns and encourage native plantings in keeping with wetland preservation, particularly in interface areas. »Consider a reduction in minimum lot size if clustering for preservation areas. »Reconsider setbacks in the zoning code if preserving native habitat, allow more flexibility of the building envelope. »In the BP zone, eliminate the requirement of an agricultural buffer in favor of an environmental buffer (keep residential proximity protections when agriculture is a residential use). »Amend the Riparian Corridor Overlay zone to include wetland protection buffers. »Amend the Lowland Conservancy Overlay zone to include canals and drains in the Plan Area. Northpoint Specific Development Code The preferred approach to implement the vision for the Plan Area is a Northpoint-specific development code. A Northpoint-specific code should include: »Adopting the Design Standards from Chapter 2 of this document, which includes the recommended setbacks and buffer areas, landscape requirements, building materials and design standards, etc. »Incentive-based tools for preserving open and sensitive lands, such as allowing an increase in the maximum building façade length if preserving a larger amount of open space or buffer area than required. DRAFT 34 Create a local area utility plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Require a local area utility plan to determine future Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) service availability and to ensure utility services can be provided based on the anticipated future land use associated with new development. City policy is that upon the development of a property, the developer will be required to identify and provide all utilities necessary to serve their development, including water, sewer, and stormwater. A local area utility plan shall be provided to SLCDPU for review to support any development application, to ensure adequate service availability, and to identify impacts on existing systems. Amend the Major Streets Plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Transportation Division Amend the Major Streets Plan to reflect the removal of 3200 W as a major road. While shown as a local road on the proposed amended map, it is anticipated that 3200 W will remain an unimproved dirt road and barrier for adjacent wetlands to the west. New development should be prohibited from facing 3200 West. Additionally, the amended map includes the proposed roadway alignment of 2900 W and the realignment of 2100 North to access the airport. See Appendix E for the recommended amendments. Develop environmental impact standards and align them with current executive orders and master plans. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department Create standards for new development that mitigate the impact of said development on nearby habitat and sensitive areas. These standards may include elements such as water saving best practices, dark sky ordinances, landscaping requirements, etc. Additional Implementation Items The following list includes recommended key action items to achieve the vision for the Northpoint Plan Area. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 35 Require a buffer of at least 75 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem and impact to this habitat area by new development should be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring there is an adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies up to a 300 foot buffer from wetland areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay Zone or a new Northpoint specific development code. In developing the updated code, the City should consider identifying priority wetland areas and applying the maximum buffer to the highest priority wetlands. Reduced buffer widths may be appropriate based on the condition, function, and goal of the specific wetland buffer. Additionally, the City should allow flexibility of wetland buffers through incentive based tools. For example, the buffer width could be reduced through mitigation measures that include native vegetation restoration. Coordinate with Salt Lake County to provide efficient police and fire services in the Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: City Council To provide adequate emergency services to this area, the development of a joint Police/Fire station may be required in the Plan Area. Coordinate with the Police and Fire Department to acquire funding and land in the Plan Area for a new shared facility. Support the annexation of contiguous parcels within the Plan Area. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The City supports the annexation of contiguous parcels in this Plan Area for future development and redevelopment. DRAFT CHAPTER 4 TOOLKIT 38 Using the Toolkit The Northpoint Small Area Master Plan process spanned fifteen months and included one-on-one interviews, workshops, and other public events. As expressed by project participants, key desired outcomes for the future of the Plan Area include: »Create a program to support a variety of incentives to maintain or improve property values while preserving open space. »Identify a future land use plan that allows industrial and business development while maintaining quality of life for existing residential areas and preserving natural habitat. »Locate future development in a manner that can support the efficient provision of city services. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce impacts to the environmental features and wildlife habitat associated with the Great Salt Lake. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. »Recommend tools to acquire and/or preserve open space. »Recommend strategies to improve traffic flow and safety on 2200 W. These desired outcomes suggest that while development in the Plan Area is in high demand, policies and strategies need to ensure that development is designed and arranged in a manner that respects the area’s sensitive landscape. Toolkit Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 39 A variety of tools have been developed to protect natural open space and locate, configure, and design new development in a manner that protects both existing habitat and natural open spaces. The preservation tools described and analyzed in this Chapter represent existing and potential strategies for the protection of habitat and open space in the Plan Area. Tools have been categorized as regulatory, incentive, or land acquisition. This is not an all-inclusive listing of tools, but an inventory that details each potential tool, and provides examples. In addition to land preservation tools, this chapter covers financial tools available to fund improvements to or reconstruction of 2900 W. The benefits and limitations of each tool have been compiled from a number of sources, including university research, other localities’ experiences, practical knowledge, and reports by individuals who have made their own evaluations. The implementation tools presented in this Chapter constitute a menu of options that can be considered to achieve the objectives of this Plan.DRAFT 40 Land Preservation Tools Regulatory based tools may be used to protect sensitive lands and agricultural areas within the Plan Area. These tools could be implemented by Salt Lake City through adoption of new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Development Code Updates Code updates establish supplemental land development requirements within a specific area requiring special attention, such as an environmentally sensitive area. Clustering of Lots and Open Space/Cluster Development Clustering is defined as a development pattern typically for residential use, in which homes are grouped together rather than evenly dispersed over the land as in a conventional development. Benefits Limitations »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in design for developers »Can apply to multiple areas within a city »Time and cost effective »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures Benefits Limitations »Protects the natural resources of an area »Creates wider wildlife buffers »Creates opportunity for greater profits by consolidating required open space into larger, more impactful sizes »Reduces impact of development on watersheds »Reduces cost to provide municipal public services depending on how clustering is accomplished »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developersDRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 41 Special Standards and Design Guidelines Additional regulations in new development or redevelopment projects can include standards for elements like lighting, landscaping, building materials, noise, and landscape buffers. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in site design while preserving area character and sensitive lands »Additional zoning requirements »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developers »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce unless bonus criteria are clearly spelled out in an ordinance or policy document Sensitive Landscape Studies Studies can determine additional steps that should be taken to mitigate impact of new development to existing habitat. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Offers insight into specific site requirements for mitigation »Additional zoning requirements »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce because requirements and study results may vary based on specific sites of participants were in support of clustering lots and open space of participants were in support of development code updates of participants were in support of sensitive landscape studies of participants were in support of special standards 47% 30% 62% 37% Regulatory Based Tools DRAFT 42 Incentive Based Tools Conservation Easements Conservation easements are voluntary and legally binding agreements between a landowner (public or private) and a qualifying organization (also public or private), in which permanent limitations are placed on a property’s use and development. Conservation easements limit land to uses identified in the easement, and thus protect it from development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowners may receive income, estate, and/ or property tax benefits »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners »Since program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land or specific areas to be protected Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development pressures »Landowner is paid to protect their land »Local government can target locations effectively »Utilizes free market mechanisms »Land remains in private ownership and on tax rolls »Can be complex to administer »Receiving area must be willing to accept higher densities »Can be a difficult program to establish, especially in areas without city zoning »May require cooperative agreements among several local governments to establish sending and receiving zones Incentive based tools are voluntary and mostly based on the willingness of the landowner to sell title or an easement on their property. Where public access and use are desired, fee- simple ownership control is preferred through donation, purchase, or bargain sale of land to a government entity, conservation organization, or public charity. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 43 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) PDRs refer to the purchase of development rights on certain parcels of land by a unit of government or a non-profit entity. Once purchased, a conservation easement is placed on the property. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowner is paid to protect their land, while allowing for ongoing use »Local government can target desirable locations effectively »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Program is voluntary »Can be costly for local unit of government, therefore land is generally protected at a slower rate »Land remains in private ownership, typically with no public access »Because the program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land Preferred Development Sites Also known as priority or target development areas, these are locations that have been identified by a local government as favored for residential, commercial, and office growth based on adopted growth management policies and plans. Development can involve new construction, redevelopment, and/or adaptive reuse of buildings. Local governments may offer incentives, such as reduced fees or increased housing density to developments in these areas in order to make them more attractive to developers. Benefits Limitations »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Local government can target locations effectively »Can be low cost to local unit of government »Can be a difficult program to establish and administer »Not a permanent solution, delays development in sensitive areas »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners of participants were in support of conservation easements of participants were in support of TDR Programs of participants were in support of PDR Programs of participants were in support of Preferred Development Sites 56% 30% 47% 25% DRAFT 44 Land Acquisition Tools Mutual Covenant A mutual covenant is an agreement between adjoining landowners to control future land uses through mutually agreed upon restrictions. Lease A lease is an agreement between agency and landowner to rent the land in order to protect and manage sensitive resources. Benefits Limitations »Permanent covenants can be enforced by any of the landowners or future landowners of the involved properties »Significant incentive to comply with restrictions, since all parties are aware of use controls »Can reduce property taxes »Loss in market value from mutual covenants does not qualify as a charitable deduction for income tax purposes »High cost Benefits Limitations »Low cost approach to site protection »Landowner receives income and retains control of property »An alternative for preservation-minded landowners not ready to commit to sale of permanent easement »Restrictions can be included in the lease to direct the activities of the conservation agency on the land »Short-term protection strategy »Leases are not permanent Acquisition and management of open space can be combined with regulatory measures to broaden the effectiveness of a preservation program. These tools preserve open space and their functions in the long-term. Although typically the most expensive solution, acquisition is the strongest and surest means of protection. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 45 Land Exchange Land exchange is the process by which land sought to be protected may be exchanged for another parcel that is more suitable for development Benefits Limitations »Lower acquisition costs »Scattered properties can be exchanged for a single, larger parcel »Complicated process »Not widely known and rarely used »Subject to IRS regulations »Property owners must be willing to participate, and properties must be of equal value »High cost Land Banking/Land Purchase Land banking occurs when land is purchased and reserved for later use or development. Land could be leased for immediate use (e.g. agriculture or athletic fields) or held for eventual resale with restrictions. The local government functions as a land trust. Benefits Limitations »Local government proactively identifies and purchases resource land »Lowers future preservation costs by working as a defense against future increases in land prices, speculation, and inappropriate development »High cost »Requires large upfront expenditures »Public agency must have staff to handle land trust functions of acquisition, management, lease, or resale of participants were in support of Lease Agreements of participants were in support of Mutual Covenants of participants were in support of Land Banking of participants were in support of Land Exchange 29% 31% 27% 38% DRAFT 46 Financial Tools Overview Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in the full Financial Implementation Report in Appendix D. This chapter contains with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. Market Analysis Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN). Based on vacant acreage in the Plan Area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 47 Financial Tool | Tax Increment Areas Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated Plan Area are split into two components: »(i)Base Revenues | The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and »(ii)Incremental Revenues | These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the Plan Area. If a Plan Area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the Plan Area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a Plan Area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the Plan Area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: »Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) »Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) »Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Plan Area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. DRAFT 48 Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of Plan Areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Plan Area” (CRA). Existing Plan Areas will be allowed to continue, but all new Plan Areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a Plan Area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the Plan Area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. »Relatively easy to create. »10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. »Flexible uses of funds. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 49 Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined Plan Area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. »Relatively easy to create. »Requires cooperation between at least two entities. »Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. »Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. »No affordable housing requirement. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT 50 Tax Increment Bonds Tax Increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given Plan Area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted Plan Area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a Plan Area. »Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. »Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. »Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. »Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency. »Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types. »Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. »Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose. »Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 51 Financial Tool | Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. »Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. »Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally-allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. »Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. »Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs. »Ongoing PID governance »Can reduce the need for impact fees. »Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. »Cost is much lower than other development financing. DRAFT 52 Special Investment Areas (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. Benefits Limitations »Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond »Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment »No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created »Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator »Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance »The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA »Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge »Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 53 Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/ trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11- 36a which includes the following major steps. »Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee »Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee »Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing »Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Benefits Limitations »New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development »Adds additional costs to development »Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest »Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficienciesDRAFT APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS 56 Water and Air Quality Air Quality Salt Lake City is often faced with some of the worst air quality in the world. Major declines in air quality typically occur during the summer or winter due to the Salt Lake Valley’s unique geographical makeup and position. In the summer, wildfire smoke often travels east from California, Oregon, and the region’s mountain ranges adding to pollution from cars, industry, and other elements leading to harmful ozone levels. In the winter, close proximity to the Wasatch Mountains leads to temperature inversions in which cold air gets trapped under a layer of warm air, acting like a lid keeping pollutants from escaping. During the winter, air pollution sources are transportation (50%); area sources (e.g. gas stations, auto-body shops, etc.) (35%); and industry (15%). The Plan Area experiences these same seasonal issues with air quality, as well as consistent impacts due to proximity of both the Salt Lake City International Airport, and I-215. I-215 limits connectivity to residential neighborhoods and services in both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City. With few daily services, such as grocery stores, within the expanded area, residents contribute to higher trips and higher mile traveled, exacerbating air quality issues. Graphic 1.3 | Regional Air Quality | Source: AirNow.Gov Graphic 1.4 | SLC Air Quality | Source: Scott Winterton Deseret News Existing Conditions DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 57 Water and Wetlands The presence of wetlands adjacent to the Jordan River Delta and at the edge of the Great Salt Lake is the most pertinent environmental issue in the area. Roughly 75% of Utah’s wetlands surround the Great Salt Lake, providing environmental and socioeconomic benefit. The wetlands surrounding the Northpoint Subarea are part of an intricate and diverse ecosystem. Wetlands benefit the environment by acting as sponges to capture, store, and slowly release water, storm buffers, groundwater and aquifer recharge, and sediment traps. Wetlands also serve as critical habitat areas by providing food, shelter, and resting places. Wetland benefits extend to provide recreational and agricultural opportunities. Graphic 1.5 | Wetlands Surrounding Northpoint | Source: National Wetlands Inventory A portion of these wetlands are designated playas, categorized by their dry, hollowed-out form that fill with water during rainstorms and by underlying aquifers. The Great Salt Lake is the largest saltwater lake in the Northern Hemisphere, meaning as the playas fill and eventually evaporate, they leave large salt deposits behind. Freshwater forested and shrub wetlands are found adjacent to the area, and are typically associated with woody plants such as willows. The current historic high water elevation for the Great Salt Lake is 4,211 feet last reached in 1986, and causing dramatic flooding. As of November 2021, the Lake’s water level has dropped to the lowest in recorded history at 4,190 feet, likely due to the extreme drought conditions the state is facing. In response to the unpredictability of the Lake, most planning agencies identify the contour of 4,217 feet, as the limit of safe development. There are no sites within the Plan Area that fall below this elevation. DRAFT 58 Soil Types The soil types within Northpoint vary and provide considerations for the types of development that can be accommodated in the Plan Area. The soil types dominating the area are fine sandy loam, silt loam and silty clay loam. Most of these soils have a water table depth between zero and fifty inches and are subject to the effects of frost. These high water table depths affect drainage and compressibility which impact new development potential. In addition, the soil types that dominate the area can cause problems for septic systems and filter fields, making it harder to maintain water quality. Natural Environment Graphic 1.6 | Recreational and Natural Landmarks Near Northpoint Graphic 1.6 | Prime Agricultural Soil | Source: National Resource Conservation Service DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 59 Hazards The greater Salt Lake City area faces natural hazards that impact rate and location of development. As climate change continues to exacerbate extreme weather events, planning with these common hazards in mind can help maintain the safety and comfort of the community. Clean air and water supply are among the top concerns of Salt Lake residents. In August of 2021, Salt Lake City was ranked the worst air quality of any major city in the world by IQAir.com, prompting residents to take extra precautions. The Salt Lake County Health Department released tips to stay safe during extreme air conditions such as staying indoors with windows shut, avoiding exercise, and wearing masks outdoors. The area, along with many other parts of the state, is currently under exceptional drought conditions, with fire restrictions and irrigation allotment reductions in place. Salt Lake City also experiences threats of extreme heat, wildfire, debris flows, flooding and earthquakes. Graphic 1.7 | Utah Drought Conditions | Source: National Drought Mitigation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. Summer 2021 Drought Conditions The City of Salt Lake has proposed land use amendments to prevent large water users from being located within The City that may have a significant impact on The City’s water resources. The new limit for industrial and commercial land uses is 300,000 GPD (based on an annual average) of potable/culinary water. The limit applies to existing and new uses on a temporary basis until January 2022. DRAFT 60 Wildlife and Habitat The Great Salt Lake and surrounding wetlands are a crucial habitat for many species of animals. With 400,000 acres of wetlands, birds of regional and national importance are drawn to the area as a sanctuary for breeding and eating. Every year, millions of birds from 338 different species stop here to feed during migrations. Among the most common species observed in the Plan Area are the European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Northern Pintail, and Canada Goose. Although the Farmington Bay area is classified as freshwater, the northern-most regions of the Great Salt Lake can be composed of nearly 28% salt. This creates a wide diversity of habitats for many different plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and insects such as the Monarch Butterfly which is now on the endangered species list. European Starling DOMINANT BIRD TYPES IN NORTHPOINT Canada Goose. Red-winged Blackbird Yellow-headed Blackbird Northern Pintail DWR Bird Habitat Boundaries Graphic 1.8 | Dominant Bird Species in Northpoint Graphic 1.9 | Bird Habitat | Source: Department of Wildlife Resources GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 61 Organizations There are many organizations with interest in the Plan and surrounding areas, including the Duck Clubs, Salt Lake City International Airport, and Friends of the Great Salt Lake. The Friends of Great Salt Lake is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and increase public awareness and appreciation. The Rudy Duck Club, founded in 1909 and named after the original land owner Frank Rudy, acquired land and associated water rights in the early 1900s to preserve the ecosystem for private duck hunting. Agriculture The top producing crops in Salt Lake City, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, are wheat, hay, vegetables, pumpkins, and sweet corn. Within the Plan Area, current residents also own a variety of livestock. The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within these lots there has been a pattern of subdividing larger lots into small lots for family members. There is a rich history of the agricultural lifestyle within Northpoint that the community desires to be preserved. According to the State Soil Conservation Service, the Plan Area contains prime farmland located north of 2800 North on the eastern side of 2200 West. Water Related Land Uses Graphic 1.10 | Water-Related Land Uses | Source: ESRI Living Atlas DRAFT 62 Built Environment Airport The Salt Lake International Airport, located just south of the Plan Area, is one of the busiest airports in North America. The airport is also a major hub for Delta airlines and provides approximately 370 flights per day from its location. As the airport inherently produces high noise volumes and air quality issues, it has a significant impact on the surrounding areas and determining appropriate land uses in Northpoint. The Salt Lake Airport recently adopted a new Master Planing process, the first since 1998, to provide guidelines for future airport development and to optimize existing facilities for future aviation demand and increase airport capacity. The resulting strategic vision illustrates locations for a third parallel runway and Concourse C which are not anticipated to be built within the next twenty years. The City has formally regulated the land uses surrounding the airport to protect the greater community and reduce negative impact. In 1971, zoning ordinances were adopted allowed within Northpoint and in 1983, the zoning ordinances were supplemented with regulations that prohibited incompatible uses like residential housing. Development Constraints Existing development within Northpoint experience consequences from their proximity to the airport and overhead flights. Some existing residences face increased risk for airplane crashes and high noise levels from the consistent flights. The Department of Airports recommends limiting the number of new residences allowed in Northpoint to reduce harm for the community in the future. The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) does not provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects located in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. As a result, this Plan considers alternative uses within those zones. The Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City own several parcels surrounding the airport that were purchased to preserve as undeveloped. This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area. Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NORTHPOINT BOUNDARY SLC Airport-Owned Parcels Graphic 1.11 | Parcels Owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport | Source: Assessors Parcel Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 63 including maximization of flight times between 7am and 10pm. It has also implemented adjusted flight routes in pursuit of reduced disruption. As residential uses should be limited in Northpoint because of these constraints, there are other uses and opportunities for development that are more compatible with the airport. Economic Contribution The Salt Lake City International Airport, is a key driver of the local and regional economy. Through protecting airport infrastructure and facilities from adjacent land uses that reduce or eliminate its ability to function at the highest capacity, the Salt Lake City International Airport can continue to act as an asset to the greater community. SLC Airport Noise Contours SLC Airport Protection Overlays Graphic 1.12 | SLC Airport Noise Contours | Source: SLC GIS Data Graphic 1.13 | SLC Airport Overlays | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 64 Land Use Industrial and Business Uses Within the Plan Area, there lies existing manufacturing zoning (M-1) that serves as a buffer between the airport and Interstate 215 (I-215). In July 2016, the City Council changed the zoning of properties located along 2200 W between 2100N and North Temple Street to Light Manufacturing (M-1) to implement area master plans and maximize economic development potential. Light Manufacturing (M-1) allows for light industrial uses that produce little to no impact on neighboring properties and results in a clean, attractive industrial setting. This use is compatible with the adjacent airport and is less impacted by the negative aspects of nearby I-215 than residential uses. The M-1 designation allows more types of business than the Business Park (BP) designations. The more significant differences between the two zoning districts are related to open space and building location requirements. The BP designation requires 15% open space, while M-1 requires no open space. M-1 also has reduced setback requirements. Approximately half of the Plan Area is designated BP. The intent of the BP designation is to provide an attractive environment for modern offices, light assembly and warehouse development, and to create employment and economic development opportunities in a campus-like setting. Graphic 1.14 | SLC and SLCo Zoning | Source: SLC, SLCo, and North Salt Lake GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 65 Agricultural and Residential Uses The Plan Area contains several agricultural zones under both City and County jurisdiction, including Salt Lake City’s (SLC) AG-5 and AG-2, and Salt Lake County’s (SLCo) A-2 zone preserves agricultural uses on lots no less than two acres and, similarly, AG-5 provides for agricultural uses on no less than five acres. The A-2 zone allows for low-density residential and supporting agriculture as a conditional use, on a minimum lot size of one acre. Zone Minimum Lot Area Front Setback Primary Uses M-1 (SLC) 10,000 sq.ft.15 ft.Light Manufacturing BP (SLC) 20,000 sq.ft.30 ft.Business/ Office AG-2 (SLC)2 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family AG-5 (SLC)5 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family A-2 (SLCo)1 acre 30 ft.Single-Family Graphic 1.15 | Residential in the Plan Area DRAFT 66 Utilities Broadband The Plan Area is serviced by a mix of fixed wireless and wireline (cable, dsl and fiber)broadband internet. Within the census tract that Northpoint occupies, 10.60% of households are without internet access. The companies serving the area are Centurylink for local exchange, Rocky Mountain Power for electric utility territory and Dominion Energy for natural gas. The Utah Broadband Plan adopted in January 2020 set a goal to “Utilize best practices to encourage continued expansion of broadband deployment and increase speeds for everyone to 25 Mbps or better in communities throughout Utah”. The Plan Area currently has network speeds of 90.47/28.05 Mbps and its max advertised consumer download speeds are 10,000.00 Mbps. Active Building Permits and Recent Development There are currently a few active building permits within Northpoint that congregate along the 2200 W roadway and fall under the M-1 and BP zoning designations. A new development called Moonlake Farms has an active engineering permit and is among one of ten active permits for growing cannabis in Utah. There is also a new Industrial Building being built just north of the Sherwin Williams. Along the 2100N roadway, two new multi-tenant warehouse building have active permits as well. A key development proposal currently is the Swaner Subdivision, a 434-acre master planned development with about 5 million square feet of industrial on the C shaped parcel shown to the right currently zoned BP. This development would likely be cause for improvements on 2200 West to account for new increase in traffic. Another development conversation in this area is an proposed annexation petition for the land in the northeast section of the plan area. This proposed annexation was initiated by the landowners who wish to annex their land into Salt Lake City for the purpose of light industrial. A prior annexation conversation contemplated residential, however, that annexation was not pursued since Salt Lake City has determined that new residential would not be supported in the Plan Area. Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Ut a h I n l a n d Po r t A u t h o r i t y Proposed Swaner Subdivision Proposed North Salt Lake Annexation 22 0 0 W 2100 N 3200 N Graphic 1.16 | Active Applications DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 67 Industrial Wastewater The Salt Lake City Corporation’s pretreatment program oversees industrial wastewater discharged into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Industrial wastewater treatment, to reduce or eliminate conventional and toxic pollutants, prior to discharge into to the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) is required and regulated under the Clean Water Act. Salt Lake City is also undergoing redevelopment of its Water Reclamation Facility. The wastewater system will address new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah’s Department of Water Quality to reduce pollution and transform aging infrastructures. The Water Reclamation Center is located about a mile to the east of Northpoint and is replacing the old structure, which was 55 years old. Service Areas The Salt Lake City Public Utilities service area covers most of Northpoint with the exception of a portion to the north, just south of the Jordan River and a portion on the southern boundary. The remaining area is considered unincorporated territory. Though there are few sewer lines to this area, development is encroaching from the southeast and slowly extending utilities with it. Many residential and agricultural properties in this area rely on septic sewer systems. Street Lighting Public Utilities within Salt Lake manages and maintains more than 15,000 street lights, including those in Northpoint. The few residences and commercial customers within the area support street lighting through a monthly user fee, included in the bill for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The initial capital improvement program for street lighting in 2012 included a metric of converting the City’s entire inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps by the end of 2021. The continuous lighting maps do not extend into the Plan Area likely due to the lack of development in the area and the irregular Salt Lake City boundary. Irrigation Canals There are several irrigation canals running through Northpoint that serve the greater Salt Lake City area. The Rudy Drain runs diagonally across the study area from its connection to the Greater Salt Lake in the upper northwest quadrant to the lower southeast quadrant. Running along the western boundary is the Salt Lake City Canal Sewage. The southern boundary has a Reclamation ditch just north of the international airport. Graphic 1.17 | Utilities in Northpoint | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 68 Transportation The eastern edge of the Plan Area runs along I-215, which acts as the main transportation route for the larger area. As Northpoint currently has little development beyond a small portion of residential housing to the northwest and light industrial to the south, the transportation routes within the Plan Area consist mainly of gravel roads. 2200 W divides the area into clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. Recent development in the area has almost exclusively been, between the roadway and I-215. Other roads in the 2019 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts Plan Area include 3200W, a gravel road with minimal traffic that serves as the western boundary of the Plan Area, 3500N at the northern boundary, 2100N at the southern boundary, and several gravel and paved residential and commercial driveways. The main entries to the Plan Area are the exit from I-215 to 2100N from the south, and Center Street/3500N from the north. With increasing development pressure in the Plan Area, it will become increasingly important to make improvements to these interchanges and enhancements to 2200 W. Public Transportation The public transportation options that connect the Plan Area are limited. The 454 Green bus line extends to Airport Station on the south side of Salt Lake City International Airport but does not reach the Plan Area. The closest bus line to the area is the F522 Line running north/south on 2200 W. This bus line reaches the southern boundary and its final stop is near the Boeing warehouse. This bus line offers access to the light industrial and commercial businesses. This accessibility suggests that increasing the amount of industrial and commercial centers within the southern half of Northpoint would be supported by public transportation. Route 200 extends along Redwood Road to the southeast of Northpoint. However, this adjacent route is not Graphic 1.18 | Average Annual Daily Trips | Source: UDOT DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 69 accessible within a 15-minute walk of current homes of businesses within Northpoint. Bike Accessibility The major bikeways extending through the Plan Area are the Jordan River Trail, Parkway Trail, and a bike lane along 2200 W and 2100N. The bikeways along 2200 W and 2100N are designated medium comfort by Bike SLC. The painted bike lane disappears as the surroundings become more rural moving northbound through the Plan Area. These routes do not have high traffic but bikers must share the roads with vehicles in the same lanes. Economic Impact of Transportation Limited access to public transportation and the barrier of I-215 require households in the Plan Area to rely on personal vehicles or rideshare options to commute to and from work, errands, and schools. The Center for Neighborhood Technology recommends a household spend no more than 15% of their annual income on transportation. For a regional-typical household in this area, that means no more than $9,329. Households in this census block spend an average of $16,167- 175% higher than this benchmark. This is also higher than the Salt Lake City average of $13,211. Graphic 1.19 | Annual Driving Costs per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Graphic 1.20 | Utah Transit Authority Bus DRAFT 70 Less ResidentsM ore Residents 70 Northpoint Community Demographics Over the last decade, Salt Lake City has grown by roughly 14,000 new residents. Most of this growth has been concentrated in downtown Salt Lake City, Central City, and Sugarhouse, each of which grew by over 2,000 residents between 2010 and 2020. Northpoint falls within the Westpointe Community Council area, which saw a population decrease (-1.6%) over the last decade. Approximately 140 people live within the Plan Area in roughly 60 households. City Council District 1, which encompasses the Plan Area boasts the largest share of Hispanic or Latino Population (48%) of all Council Districts. Economy 105 people are employed within the Plan Area but live elsewhere, and 74 Northpoint residents commute out of the area for work. No residents both live and work within the Plan Area. Of the jobs within the Plan Area boundary, Wholesale Trade (30% of the jobs) and Transportation and Warehousing (22%) are the most common industries. In 2018, about 54% of those jobs within the Plan Area boundary provided less than $40,000 per year in salary, roughly 63% of the median household income for overall Salt Lake City residents at $63,971. 105 People Commute IN for work 74 People Commute OUT for work 0 People Live and Work in the Area Population by TAZ Graphic 1.21 | Commuting Patterns and Population | Source: U.S. Census 2019 Less Residents More Residents DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 71 Within and immediately outside of the Plan Area, major employers include the Salt Lake City International Airport, Amazon, and the Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement Center. Those who live in the Plan Area have a higher median household income than the City as a whole at $75,791 and tend to work in the service industry, transportation and utilities, or manufacturing. Housing There are about 60 homes within the Plan Area and 1,487 housing units in the associated census tract. Housing is concentrated east of 2200 W due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. Housing within the Plan Area is comprised entirely single-family housing units, some of which are agricultural properties. The Plan Area has a high rate of owner-occupied units at 85.4% and an average home value of $438,000. This is higher than the median price for the zip code as a whole at $346,900. The zip code saw a 24% increase in home prices between 2020 and 2021. The Center for Neighborhood Technology estimates that households within the Plan Area are spending on average, 47% of their income on housing and transportation costs every month. As Salt Lake County grows and expands west, combining housing and transportation costs into one number offers an expanded view of affordability by showing the impacts of a longer daily commute on the affordability of a community. The Center for Neighborhood Technology sets a housing and transportation spending benchmark of no more than 45% of a household’s income, rather than using the traditional rule of no more than 30% on housing alone. Funding the Future Salt Lake City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in May 2018. This increase will typically generate about $34 million a year in ongoing funding and is the first part of a funding strategy to address street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety. The Plan Area could benefit from funding for an affordable housing program and increased neighborhood safety. 47% Housing: 23% Transportation: 24% Graphic 1.22 | Housing and Transportation Costs as Percent of Income Per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology DRAFT 72 Community Amenities The Plan Area is bordered by the Jordan River connecting Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, and passing through three counties. Many sections of the Jordan River have access trails running parallel to the river and connect nearby parks. Although the Plan Area lies adjacent to the River, the formal trail stops to the to the east of I-215. Directly east of the Plan Area are the Regional Athletic Complex, Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, Westpointe Park, Northstar Elementary School, and Northwest Middle School. Only one crossing of I-215 allows for access to these areas. As shown below, I-215 severely limits access to community resources like schools, religious organizations, recreation, and other gathering areas. JORDAN RIVER OHV STATE RECREATION AREA JORDA N RIVER CENTER STREET TRAILHEAD COLISEUM FITNESS SPECTRUM ACADEMY FOXBORO ELEMENTARY NORTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEWOOD PARK GUADALUPE SCHOOL SALT LAKE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION REGIONAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX UNITY BAPTIST CHURCHWESTPOINTE PARK Graphic 1.23 | Amenities near the Plan Area I 2 1 5 B A R R I E R DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 73 Graphic 1.24 | Trailhead map of the Jordan River DRAFT APPENDIX B PUBLIC INPUT Appendix B: Public Input The public input process included various opportunities for engagement. One-on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county staff were conducted throughout the summer of 2021. Over 30 people attended a public open house in the spring of 2022, and two public questionnaires and a property owner-specific questionnaire were distributed over the course of the Northpoint Small Area project. The following is a record of the engagement and materials from the open house and survey results. Open House and Questionnaire Comments Report for Northpoint Property Owner Questionnaire Completion Rate:85.7% Complete 18 Partial 3 Totals: 21 Response Counts 1. What is your relationship with the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) Percent I own property here I live here I own a business here I work here 0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses I own property here 100.0%17 I live here 70.6%12 I own a business here 17.6%3 I work here 11.8%2 2. In the Northpoint area how important is the conservation of habitat and ecosystems to you? 77% Highly Important77% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Somewhat Not Important6% Somewhat Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 76.5%13 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Somewhat Not Important 5.9%1 Totals: 17 3. In the Northpoint area how important is commercial and residential development to you? 41% Highly Important41% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important18% Somewhat Not Important18% Somewhat Not Important 35% Highly Not Important35% Highly Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 41.2%7 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Somewhat Not Important 17.6%3 Highly Not Important 35.3%6 Totals: 17 4. Would you support conservation methods and tools that could provide financial compensation to landowners for the preservation of natural lands and habitats instead of development? 59% Highly Support59% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 24% Neutral24% Neutral 12% Highly Not Support12% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 58.8%10 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 23.5%4 Highly Not Support 11.8%2 Totals: 17 5. Would you support the continuation of existing land uses such as grazing, agriculture, habitat conservation, rural residential, and wildlife? 77% Highly Support77% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Highly Not Support6% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 76.5%13 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Highly Not Support 5.9%1 Totals: 17 ResponseID Response 4 No. 7 I am highly against any further building on the agricultural land out here. 8 The area is too close to the airport not to take advantage of this proximity to lessen the burden on existing infrastructure and lessen pollution. This can be done preserving habitat closer to the Great Salt Lake. 10 We need clean air and less big heavy trucks in this tiny road. We can't handle it. We pay our taxes just like everyone eon the east side we deserve more from the city. 13 Just because land in the area has always been zoned Business Park, it does not mean it should stay that way. I don't see how it was ever zoned BP or anything other than conservation when it is directly next to ecosystems that will be negatively impacted by development. I appreciate you asking for our opinions and for keeping the survey short, but I am somewhat disappointed in this survey as it feels lacking. It's not ideal to ask double barreled questions in surveys if you want honest answers. For example, my answer to supporting residential development is different than my answer to commercial development, but this survey can't reflect that. 14 I operate a recording studio off of 2200w and construction of anything will shut me down during construction and possibly forever. 15 Construction on 2200w is dangerous without some sort of alternate construction road in place before construction begins. 16 The area of 2200 west to 3200 west and 2100 north to 3300 north is a bird and wildlife refuge and one of the last open spaces in SL county. It needs to be preserved and not just overdeveloped like the rest of the valley is becoming. Thank you for your time. Robert Taylor 17 It would be the advantage of the area and ecology to think about NOT developing every lat inch of open space. This is a sensitive area. There is a high saturation of wildlife, migration and nesting areas here. It's a wetland. In a meet the committee was surprised to hear about the existence of wildlife. We see and experience it everyday. The delineation of preexisting residential areas should be recognized. This area was settled by ranchers and farmers who understood the doom of development. This area is a treasure and should be left alone OR very thoughtfully and carefully developed. The rate with which it is occurring now is always met with contempt and disagreement. There is another way and we should make a plan of best outcomes. 6. Is there anything you'd like to add? 20 I think the area can do both commercial and have some open space.. This area is not for residential? My opinion. I have seen residential next to airports and it's not nice at all.. 21 My family has been here for over 100 years. A lot of the older homes were built by family. Now with the restrictions of building and septic use. You can't let your children build a house on a 1/4 acre lot. I have had to have children move to wood cross to have there own home. The current restrictions render the ground useless for building anything. Yet keeping some space still for AG use. The bigger lots have all ready been sold to developers, the people left will be left with your open space weed patch and no money to move any where. ResponseID Response 7. Are you interested in recieving further information about this project and ways to get involved? 78% Yes please78% Yes please 22% No, thank you22% No, thank you Value Percent Responses Yes please 77.8%14 No, thank you 22.2%4 Totals: 18 Report for Northpoint Small Area Plan Questionnaire Completion Rate:54.7% Complete 41 Partial 34 Totals: 75 Response Counts 1. What is your affiliation with the Northpoint area? Percent I am a resident I work in the area I own property I am interested in owning property I am a business owner I visit the area Other - Write In 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Value Percent Responses I am a resident 29.7%19 I work in the area 17.2%11 I own property 31.3%20 I am interested in owning property 18.8%12 I am a business owner 9.4%6 I visit the area 25.0%16 Other - Write In 14.1%9 2. What is your level of support for special standards and design guidelines as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3. What is your level of support for requiring sensitive landscape studies as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 4. What is your level of support for development code updates as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5. What is your level of support for the clustering of lots and open space as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 6. What is your level of support for conservation easements as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7. What is your level of support for purchase of development rights (PDR) as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 8. What is your level of support for transfer of development rights as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 9. What is your level of support for preferred development sites as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 10. What is your level of support for lease agreements as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 11. What is your level of support for mutual covenants as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 12. What is your level of support for land banking as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 13. What is your level of support for land exchange as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) 22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 59% Fishing Access Along the River 59% Fishing Access Along the River 37% Wildlife Viewing Areas37% Wildlife Viewing Areas 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 22% Interpretive/Education Center22% Interpretive/Education Center 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 29% Boardwalks29% Boardwalks Value Percent Responses amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 22.0%9 Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 48.8%20 Fishing Access Along the River 58.5%24 Wildlife Viewing Areas 36.6%15 Trails Along Natural Resources 48.8%20 Interpretive/Education Center 22.0%9 Interpretive/Educational Signage 26.8%11 Boardwalks 29.3%12 ResponseID Response My emphasis on maintaining open-space natural area rather than developing a park-like area. None Great ideas for the community. This is such a treasure that is Salt Lake City. The land needs to be preserved for future generations, plus people are not having children there may not be the need for more development such as empty commercial buildings. Once you destroy land for development, you cant reverse the damage. All of the above amenities are wonderful. However, who maintains them and fronts the development costs? The land being discussed does not naturally produce any of the above items pictured. We are old salt flats that grow things with a lot of encouragement. We have been trying to improve the ground for 50 years and have done a lot of good. However, one year of not planting and working hard takes away 50 years of work. The farms out here would not be successful if all of the farmers did not have other larger farms somewhere else or other businesses that help support the farm. I support whatever developments come to this area that give the land owners the best benefits of their property. I know everyone wants what improves their community but don't forget the land owners and the work they have done for lifetimes and they need their rights reserved as well. This ground work for homes and businesses family like the Rudy's .Drechsel's.Swaner's Hinkley's family farmed this ground but it's no longer feasible for making a living and the ground is there retirement you want to take it from them shame on you None - not appropriate in industrial areas. none - not appropriate in industrial areas None. Not applicable for an industrial area. Restrooms. Solar panels on roof. Art. Shade none, not appropriate for industrial area none, not appropriate for industrial area none not appropriate on my land no water or for industrial area Most of these are not appropriate for an industrial area. 15. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) - comments None, not appropriate for industrial area none-not appropriate for industrial area ResponseID Response 16. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) 15% Painted Bike Lane15% Painted Bike Lane 12% Buffered Bike Lane12% Buffered Bike Lane 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street Value Percent Responses Painted Bike Lane 14.6%6 Buffered Bike Lane 12.2%5 Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17.1%7 Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22.0%9 Street with Porous Surface Edge 48.8%20 Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29.3%12 Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 4.9%2 Typical Curb and Gutter Street 19.5%8 ResponseID Response Most of these options do not seem appropriate for 2200 West. What ever the design needs to implemented consistently rather than in piecemeal blocks. Such approach expensive and dangerous. We really don't need curb and gutter or sidewalks unless this area gets over developments by commercial buildings then we will need more for the residents. I do not think traditional curb and gutter are needed for the area, but some sort of drainage is needed. It is a popular biking path that needs more safety for cyclists. 17. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) - comments 18. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 24% Natural Building Materials24% Natural Building Materials Value Percent Responses Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22.0%9 LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs)24.4%10 Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 51.2%21 Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 26.8%11 Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29.3%12 Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 75.6%31 Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 34.1%14 Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls)29.3%12 Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22.0%9 Natural Building Materials 24.4%10 ResponseID Response Empyhasis on keeping natural habitat and implementing "green" approaches Wildlife and nature are friendly. dense and limited cars/roads One of the major safety issues would be for the migratory birds, because this area is wetlands that is being destroyed. You would have to put the lights and windows in consideration. Again, all very nice, all of the ideas that have been presented over the last several years get voted down. It seems impossible to present something that people will get on board with. I want the land owners to be able to develop their properties with the highest value and regular farming is just not a viable option economically. Walkable design. Sustainable design. No grass. 19. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? - comments ResponseID Response 5 Place a moratorium on development until the plan is in place. 6 The construction of 2800W to pull traffic off of 2200W 7 3200 West should remain unpaved. There should be a buffer/natural area along the eastern side of 3200 West. 10 Affordable Housing. Salt Lake City is missing a big opportunity to fill the gap in affordable housing by using the acreage in this area. We are in a housing crisis, there is almost no land left to build in Salt Lake, this is a HUGE opportunity that Salt Lake could miss to build more units that are desperately needed. This is not the time for us to complain about open space. Look at the Governor's initiatives and play your part. The mayor and city council of Salt Lake are all about helping the homeless, but if we don't build more housing units the homeless population will only rise. I think the direction that it appears we are heading with this questionnaire needs to be reconsidered to include more, dense residential units for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 12 Need to address annexation issues and multi-jurisdictional service coordination issues NEED TO SAVE CROSS E RANCH possibly by having SL County purchase property with funding from a variety of institutional entities including USU, LDS Church, SLCity, Davis County, NSLCity, and Open Lands foundationsl Need 6 mo. moratorium on new development until Northpoint Small Area Plan is completed. 13 Plan is a waste of tax payer dollars. The market will decide the highest and best use of land in the area. 16 Ive researched what has been going on out here over the last few years, with some property owners exploring being annexed into North Salt Lake because of the regulation barriers that Salt Lake City has shown. Find compromise with the landowners or SLC may lose some of this unincorporated land and development opportunity in this area. 19 This is an industrial area and business park zoning already exists and makes sense for this project. There are already protections in place of wetlands and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 2200W is already master planned with a 90' ROW road section. Developers who develop with frontage along 2200W are already required to improve and widen the sections of 2200 W that abut their property. Many of the single family home-owners in this area are already under contract to sell their property to business park developers. There is no reason to plan this area with the preservation of existing single family homes as a goal. 20. What else should the Northpoint Small Area Plan address? 22 The valley and particularly the westside is already saturated with air quality issues. Any commercial development should exclude air pollution inputs. Additionally, water supply and quality are major issues for the state and communities which callks for restrictions on water use and waste. 24 Update the community. 26 density and walkability is best for wildlife 28 Wetlands and the fact that they are endangered. There is becoming less space for wildlife. USDA has programs for Urban Agriculture. 31 Please don't forget about the residents! This survey was focused on business development and none of the questions focused on also preserving the residential zoning in the area. We are already being bullied by developers to sell our land so they can rezone for business. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW REZONING FOR BUSINESSES IN THE VERY SMALL REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS. There are plenty of open spaces for developers to build that don't require forcing us out of our homes. 33 Setbacks and landscape areas along major roads. 34 Three points: 1. Leave 3200 West unimproved. 2. Restrictions on zoning changes until master plan is complete 3. Set aside buffer/open space lands clustered east of 3200 West. 37 The small area plan needs to think about both sides. There are a lot of neighbors talking about conservation of their lifestyle but I'm pretty sure none of them is making their living from farming. I love this area more than the average person but, I also know the realities of farming and maintaining a farm and or open space. The county could maintain or develop some trails and require certain landscaping. I know that those kinds of requirements exist in all developments. I prefer they allow the land owners the right to sell/develop their properties. There are many options for good development in this area. Residents (37ish houses) along 2200 west have been against a business park development, industrial, and residential. They want it to remain the same as always. However, that cannot happen nor should it. 39 The homeowner and people that own businesses out there 48 Zoning of specific areas to BP or M1 52 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. 54 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. ResponseID Response 58 This area should be light manufacturing/industrial. With the 435 acres of BP, this whole area should follow suit. More tax basis for city, great area for business, less water usage than farmers, etc. 59 Water use. 60 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 61 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 63 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 64 Designate this land as Business Park and/or Light Industrial 67 With the business park areas that have been approved, it makes the most sense for SLC to default to Business Park zoning for this North Point area. 70 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use nap 71 Designate this land as light 75 Do we have the water to build more? How will building in this area further impact the Great Salt Lake? Very concerned about maintaining open space and not further taxing our diminishing water systems. ResponseID Response 21. Would you like to stay involved with this planning process? Please leave your email below! APPENDIX C CONSTRAINTS Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend NorthPoint_Boundary -9 to -8 -7 to -6 -5 -4 to -3 -2 -1 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Constraint Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Wetlands (-3)Airport Owned (-3)Easements (-2) Airport Influence Zones (-2, -1)Prime Ag Soil (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Noise Contours (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Proximity to Services (+3)Underutilized (+2)Vacant (+1) Large Parcels (+1)Access to Transportation (+1) APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OPTIONS Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in this report, along with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. MARKET ANALYSIS Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN).1 Based on vacant acreage in the Northpoint area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates. 1 Source: Colliers, Salt Lake County Industrial Market Report 4Q 2021. 2 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 COMBINED COMPONENTS FOR FUNDING OPTIONS The available tools and issuing entities discussed in this report may be combined in a variety of viable options to arrive at the desired funding level for the Northpoint area. Possible funding mechanisms include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in following sections. Tax Increment Areas o Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) o Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) o Tax Increment Bonds Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Impact Fees Municipal Energy Tax TAX INCREMENT AREAS Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated project area are split into two components: (i)Base Revenues – The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and (ii)Incremental Revenues – These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the project area. If a project area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the project area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a project area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the project area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) 3 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Northpoint area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS (CRAS) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of project areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Project Area” (CRA). Existing project areas will be allowed to continue, but all new project areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a project area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the project area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. TABLE 1: COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Community Reinvestment Areas Disadvantages Community Reinvestment Areas Creates a new revenue stream.Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. Relatively easy to create.10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. Flexible uses of funds.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. The Northpoint area contains roughly 1,323 acres and five tax districts. All of the tax districts are within Salt Lake City, with the exception of Tax District ACT that is found within unincorporated Salt Lake County. 4 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 2: NORTH POINT EXISTING MARKET VALUES AND ACREAGE Property Values # of Parcels Total Market Value Residential Market Value Acres Tax District 13 63 $74,752,600 $30,700,900 666.83 Tax District 13 Q 3 $7,927,300 17.37 Tax District 13 I 3 $51,954,200 27.26 Tax District 13 R 14 $21,076,200 $1,529,600 27.01 Tax District ACT 47 $27,957,700 $12,251,900 584.37 TOTAL 130 $183,668,000 $44,482,400 1,322.84 Although there are five separate tax districts, districts 13 and 13Q include the same taxing entities; districts 13I and 13R also have the same taxing entities. The taxing entities and their tax rates are as follows: TABLE 3: TAX DISTRICTS AND TAXING ENTITIES Tax Rate Tax District 13 and 13Q Figure 1: Northpoint Tax Districts 5 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Tax Rate Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Salt Lake City School District 0.004809 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.011638 Tax District 13I and 13R Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.013934 Tax District - Unincorporated Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 TOTAL 0.013582 The market value of the property is much higher than the taxable value in the area for several reasons. First, primary residential development is taxed at 55 percent of market value. Agricultural property is in greenbelt status and taxed at extremely low rates, and public properties are tax exempt. Therefore, while the market value is nearly $184 million, taxable value is estimated at roughly $67.9 million. 6 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NORTHPOINT TAXABLE VALUE Estimated Taxable Value Tax Districts 13 and 13Q $37,500,000 Tax Districts 13 I and 13 R $20,400,000 Tax District ACT $10,000,000 Total Taxable Value $67,900,000 Taxable value will increase as development occurs in Northpoint. Of the 1,323 acres in Northpoint, approximately 437 acres are either vacant or held in agricultural use. TABLE 5: VACANT ACRES Vacant Acres Tax Districts 13 and 13Q Tax Districts 13I and 13R Tax District ACT Total Residential 8.34 19.81 28.15 Industrial 17.40 14.19 42.56 74.15 Agricultural 111.68 223.04 334.72 TOTAL Acres 137.42 14.19 285.41 437.01 For purposes of estimating future tax revenues, this study assumes that the residential and industrial vacant acres are developed as residential and industrial respectively and makes no assumptions about future development of the agricultural property. TABLE 6: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Amount Residential Development Undeveloped acres 28.15 Units per Acre 2 Units developed 56 Average market value per unit $600,000 Average taxable value per unit $330,000 Total residential taxable value $18,480,000 Industrial Development Undeveloped acres 74.15 Floor area ratio 0.2* Taxable value per sf $200 Estimated taxable value $129,193,733 *If the floor area ratio (FAR) can be increased to 0.3, then the estimated total taxable value would increase to nearly $194 million For purposes of analysis, this report assumes that the majority of the development takes place in the unincorporated County, as it has the largest amount of vacant acres. The table below shows projections of roughly $2 million per year in additional property tax revenues from this area. 7 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 7: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Tax Rates - ACT Incremental Revenues Generated Salt Lake County 0.001777 $262,416 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 $1,772 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 $28,944 Granite School District 0.007105 $1,049,222 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 $59,069 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 $7,531 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 $235,392 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 $291,360 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 $69,997 TOTAL 0.013582 $2,005,705* *If the industrial development assumptions are increased to a FAR of 0.3, rather than 0.2, then annual incremental property tax revenues generated increase to nearly $2.9 million annually. A portion of these revenues could be allocated to a CRA for a period of time in order to pay for needed improvements and infrastructure in the area. TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined project area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. 8 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 A TRZ is much like a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) in that a portion of tax increment is pledged to the project for a specified period of time. The agreement between the two or more public entities must include the following, as specified in Utah Code §11-13-227(2): Define the transportation need and proposed improvement Define the boundaries of the zone Establish terms for sharing sales tax revenue among the members of the agreement, if sales tax is to be included Establish a base year to calculate the increase of property tax revenue within the zone Establish terms for sharing any increase in property tax revenue within the zone Hold a public hearing regarding the details of the TRZ Property tax revenues that are shared between members of the agreement are required to be incremental (Utah Code §11-13-227(2)(e). In order to identify incremental revenues, a “base year” needs to be established. The law clearly allows for the sharing of both sales tax and property tax revenue among the members of the agreement. There are advantages to governance with TRZs, as compared to CRAs, for projects that span multiple jurisdictions. In fact, there are only a few redevelopment areas in Utah that currently overlap multiple communities. While such are allowed by law, governance can be tricky. For example, in a CRA spanning two cities, each city would have its own redevelopment agency. Who then governs the project area? Joint RDA board meetings can be held, each agency board can meet separately, or there can be a MOU designating one of the RDA boards as the lead agency. Experience dictates that concerns often arise when more tax increment is generated in one jurisdiction of the project area than in another. There are often concerns about equity in spending funds in the same jurisdiction from which they come. Each redevelopment agency involved has to submit its annual report detailing the increment generated and how funds were spent, further exacerbating this concern. The TRZ overcomes many of these problems. First, with a TRZ, there is no requirement for RDA involvement, and therefore no need for RDA meetings. The TRZ is simply governed by an interlocal agreement signed by the parties. TRZs have proven effective in other states when projects cross multiple jurisdictions. With a TRZ there is no requirement to measure in which community increment is generated and where funds are spent. The purpose is simply to achieve an overall project. And only one annual report has to be filed for the TRZ – not separate reports for each participating entity. Another advantage to TRZs is the ability to obtain the commitment of transportation agencies, such as UDOT or UTA, for specific projects. Interlocal agreements between the public entity with the land-use authority and a transportation agency will identify the specific projects associated with the TRZ. This will add another level of certainty to local planning efforts and will give these public entities some additional leverage in prioritizing needed transportation projects. 9 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding transportation projects with tax increment generated in Transportation Reinvestment Zones: TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Advantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Disadvantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Creates a new revenue stream.Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. Relatively easy to create.Requires cooperation between at least two entities. Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. No affordable housing requirement.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. TAX INCREMENT BONDS Tax increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given project area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted project area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Ratings on tax increment bonds are tied to the performance of the area or district, not to the creating government’s general fund. As a result, the ratings differ from those of the creating entity’s general obligation rating. The rating of tax increment bonds hinges on local economics, trends, and taxpayer diversity, with taxpayer diversity being the most highly correlated statistic. Rating agencies evaluate whether the tax increment revenues could survive the loss of one or more top taxpaying property owners, how debt service could be managed in the case of broad-based decline of assessed value, real estate trends and historical assessed values in the designated area, and the types of properties located or being developed in the tax increment area. The assessed value of hotels is the most volatile, followed by warehouses, commercial, condos, and last residential. Many issuers opt to offer tax increment bonds on a non-rated basis. It is virtually impossible to secure a rating for or sell a tax increment bond before the increment is actually flowing, unless there is recourse to the local government’s credit or some other enhancement. 10 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Typically, tax increment bonds carry longer terms (anywhere from 10 to 30 years) and are purchased at a fixed rate using larger denominations of $100,000. There is usually no recourse to either the issuer or the developers who may benefit from the bonds. Pledged revenues vary, but a typical pledge is a senior security interest in the tax increment revenues as well as any debt service reserve funds. The bonds are often offered via a limited public offering and most often sold to institutional buyers (primarily mutual funds and occasionally property/casualty insurers) using a limited offering memorandum. It is typical to see interest capitalized for at least two to three years to allow increment to begin flowing before debt service payments are required from that increment. Unspent proceeds, capitalized interest and reserve funds are held by a Trustee. Debt service coverage covenants vary based on type of tax increment revenue and other security features associated with the bonds, but minimum coverage requirements are almost always at least 1.25 times annual debt service. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding with tax increment bonds: TABLE 9: TAX INCREMENT BONDS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a project area. Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency.2 Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types.3 Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose.4 2 An RDA is a separate political subdivision which can enter into agreements with developers and issue the bonds. 3 It is difficult to estimate the time required for the “political” side of the process, which often requires significant information sharing between local government and developers, including a public hearing for approval of the Project Area Plan and Budget. Setting aside the political requirements, the bond issuance process usually takes three to five months. 4 Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that some or all the increment is not attributable to the creation of the tax increment area and that the new property value growth would have occurred anyway. 11 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Consequently, benefits beyond the improved infrastructure can be included in the area. This can be in the form of better landscaping, street lighting, public spaces, parks, trails, finishes, etc. These benefits aid in creating property appeal, property value increases and in attracting top quality businesses. The PID tool also represents a valuable option for cities who are reticent to bond with property tax revenues in a standard tax increment collection area. Bonding permits for upfront infrastructure costs to be covered, oftentimes expediting development that may not have otherwise occurred. A city may create a PID with no increase in the tax rate and use the PID as a conduit to issue bonds. In this approach, the city is not financially responsible for the bond payments, and the bonding does not affect the city’s credit rating. The process for starting a Public Infrastructure District begins with a citywide policy. This represents a “30,000-foot” view of the tool for the municipality and merely outlines the guidelines as to how a developer should submit for a PID. The PID policy may incorporate specific goals and vision statements of the city. Once a policy is adopted, a developer may submit a letter of intent to create a PID. This is reviewed by the city, and if approved, governing documents are required to be submitted and approved 12 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 by the City Council. The simple passing of a general PID policy does not require the City Council to approve governing documents or letters of intent. Consequently, the PID policy represents another tool that can be used when appropriate. As of 2022, several cities throughout Utah have adopted PID policies and multiple public infrastructure districts have been formed. TABLE 10: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages PIDs Disadvantages PIDs Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally- allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs.Ongoing PID governance Can reduce the need for impact fees.Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. Cost is much lower than other development financing. The current taxable value of North Point is approximately $68,000,000. The maximum mill rate allowed by Utah law is 0.015; however, districts are choosing to enact much lower rates. Politically, it would be nearly impossible to obtain the consent of the entire Northpoint area to create a PID. However, smaller sections that are wanting to encourage economic development could be developed as PIDs. The table below shows the amount of annual property tax revenues that could be generated for such a district given varying taxable values and varying tax rates up to the maximum of 0.015. TABLE 11: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ANNUAL REVENUES BASED ON VARYING MILL RATES AND TAXABLE VALUES Property Taxable Values 0.015 Mill Rate .0075 Mill Rate .004 Mill Rate $10,000,000 $150,000 $75,000 $40,000 $20,000,000 $300,000 $150,000 $80,000 $30,000,000 $450,000 $225,000 $120,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of 13 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment5 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if even 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, taxable value, market value, by linear foot frontage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. TABLE 12: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator 5 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e., acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. 14 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued IMPACT FEES Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11-36a which includes the following major steps. Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding projects with impact fees: TABLE 13: IMPACT FEES AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development Adds additional costs to development Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest 15 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficiencies MUNICIPAL ENERGY TAX Salt Lake City has enacted the municipal energy tax to the full 6 percent allowed by law on all taxable portions of electric and gas bills. Therefore, any development that takes place in Salt Lake City would generate this additional revenue that could be used to assist with economic development and infrastructure costs in Northpoint. The municipal energy tax applies only to development that occurs in Salt Lake City and not in Salt Lake County. APPENDIX E MAJOR STREETS PLAN AMENDMENT 2100 N ~2900 W 3200 W 2200 W 3300 N 3500 N 2950 N Salt Lake Ci ty Major Street Plan Amendm en t for Nor th p oin t A r ea ¯ Legend Designation Arterials Loc al Streets Propos ed Arterial Streets 0 640 1,280 1,920320 Feet 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The first public draft of the Northpoint Small Area Plan was online and available for public comment from July 26, 2022 – September 19, 2022. The plan received 685 views and 195 total comments during this time. The majority of the comments were left directly on the draft using the software Konveio and can be viewed by visiting this link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9d257aa8-60d8-39d9-ab70- 8aa9c2005923 All other written public comments are included in either the Staff Report published on October 26, 2022 or the Staff Report published for the December 14, 2022 meeting. Public comments that were received following the publishing of those staff reports are included on the following pages. From:cindy cromer To:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela Cc:Martinez, Diana; Gilmore, Kristina Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: request to recall: Northpoint Small Area Plan Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:39:08 AM Please forward to members of the Planning Commission, via their e mail addresses if possible. To Chairman Bachman and Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer RE your vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan, 12/14 I am asking the Commission to recall its vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan on 12/14 (5-2) prior to approving the minutes at your meeting on 1/11. I have made a similar request once before, in July 2021, but in that case, the Commission had failed to follow the adopted ordinance. I knew that you had to consider my request and you did. In the case of the Small Area Plan, you have not violated any ordinances but have instead set the stage for consequences in the foreseeable future which I doubt that any of you would support and which I know the overwhelming majority of Salt Lake's voters would not support. There are two issues which have led me to ask you to recall your vote. The first issue is the relationship between Northpoint and the Inland Port. Of greatest concern was the Commission's decision to ignore the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers. That change led me to ask about the history of Northpoint relative to the Inland Port. According to people involved for decades, Northpoint was previously part of the Port. Former City Council Member James Rogers was also the City's representative on the Inland Port and had Northpoint removed. He then initiated the Small Area Plan with funding through the City Council. That must have been in 2019. Inserting distribution centers as an allowed use into the Small Area Plan creates the potential for Northpoint to resemble the Inland Port as it redevelops and be annexed back into the Port by the State. Given what has already happened, this possibility is real. Given the resources that the City has devoted over the past 2 Administrations to protecting the City's interests in the Port, it is unconscionable that the Commission would do anything to facilitate the future expansion of the Port. Secondly, in the executive session a member of the Commission speculated that there was rampant cultivation of alfalfa and significant waste of water in current agricultural uses. So far, I have been able to identify 1 property owner growing alfalfa and the water being used is untreated, not water from Salt Lake City Public Utilities. My criticism of your recommendation began 1/3 at the City Council's meeting and is included below (last paragraph). You have failed to protect Northpoint from predictable overreach by the State government, if not now, then in the foreseeable future. You failed to seek information about the basis for the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers and instead dismissed the staff recommendation. You appeared to accept inflammatory, generic statements about the cultivation of a crop which as far as I can determine is not grown commonly in Northpoint. You failed to verify the relevance of those generic statements to a highly specific planning document. These are shortcomings from my perspective which are not prohibited by the City's ordinances. You can of course ignore my cautions, as you did my comments on 12/14, and persist with your recommendation to the City Council. I am writing to let you know that I too can persist in my objections and will continue to ask the members of the City Council to ignore your recommendation of 12/14. From: cindy cromer Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:07 PM To: Petro-Eschler, Victoria <victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com>; alejandro.puy@slcgov.com <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; dan.dugan@slcgov.com <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy <amy.fowler@slcgov.com>; Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Chris Wharton <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Valdemoros, Ana <ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com> Cc: Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>; Pantle, Brian <Brian.Pantle@slcgov.com>; Benson, Jenna <Jenna.Benson@slcgov.com>; Tuuao, Priscilla <priscilla.tuuao@slcgov.com>; Thomas, Blake <blake.thomas@slcgov.com>; Gilmore, Kristina <Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com>; michaela.oktay@slcgov.com <michaela.oktay@slcgov.com>; cindy gust-jenson <cindy.gust- jenson@slcgov.com> Subject: Fw: Northpoint Small Area Plan: comment to the City Council 1/3/23 40 Years of Showing Up Late or Not at All: The Northwest Quadrant In the late 1980's, the Northwest Quadrant was the only part of the city without a master plan. At some point during the early 1990's, Doug Wheelwright on the Planning staff wrote a proposed plan with traditional single-family houses. Then, Genevieve Atwood presented the findings of her dissertation (published 2006). I was standing next to Doug at the back of the room during Genevieve's presentation. He only said, "This changes everything." Nothing else. Through the 1990's and early 2000's, Salt Lake City still did not have a plan for the Northwest Quadrant. Then the State started talking about relocating the prison. Once again Frank Gray came to the City's rescue and drafted a plan for the Northwest Quadrant adopted in 2016. The State proceeded with the relocation of the prison any way. And then the State decided to locate the Intermodal Hub near the airport. Once again the City mustered its best arguments after the fact. Then James Rogers got the funding for the small area plan, but the effort stalled with the RFP. I am still trying to piece together the City's response to a proposed annexation. My point is that the City has always failed to plan for this area in a timely manner. It shows up late over and over again. At times, it has had talented planners and attorneys assigned to the task. They have attempted to outmaneuver the State. The City has criticized the State for the Inland Port, but now the Planning Commission appears to put its blessing on a similar redevelopment of Northpoint. I am hoping that someone will explain to me how the development of distribution and manufacturing in Northpoint is different from the Inland Port in any way except that the City would retain, only for the immediate future, receipt of the property taxes. That of course assumes that the State doesn't swoop in and claim them, as it has with the Inland Port. I have no doubt that if Northpoint resembles the Inland Port in the future, the State will intervene again. I am asking you to ignore the recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Commissioners seem oblivious of the predictable outcome. 4858-3336-8894 NorthPoint Small Area Plan Salt Lake City PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DATED OCTOBER 2022. The undersigned supports the amended NorthPoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022 and request that the Planning Commission approve such plan on the meeting to be held on December 14, 2022 with no additional limitations on distribution uses. The undersigned attests that they are residents of the NorthPoint Small Area located in Salt Lake City, have personally signed this petition on the date indicated, and reside or work at the stated address. Signature: ____________ ___________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Krissy Gilmore Salt Lake City Senior Planner kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com Victoria Petro Eschler Salt Lake City District #1 Councilmember victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com RE: SUPPORT FOR THE NORHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN As a resident of the NorthPoint Small Area, I am writing to document my support for the Northpoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022. I would highly recommend the Planning Commission approve the plan with no additional limitations to distribution uses in its December 14th meeting and that City Council adopt this plan as currently scheduled in January 2023. The Northpoint Small Area Plan outlines several reasons to transition the land use from agricultural to industrial while allowing landowners to participate in the economic growth of the area. Additionally, to ensure the greatest potential for economic growth in the area, we encourage the Planning Commission and/or City Council remove any limitations on the distribution uses allowed in the area. Not only would these limitations exclude the vast majority of small businesses seeking industrial space, but they would continue to drive rental rates higher for already struggling small businesses. Any limitation imposed on distribution uses would devalue the land, restrict economic growth, and increase rental rates for small businesses in the area. Thank you, Signature: ________________________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 From:Denise Payne To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Denise and John Payne 2848 North 2200 West Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 2:34:50 PM My husband has lived on 2200 west for 45 years and I have lived here for 33 years. I oppose the transitional land use verbiage in the Master Plan and I oppose the annexation, rezoning or Area Master Plan changes which changes current zoning M1 or BP. This would jeopardize open space along the Jordan River with agriculture becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. As stated in the Tribune the West side is the highest in air pollution in the area. Industrial zoning around our home condemns is to a lower quality of life, decreases our property value and will force is to move. This does not support new housing at all income levels.” This housing gap/shortage dwarfs the city’s apparent desire for more warehouses and other commercial structures. City Council just approved funding for affordable housing. Approving M1 is going against new affordable housing. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city -- Have an awesome day....... Denise Payne From: To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments for Dec. 14 Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:26:06 PM Attachments:Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments 12-13-2022.docx Hello, FYI, Attached are the comments I submitted yesterday to Krissy Gilmore. I understand that comments will be read to the planning commission if they are under two minutes. Below are the comments I would like to have read at the meeting tonight. Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members, My name is Wayne Martinson. I worked for National Audubon Society for25 years, retiring in 2016. During this period, I worked extensively onissues regarding the Great Salt Lake, including the Gillmor Sanctuary, thenorthwest quadrant plan and the south shore of Great Salt Lake. Last night I submitted comments to Krissy Gilmore. I hope you considerthose comments in full. The following provides three specific comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed NorthPoint Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in theletter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged“to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until suchcitizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, ConservationSpecialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon, in her letter to you,dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should befully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area shouldbe treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, whichcan be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and theother functions that wetlands provide. Likewise, the Jordan Rivershould also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source ofwater to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer(highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to puttogether a committee that would fully address this buffer. Thiscommittee could work on the wetland buffer during the same timethat citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. Thank you for considering these comments. Wayne Martinson Dec. 13, 2022 Kristina Gilmore, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Community and Neighborhoods Salt Lake City Corporation kristina.gillmore@slcgov.com Dear Kristina: Subject: Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Northpoint Small Area Plan The following provides Personal Background and then General and Specific comments. Personal background: From 1991 to 2016, I worked for the National Audubon Society, first as Utah Wetlands Coordinator and then as Utah Important Bird Areas Coordinator. Much of my time was focused on the Great Salt Lake, including working with Ella Sorensen regarding the Gillmor Sanctuary as well as the wetlands on the south shore of Great Salt Lake. I have been a resident of Salt Lake City since 1978. General Comments: Some of the first meetings I attended when starting with National Audubon in the early 1990’s were about the Northwest Quadrant Plan. Some of the last meetings I attended in 2016 were related to the completion of the Northwest Quadrant Plan. It can take a long time to complete a plan. One of the major components addressed in the Northwest Quadrant Plan was developing the Natural Areas. These Natural Areas provide a buffer for the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake, including the areas owned and managed by Kennecott Copper (Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve) National Audubon Society (Gillmor Sanctuary) and the duck clubs. Numerous meetings were held between landowners who wanted to develop and landowners who wanted to preserve the wildlife values before an agreement was reached regarding the Natural Areas. The value of natural areas in or adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan is very high. Often when I was asked about the major issues regarding the Great Salt Lake, my response was (and still is) water quantity, water quality, and preserving wetland and upland buffers for the Great Salt Lake. The Northpoint Small Area Plan has similarities to the Northwest Quadrant Plan. One of them is that development is proposed right next to the wetland and upland areas that are managed for wildlife. Every attempt should be made to become familiar with and supportive of these wetland and upland buffers. Specific Comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed North Point Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in the letter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged “to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until such citizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon Society, in her letter to you, dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should be fully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area should be treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, which can be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and the other functions that wetlands provide (e.g., groundwater recharge, improved water quality, flood attenuation, dissipation of noise, motion, and light disturbances to wildlife, and many habitat benefits to wildlife). Likewise, the Jordan River should also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source of water to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer (highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to put together a committee that would fully address this buffer. This committee could work on the wetland buffer during the same time that citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. In summary, the Northpoint Small Area Plan should be tabled until citizen input can be more fully considered and incorporated into the plan. Also, the wetland and upland areas that are part of and/or are adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan are an important component of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. Every effort should be made to preserve and protect these areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment: Sincerely, Wayne Martinson Cc: Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist National Audubon Society Ella Sorensen, Gillmor Sanctuary Manager, National Audubon Society Dorothy Owen, Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors Jack Ray, Rudy Duck Club 1 Clark, Aubrey From: Sent:Monday, December 12, 2022 10:49 AM To:Gilmore, Kristina Cc:Norris, Nick; Clark, Aubrey; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Puy, Alejandro; Dugan, Dan; Otto, Rachel Subject:(EXTERNAL) WESTPOINTE BOARD STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NORTH POINT SMALL AREA PLAN-- for submission to Planning Commission for Dec 14 public hearing Attachments:Westpointe Board of Directors Statement regarding proposed North Point Small Area Master Plan .pdf; house with warehouse.JPG; lovelyhome.JPG Importance:High The Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors has now completed their analysis of the residents’ petition and unanimously voted to support their proposed changes to the current draft of the North Point Small Area Master Plan. The attached statement includes this analysis and our comments to the Planning Commission for their Dec 14 public hearing. This augments the Nov 30th email comments previously sent. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, we are also including a few photos—one of a current house at risk and one of a home that reflects the reality of the proposed “transition.” Additional photos are available but did not want to overwhelm people at this time. Thank you for your assistance and for forwarding this information to the Planning Commission members. While we regret that this review and vote could not be completed sooner, we are pleased with the resulting statement and photos. We hope this will clarify the major issues at stake. January 11, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Subject: Westpointe Board statement on North Point Small Area Planning effort We had hoped this planning effort would result in a number of planning scenarios generating serious community discussions and eventually, a workable vision for the area. This has yet to occur. Rather, the proposed “vision map” accepts outdated assumptions and planning limitations as a “given” that does not need justification. Planning efforts were instead devoted to developing mitigation strategies to counter this vision’s negative impacts. We concur with Dr. Luke Garrott’s assessment that the proposed plan , if implemented, will result in an “inherently unsustainable and unwalkable land use-a warehouse and trucking ghetto.“ ( https://buildingsaltlake.com/hot-market-for-warehouses-is-driving-a-trucking-ghetto-into- slcs-last-agricultural-land-and-right-through-the-citys-draft-master-plan/ ). The draft plan seeks to soften this result by identifying “transitional” lands, implying that mitigation measures will allow current residents to stay in the area and that any change will be a gradual shift. This blatantly contradicts written developer comments that homes will be gone within five years and that many proposed mitigation efforts will be unnecessary as a result. It would be cruelly ironic for Salt Lake City to now adopt such a “demolition” approach after Councilman James Rogers convinced the Utah State Legislature to withdraw this unique area from the jurisdiction of the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA). This allowed North Point to avoid M1 rezoning unlike the remaining UIPA area. Recently, area residents circulated a petition proposing an alternative vision for North Point. After reviewing this proposal (see attachment) the Board of Directors voted to support it. We therefore urge the Planning Commission to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until such citizen input can be incorporated into the plan. Sincerely, Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors Dorothy P. Owen Sharon Pohlman Todd Hadden Lynn Skidmore Jessica Esparza Annette Richards ANALYSIS OF RESIDENT PROPOSAL FOR NORTH POINT MASTER PLAN The west side of 2200 West maintain its business park (BP) development zoning while the East side of 2200 W keeps its current AG zoning This allows current residential/agricultural uses as well as future low density residential development. This proposal reflects a factual understanding of the area, and of the families who live there. • The North Point community has about 140 people living in about 60 homes which are entirely single-family housing units. 85 % of these units are owner occupied with an average home value of $438,000. This compares to the $ 346,900 median price for the zip code as a whole. ( Source: Existing Condition Report Dec 2021 pg . 21 Logan Simpson Consulting) • People living in the area tend to work in the services industry, transportation and utilities or manufacturing. They have a higher median household income than the City as a whole. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 21. Logan Simpson Consulting) • Housing is “concentrated east of 2200 West due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. “ The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within the area there is a rich agricultural history that the community desires to preserve. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 21 Logan Simpson Consulting) • The Scannell properties in municipal Salt Lake City are zoned BP (business park). The City has already approved up to 20 warehouses in this area. This warehouse development west of 2200 W will encompass approximately 40% of North Point’s total land area. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 16 Logan Simpson Also City Planning) • All of Salt Lake County’s jurisdictional lands in this area are zoned A-2, low-density residential with supporting agriculture as a conditional use. Over 50% of North Point is within unincorporated Salt Lake County. ( Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 Logan Simpson. Pg. 5 & 15) The City should consider adopting the County’s zoning approach rather than zoning for more warehouses. This proposal supports the findings & recommendations of the City’s “Thriving in Place” Displacement Study. Applicable recommendations include: • There are not enough housing units overall in Salt Lake City. It therefore recommends support for new housing at all income levels. • It further recommends efforts to minimize displacement from new development and discourage new development where it will do the most harm. • It supports locally owned businesses, public spaces and cultural institutions that help communities thrive in place. All of these currently exist within North Point area and will be harmed by the proposed vision. This proposal is a workable compromise. It reflects commitments to existing residents and new developers. It allows for preservation and development. It is not based on outdated assumptions. • 2200 W divides the area into “clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. “ (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. Logan Simpson) The draft plan does not use this demarcation as a source for compromise. • Dr. Robert C. Leachman, professor of industrial engineering & operations research, University of California Berkeley, authored a recent (Sept 12, 2022) report analyzing the prospects for import and export business at the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA). His report indicates that a proposed logistics facility is “simply not a value proposition.” As a result, prior development assumptions have been called into question and the multi-million-dollar facility has been put on hold. Instead, he recommends consideration of regional distribution centers on the South side of I-80 near Union Pacific facilities. North Point is located North of 1-80. • UIPA contains 16,000 acres of which 87% is within Salt Lake City’s borders. Most of it is zoned M1. New building within this zoning is primarily warehouses which require less work, time, and money to develop. Recently, UIPA has made significant management and statutory changes as it re-evaluates past efforts and assumptions. A new UIPA Master Plan for the area is being developed. These new trends need to be considered by SLC as it plans for North Point. . We the undersigned residents of North Point, respectfully oppose annexation, rezoning or Area Master Plan changes which in current zoning becoming M1 or BP. This includes opposing the master plan’s proposed “transitional” land use category as well as recent changes which envision open space along the Jordan River becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. Industrial zoning around existing homes condemns them to a lower quality of life, decreases their property values and will force residents to move. This directly goes against Salt Lake City’s “Thriving in Place” initiative which seeks to reduce housing displacement and support “new housing at all income levels.” This housing gap/shortage dwarfs the city’s apparent desire for more warehouses and other commercial structures. It is the City’s duty to protect residential housing from speculative industrial developers, especially when taxpayers are already paying for an Inland Port that is designed to house such industries. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city Instead, we are proposing the West side of 2200 West maintain its business park (BP) where it is currently zoned while the East side of 2200 West keep its current AG zoning which allow current residential/agricultural uses as well as future low density residential developments. Name Address Office of Homeless Services State Homelessness Coordinator September 2023 Local Homeless Councils (LHCs) Every community is a source of Homelessness. What is your community doing to prevent and treat this most difficult human condition? Homelessness is a community condition, and it will take community to remedy it. Acute Homelessness •Those ready for housing and services •Those not ready Persistent Homelessness •2021 – Approximately 17,500 accessed homeless services •January 2023 Point-in-time Count, 3700 •Length of Time in Emergency Shelter •77% -90 days or less •57% -30 days or less •34% -7 days or less Data Points Two Distinct Homeless Populations Those not ready for housing and services Unsanctioned Camping is the worst thing we can accept •Places unfit for human habitation •Public health/Sanitation •Victimization •Public Conflicts •No camping ordinances The unanswered question Where do people go? Our vision for the homeless response system in Utah is to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring; that all people experiencing homelessness can thrive to their fullest potential; and that our communities are stable and safe for everyone. — Utah Homelessness Council The strategic plan, implementation guide, and data is available at: https://jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/strategic.html ●System Performance Measures reported to U.S. Housing and Urban Development ○Federal Fiscal Year 2022 ●Housing Inventory Count ○Single Night - January 25, 2023 ■Emergency Shelter ■Transitional Housing ■Permanent Supportive Housing ■Rapid Re-housing ■Other Permanent Housing ●Point-in-Time Count ○Single Night - January 25, 2023 ■Emergency Shelter, including Domestic Violence Service Providers (DVSP) ■Transitional Housing, including DVSP ■A place not meant for human habitation (such as in a vehicle or a city park). Making Homelessness Rare In FFY 2022, the number of Utahns experiencing homelessness for the first time reached 8,637, marking an increase of 821 individuals compared to FFY 2021. •This 10% rise indicates a slower growth rate compared to the preceding year's 14% increase, aligning with the national trend of rising homelessness since 2017. •Despite the increase, Utah's homelessness rate remains below the national average, with approximately 11 individuals experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people, compared to the national rate of 18 per 10,000 people. Making Homelessness Brief The average shelter stay decreased by three days to approximately 65 days compared to FFY 2021. •Around 57% of individuals stayed in shelters for 30 days or less, while only 6% remained for nine months or longer. •It is essential to continue efforts to ensure that these decreases are driven by improved access to suitable, permanent housing, particularly for those who have experienced homelessness for extended periods. Making Homelessness Non-Recurring The system has demonstrated remarkable success in helping the most vulnerable individuals maintain housing stability. •93% of individuals enrolled in permanent housing with support stayed housed for at least a year. •This level of success has been consistently maintained since FFY2018. •Although the percentage of individuals returning to homelessness within 24 months of obtaining permanent housing slightly increased from 29% in FFY 2021 to just over 30%, it still reflects a decline from approximately 34% in FFY 2018, indicating progress in supporting long-term housing stability. Annual Point-in-Time Count Conducted as a statewide one-night count, revealed a 3.7% increase in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness compared to the previous year. •3,556 in 2022 to 3,687 in 2023 While it is possible that some of this increase can be attributed to improved coverage and participation in the PIT, it underscores the challenges faced by Utah’s homeless service system in connecting those who have been homeless for extended periods and require intensive support with appropriate housing and services. 2023 Point-in-Time Count Subpopulations In the 2023 Point-in-Time (PIT) count, Utah witnessed a concerning increase in the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. •Chronic homelessness refers to individuals who have experienced literal homelessness for at least a year, either continuously or in four or more separate instances within the past three years, while also experiencing a disabling condition such as a physical disability, severe mental illness, or substance use disorder. •The 2023 PIT count identified 1,004 individuals who met this definition, comprising 27% of the total count. •This represents a significant 96% increase from the 512 people reported as experiencing chronic homelessness in 2019 when Utah revised its reporting process to align better with HUD definitions and national standards.The complete data report is available at: https://jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/homelessnessreport.pdf Chronic Homelessness and Permanent Supportive Housing •To address chronic homelessness effectively, it's important to focus on the availability of permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds. PSH provides long-term housing assistance and essential support services for individuals with disabilities, aligning with the definition of chronic homelessness.•Statewide, the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness has increased by 96% between 2019 and 2023. However, the availability of PSH beds has only risen by 1% or 45 beds during the same period.•During the period between 2012 and 2017, when Utah achieved significant reductions in chronic homelessness, the state increased its PSH inventory by adding 804 beds, marking a remarkable 46% growth.•This emphasizes the need to prioritize expanding PSH resources. By increasing the number of PSH beds, we can offer individuals experiencing chronic homelessness the long-term housing assistance and specialized support they require to overcome their challenges. *Please note the asterisk next to 2021, as the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness available that year came just from the sheltered count due to subpopulation data not being collected in the unsheltered count to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. That year should not be compared to the other years. Office Homeless Services Funding Overview FY24 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Funding (Mitigation) ●First-tier eligible municipalities are located in a county of the first or second class and have a homeless shelter that operates year round, and has the capacity to provide temporary shelter to at least 80 individuals per night. First-tier eligible municipalities are: ■Midvale City $ 2,683,318 ■Ogden City $ 2,472,548 ■Salt Lake City $ 3,107,201 ■South Salt Lake City $ 3,112,981 ■St. George City $ 854,835 ●Second-tier eligible municipalities are located in counties other than the first or second and have a homeless shelter that that operates year round, and has the capacity to shelter at least 25 individuals per night. Current eligible municipalities are: ■Cedar City $ 143,567 ■Logan City $ 75,130 ■Richfield City $ 130,757 ●Third-tier winter response for eligible municipalities as determined by the office ■Approximately $ 1,600,000 Office Homeless Services Housing Rates of Homelessness Rates of individuals experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people: •Utah - 11 per 10,000 •Mississippi - 4 per 10,000 •South Carolina - 7 per 10,000 •Alabama - 7 per 10,000 •California - 44 per 10,000 •Vermont - 43 per 10,000 •Oregon - 42 per 10,000 U.S. Housing and Urban Development Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf Deeply Affordable Housing Need •For Utah, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates: •-43,623 shortage of rental homes affordable and available for extremely low income renters (https://nlihc.org/housing-needs-by-state/utah) •A person must make $24.93 per hour to afford a two bedroom apartment •61,177 renters are below 30% AMI •112,936 renters are below 50% AMI (https://nlihc.org/oor/state/ut) •Kem C. Gardner Institute is currently doing a study that will provide more information on the shortage of deeply affordable housing and there are indications at this point that these numbers to be much higher •Report released later this fall Affordable & Deeply Affordable Housing Need As part of House Bill 462 passed in 2022, the Department of Workforce Services has contracted with the Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) to develop a database of moderate and affordable housing needs and supply across Utah. ●The GPI team has provided initial estimates showing cumulative surplus/deficit for four area median income (AMI) levels for calendar year 2022. Local and State Laws to Support Development of Diverse Housing Interventions $5 million ongoing $50 million one-timeUtah LIHTC $10 million annually FY23 Deeply Affordable Housing Funding $55,000,000 - ARPA funding ●Application released in July 2022 ○Received $168,000,000 in funding requests ○Many service providers were not able to submit applications due to the fast time frame ●Applications reviewed August 2nd and recommendations sent to the Utah Homelessness Council (UHC) for review on August 31st ●Finalized recommendations with UHC for funding on September 9th FY24 Deeply Affordable Housing Funding $47,738,856 ●$31,000,000 ARPA funding ●$13,312,500 H2H Match Funding ●$3,426,356 Emergency Rental Assistance Funding (Utah County) Application released in July 2023 ●Received $105,911,906 in funding requests ●Applications currently being reviewed ●Recommendations will be made to Utah Homelessness Council August 10, 2023 FY24 Attainable Housing Grants $5,000,000 Application released in July 2023 ●Received $2,193,048 in funding requests ●843 grant units represented in application intent ●Applications currently being reviewed ●Recommendations will be made to Utah Homelessness Council August 10, 2023 Office Homeless Services Gaps and Needs Sources of Homelessness LIFE EVENTSSYSTEMS ●Re-entry from incarceration ●Release from hospital or other medical provider ●Exit from mental health or substance use treatment ●Youth in foster care ●Juvenile justice system ●… LACK OF ATTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ●Domestic violence ●Loss of a job/income ●Divorce ●Death of someone close to you ●Health issues ●Behavioral health issues ●Loss of family support/relationships ●Priced out of the market ●Eviction/foreclosure ●Disaster ●Wage gap ●Income insecurity (SSI/SSDI) Vulnerable/At-Risk, Hidden Intercept 0, 4, 5 Shelter -Temporary Intercept 1, 2, 3 Treatment Transitional Housing * Readily Available Alignment Navigator (Advocate) System Resources readily available ST Rent Support Receiving Center Mental Health … Where do you go in crisis? Emergency Shelter ●Understaffed ●Functional capacity, no room ●Lack of throughput ●Don’t feel comfortable in a congregate setting ●Too many rules in shelter ●Move on data is hard to collect ●Increasing days for stayers long-term ●Days in shelter increasing - lack of housing options ●Decreasing days leavers Call 211 ●Seldom helpful ●Resources outdated ●Not resourced ●Agencies 211 refers to have inadequate resources ●Dead-end *Many communities throughout the nation use 211 for their primary coordinated entry response Nevada Example, Pennsylvania Example (https://files.hudexchange.info/resources /documents/Coordinated-Entry-Policy- Brief.pdf) Community Resources ●Day Shelter Services -not every community has this resource ●Community Action Programs -lack resources ●DWS (food stamps, financial) ●Housing Authorities -lack sufficient funding resources for rental assistance (long wait lists) ●Food pantries ●Family or friends ●Religious organizations Streets/Vehicle ●Individuals and families don’t feel comfortable in a congregate setting ●Too many rules in shelter ●Once someone is on the streets it is more difficult to help them resolve over time ●Professional street outreach team capacity ●Outreach teams lack adequate resources for quick intervention SYSTEMS ●Re-entry from incarceration ●Release from hospital or other medical provider ●Exit from mental health or substance use treatment ●Youth in foster care ●Juvenile justice system ●… ●Advocate system with peer support ○Capture people at a point of vulnerability or risk with adequate resources available ○Diversion and connection to resources and other case managers throughout other systems ●Robust transitional system for people exiting incarceration ●Robust transitional system for people exiting medical care/facilities ●Robust transitional system for substance use treatment ○Expansion of USARA advocates (https://www.myusara.com/) ●Robust transitional system for youth exiting foster care ●Expansion of Transitional Housing programs Ideally -Prevention LIFE EVENTS ●Domestic violence ●Loss of a job/income ●Divorce ●Death of someone close to you ●Health issues ●Behavioral health issues ●Loss of family support/relationships ●Advocate system with peer support ○Capture people at a point of vulnerability or risk with adequate resources available ○Diversion and connection to resources and other case managers throughout other systems ●Rapid Rehousing, Emergency Rental Assistance and Homeless Prevention programs (per HUD definitions for eligibility) ●Robust ACT teams for Permanent Supportive Housing ●Robust transitional system for domestic violence response (expansion of Transitional Housing programs) ●Healthy inventory of deeply affordable and affordable housing ●MCOT for unsheltered ●Receiving centers in communities & Mental Health support and resources ●Emergency Shelter for crisis only response, <90 days Ideally -Prevention ATTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ●Priced out of the market ●Eviction/foreclosure ●Disaster ●Wage gap ●Income insecurity (SSI/SSDI) ●Advocate system with peer support ○Capture people at a point of vulnerability or risk with adequate resources available ○Diversion and connection to resources and other case managers throughout other systems ●Rapid Rehousing, Emergency Rental Assistance, and Homeless Prevention programs (per HUD definitions for eligibility) ●Healthy inventory of deeply affordable and affordable housing ●State Housing Choice Voucher Program (https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8#hcv01) ○Current federal Housing Choice Voucher funding has extremely long wait lists through housing authorities. It can take years for an individual or family to receive assistance. ●Emergency Shelter for crisis only response, <90 days ●Robust job re-entry and training program connections Ideally -Prevention Ideal Homeless Response Model Gaps and Needs •Supportive Housing •Non-Congregate & Low Barrier Shelter •Services •SIM Model •Dedicated Funding Dedicated Funding Stream to Address Goals and Strategies in the Strategic Plan ●Chronic homelessness, mental health, substance use○According to HMIS data, about 48% of people who have experienced homelessness within the last five years in Utah had a disabling condition. ■Around 36% of them having a mental health or substance use disorder. ●Supportive services and case management○To support a successful housing model, there is a need to expand services provided that are attached to housing. This includes:■Expanding case management services and increasing wages.■Investment in expansion of substance use and mental health services. ●Funding gaps○Expansion of sites and services throughout the state -new facilities, winter overflow, code blue,○Homeless service providers throughout the state have significant operating costs. This is due to changes in crisis homeless services systems models, inflation, cost of wages, and increased cost for goods and services. ■Many homeless services staff are not making a living wage and experience homelessness and housing insecurity themselves. ●Funding needs related to expansion of the Sequential Intercept Model. Utah Impact Partnership https://utahcf.org/community-impact/community-impact-funds/utah- impact-partnership Fred Story https://vimeo.com/blnkspce/review/693223822/6c8fedd01c 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 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: 1433, 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East Cleveland Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01183/012184 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1433 South and 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East Cleveland Avenue in City Council District Five from their current CC (Corridor Commercial) and R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning designations to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from the current “Medium Mixed Use” and “Low-Density Residential” designations to “High Mixed Use.” This is summarized in the table below. Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current Future Land Use Designation Proposed Future Land Use Designation 1433 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1435 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1420 South Edison Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 121 East Cleveland Avenue R-1/5,000 FB-UN2 Low Density Residential High Mixed Use The petitioner’s stated objective is to consolidate the parcels and construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial spaces and approximately 179 apartments. Apartments are anticipated to be a mix of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Onsite parking is also included in the draft proposal. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 5, 2023 Set Date: September 19, 2023 Public Hearing: October 3, 2023 Potential Action: October 17, 2023 Page | 2 In their submittal to the Planning Division, the petitioner stated, “The purpose of this development is not to go after the highest rents and appeal to the top renters, it is to provide much needed attainable housing that will be in at the price point of many renters in the community.” There was no discussion of including deed-restricted affordable housing units in the proposed development. Current R-1/5,000 and CC zoning allow buildings up to 28 feet and 30 feet respectively. (CC zoning allows an additional 15 feet of height through the design review process.) The proposed FB-UN2 zoning allows residential buildings up to four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet, with locations specified in Table 21A.27.050.C Salt Lake City Code where buildings are permitted up to five stories and a maximum height of 65 feet. The petitioner is requesting additional height up to 65 feet by adding the subject location to the above-mentioned table. The properties at 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East Cleveland Avenue have street frontage. The 1433 South State Street property was a section of alley vacated sometime around 2000 that was not incorporated into adjacent properties. All four properties are owned by the petitioner. The site is within the Liberty Wells National Historic District but not protected from demolition under either the current or proposed zoning designations. The area is also within the Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) State Street Community Reinvestment Project area. Qualifying new developments in the area are eligible for tax increment financing (TIF) to provide funding for some improvements. The petitioner indicated to Planning that they do not intend to participate in RDA incentives. Staff note: increased valuation of this property would contribute to additional revenue for the State Street project area. A restaurant and catering company, bicycle shop, and gym are in the current commercial buildings. These tenants are aware of plans for the subject site and will be offered relocation assistance to another property at 1300 South State Street. The single-family home on Cleveland Avenue is vacant. The petitioner said tenants of the home moved on their own and were not displaced. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposals during its May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke expressing general support for redeveloping the area, but had concerns about the proposed height. The Commission voted unanimously to forward positive recommendations to the Council on both the zoning map and future land use amendments. Area maps with subject properties outlined in red. Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is the Council supportive of the proposed zoning map, master plan, and additional potential height if the site is included in Table 21A.27.050.C? 2. Is the Council interested in formalizing any housing requirements (affordability or unit mix) in a development agreement given the increased density this rezone would allow. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff provided the following table summarizing the proposed amendments for each of the subject parcels. Table courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property, amending the future land use map, and including the site in table 21A.27.050.C which would allow buildings up to five stories and 65 feet. Although a concept plan was included in the application materials, 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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 7-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 - Impact on Adjacent Single-family Dwellings FB-UN2 zoning allows buildings up to four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet. As noted above the petitioner is seeking additional height up to 65 feet by requesting the location be added to Table 21A.27.050.C. (It is worth noting that nearby properties on the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street were added to the table in 2021.) Planning staff received comments from those living at neighboring properties. They expressed concern about how the proposed changes would impact their privacy and access to sunlight. New developments in FB-UN2 zoning districts are required to comply with development standards designed to help mitigate impacts when adjacent to lower-intensity neighboring properties with a maximum building height of 30 Page | 4 feet or less, including the R-1/5,000 zoning that abuts the subject properties. Some of the standards are listed below. •Building setback: FB-UN2 zoning requires a 15-foot setback from side property lines, and a 20-foot setback from rear property lines adjacent to zoning districts with a 35-foot or less maximum building height. •Landscape buffer: In addition to the required setback, new developments in the FB-UN2 zoning district must include a seven-foot-wide landscape buffer that includes the following: o A solid fence between four and six feet high o Shrubs with a mature height no less than four feet o Shade trees planted every 30 linear feet •Upper-level step back: The first full floor above 30 feet must be set back 10 feet from the building façade. While the proposed FB-UN2 zoning and requested additional height to 65 feet is taller than the current CC zoning allows (30 feet, or 45 feet through design review), it is worth noting that there is no building step back is required if a building is taller than 30 feet in the CC zoning district. In addition, there is no interior side yard requirement; only a seven-foot landscape buffer when adjacent to single-family zoning districts. Thus, under the current CC zoning, a 45-foot building could be constructed (through design review approval) with only a seven-foot landscape buffer separating it from an adjacent single-family property. Additional design standards in the FB-UN2 zone including those listed above help mitigate impacts on single-family homes. Consideration 2 - Housing Mitigation Plan The petitioner is proposing demolition of the single-family home at 121 East Cleveland Avenue. Because the requested zoning permits nonresidential use of the land on which a dwelling unit exists, City Code requires a housing loss mitigation plan to be approved by the Director of Community and Neighborhoods. Options for mitigation the loss of residential housing include providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement costs of building new units, and if deteriorated housing exists that is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s housing trust fund. The petitioner submitted a plan to the City (found in Attachment F (pages 57-61) of the Planning Commission staff report) and elected to provide replacement housing to mitigate the loss of the housing unit. The plan was reviewed and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director. Consideration 3 - Compliance with Master Plan Policies The subject parcels are within the 2005 Central Community Master Plan area and the proposal does not align with the plan’s future land use map and some policies within the plan. However, Planning staff believes goals and objectives from more recent plans such as Plan Salt Lake (2015) and Growing SLC (the City’s 2018 housing plan) support additional density and mixed use near major transportation corridors such as State Street. Attachment D (pages 49-52) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines policies, goals, and recommendations in the various plans in greater detail. The petitioner submitted a master plan amendment petition to designate the subject parcels as “High Mixed Use” within the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map so the proposed FB-UN2 zoning is consistent with the area master plan. Page | 5 Consideration 4 - Request for Additional Maximum Height As noted above, the petitioner is requesting the subject site to be included in Table 21A.27.050.C that lists FB-UN2 locations permitting buildings up to five stories with a maximum height of 65 feet. Locations not listed in the table are limited to four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet. A separate ordinance amending the table is included in the Administration’s transmittal for Council consideration. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment C (pages 43-48) of the Planning Commission staff report includes the following table comparing current and proposed zoning districts. It is replicated here for convenience. CC (current)R-1/5,000 (current)FB-UN2 (proposed) Maximum Building Height 30 feet (An additional 15 feet of building height can be approved through the design review process.) 28 feet to the ridge of the roof or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 20 feet to the top of a flat roof Four stories, maximum 50-foot height, Five stories, maximum 65-foot height for locations listed in table 21A.27.050.C Front and Corner Side Yard Setback 15 feet Average of block face or 20 feet. Corner side yard: 10 feet Depends on ground-floor use: Residential: 10’ min, 20’ max Active Commercial Uses: no min, max of 10’ All other uses: 5’ min, 10’ max Interior Side Yard Setback None required 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other Multi-family residential/Mixed-use/non- residential: Minimum of 15 feet along a side property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35 feet or less, otherwise no setback required. Rear Setback 10 feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. 20 feet when adjacent to districts with a 35-foot maximum height. No minimum in all other cases. Upper-Level Step Back None None The first full floor above 30 feet must be setback 10 feet from the façade, beginning at the rear or side setback adjacent to districts with maximum height of 30 feet or less. Permitted Uses Commercial uses including retail sales and services, entertainment, office, and residential. Single-family detached dwellings, parks, home occupations, dormitories. Commercial uses including retail sales and services, entertainment, office, and residential. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 50 feet 30 feet Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet Single-family detached: 5,000 square feet 4,000 square feet (not to be used for density) Page | 6 Open Space None other than required yard areas. 60% (40% maximum building coverage) 10% Landscape yards, plazas, and courtyards may count toward this requirement. Midblock Walkway Required if shown in adopted plan None required Required if shown in adopted city plan Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 53-55) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Does not comply with current Central City Master Plan future land use map or several policies within the plan. Many purposes, goals, objectives, and policies in Plan Salt Lake, and other more recent plans support the proposed amendments. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed zoning map amendment would reduce the number of potential high-impact commercial uses and mitigate impacts from multi-family development on the adjacent single-family properties. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Does not 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. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 17, 2023 – Applications submitted. • February 3, 2023 – Petition assigned to staff. • March 6, 2023 – Page | 7 o Petition routed for department review comments. o 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations sent to community councils. o Early notification was sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the development. o Project posted for an online open house. • April 28, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • May 18, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed and posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 19, 2023 - Planning Commission public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • May 24, 2023 - Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation. • June 23, 2023-Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • July 10, 2023-Planning received draft ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council Briefing // September 5, 2023 1435 STATE – ZONING AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 Master Plan Amendment •“Medium Mixed Use” and “Low Density Residential” to "High Mixed Use". Zoning Map Amendment •R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential and CC Comm. Corridor to FB-UN2 Form Base Urban Neighborhood REQUEST Amend FB-UN2 Text •65-foot max height at the project site •50-foot max height otherwise REQUEST Northeast Corner of State St & Cleveland Av Salt Lake City // Planning Division SITE CONTEXT •1435 S State St •1433 S State St •1420 S Edison St •121 E Cleveland Ave Subject Site from Cleveland Ave Subject Site Facing South on State Subject Site Facing North on State Subject Site 121 East Cleveland Ave Subject Site 1420 Edison St 1435 State from Edison St Adjacent Utah DCFS Building Salt Lake City // Planning Division WHAT WOULD FB-UN2 CHANGE? •Permitted Uses •Fewer high-intensity & car-centric uses than CC •More residential development types than CC •Building Height •45 feet in CC (through Design Review) vs •65 feet in FB-UN2 (as requested) •Development Standards •Additional Development Standards Salt Lake City // Planning Division FB-UN2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS •Setback •FB-UN2: 20’ rear yard & 15’ side yard •CC: None required beyond landscape buffer •Step Back •FB-UN2: 10-foot step back above 30-foot height •CC: None •Landscape Buffer •No change, 7’ buffer with shade trees, hedge, and fence •Central Community Plan (2005) •Recommends new density in only Downtown neighborhoods •Plan Salt Lake (2015) •Recommends additional density along existing corridors •Growing SLC (2018) •Recommends appropriately applied additional density citywide Proposal is consistent with more-contemporary policies Salt Lake City // Planning Division MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE Approve as Proposed •Meets amendment standards •Fulfills intent of more-recent plans & policies Salt Lake City // Planning Division STAFF RECOMMENDATION Aaron Barlow // Principal Planner aaron.barlow@slcgov.com 801-535-6182 1435 S STATE STREET PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM COLMENA GROUP IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANY HEADQUARTERED IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. THE MANAGING PARTNERS OF COLMENA GROUP HAVE MORE THAN 65 COMBINED YEARS OF REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE, BUILDING THEIR REPUTATION ON THOUGHTFUL STEWARDSHIP OF INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. FOUNDED IN 2008, COLMENA’S MISSION IS TO BUILD A LEGACY OF QUALITY, LONG-LASTING COMMUNITIES. SINCE ITS INCEPTION, COLMENA HAS DEVELOPED, CO-DEVELOPED AND INVESTED IN REAL ESTATE PROJECTS THAT BUILT A CURRENT PORTFOLIO VALUE OF MORE THAN $1.6 BILLION (EXCEEDING SIX MILLION SQUARE FEET AND 12,000 APARTMENT UNITS). COLMENA’S SUCCESS IS ROOTED IN OUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND MARKET NEED, SOURCE CAPITAL AND WORK SUCCESSFULLY WITH LOCAL AND NATIONAL PARTNERS. • • 6 MILLION 6 MILLION TOTAL SQUARE FEET DEVELOPED TOTAL SQUARE FEET DEVELOPED • • $1.6 BILLION $1.6 BILLION CURRENT PORTFOLIO UNDER DEVELOPMENT CURRENT PORTFOLIO UNDER DEVELOPMENT • • 120+ 120+ TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS TOTAL NUMBER OF PROJECTS • • 12,000 12,000 HOUSING UNITSHOUSING UNITS MATTHEW RATELLE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATE AABIR MALIK VP OF DEVELOPMENT JON LEE FOUNDING PRINCIPAL SIMON RUCINSKI PROJECT MANAGER ARCHITECTURE TEAM DOT – ARCHITECTURE IS A GROUP OF AWARD-WINNING DESIGNERS WITH EXPERIENCE IN MULTIPLE SCALES OF DESIGN FROM DOORKNOBS, LIGHT FIXTURES, AND FURNITURE TO GLOBAL CAMPUS AND MASTER PLANS. DOT’S BUILT PROJECT EXPERIENCE INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS, AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. OUR TEAM HAS EXPERIENCE WORKING AT SOME OF THE TOP DESIGN FIRMS IN THE WORLD. UNLIKE MANY FIRMS, DOT-ARCHITECTURE LIVES & BREATHES TECHNOLOGY. WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON UTILIZING THE LATEST IN 3D MODELING, VISUALIZATION & IMAGING SOFTWARE TO DELIVER AN EXPERIENCE THAT FEELS FUTURISTIC, BUT DELIVERS REAL RESULTS. OVERVIEW MAP TRANSIT & NEIGHBORHOOD MAP VICINITY & CURRENT ZONING MAP • THE CURRENT ZONE IS CC (COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR) AND R1-5000. • LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT ZONES INCLUDE: • LOWER HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS THAN PREFERRED IN RECENTLY APPROVED MASTER PLANS, INCLUDING THE “LIFE ON STATE” PLAN • LOW “SENSE OF ENCLOSURE” RATIO (BLDG. HEIGHT TO STREET WIDTH) • LIMITED REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITION BETWEEN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE • NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS • MORE ALLOWABILITY FOR AUTO-CENTRIC AND INDUSTRIAL USES CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY USAGE INCLUDE: • • SMALL COMMERCIAL & VACANT BUILDINGS IN NEED OF SMALL COMMERCIAL & VACANT BUILDINGS IN NEED OF REPAIRREPAIR • AUTO-CENTRIC USES INCLUDING OPEN LOADING DOCK AREAS • HIGH VACANCY RATES, LEADING TO LOITERING AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS VICINITY & FUTURE ZONING MAP FB-UN-2 THE PROPOSED ZONE IS FB-UN2 (FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2). • BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ZONE INCLUDE: • CREATION OF PEOPLE-OREINTED PLACES WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS • HEIGHT AND DENSITY LIMITS THAT ARE PREFERRED AND DESIRED IN RECENTLY APPROVED MASTER PLANS • MUCH BETTER “SENSE OF ENCLOSURE” RATIO • LARGER SCALE BUILDINGS ALONG STATE STREET WILL CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN TRAFFIC NOISE & LIGHT POLLUTION AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING • MORE STRINGENT SETBACK, STEP-BACK, AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITION BETWEEN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE • OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS • AUTO-CENTRIC AND INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PROHIBITED • NEW DESIGN STANDARDS BETTER COMPLY WITH THE SOUTH STATE STREET CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT & OTHER APPROVED MASTER PLANS SITE PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN SOUTHWEST CORNER NORTHWEST CORNER SOUTHEAST CORNER QUESTIONS AUTO ACCESS MAP ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: ____________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods ________________________ SUBJECT: 1435 State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184) STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, 801-535-6182 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approves the requested Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Matthew Ratelle, with the Colmena Group representing the property owner, has submitted the following amendment requests: 1.Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01183): The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject properties from CC Commercial Corridor and R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential to the FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning district and to add the northeast corner of State Street and Cleveland Avenue to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 district that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. 2.Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-00184): in order to keep the proposed rezone consistent with the Central Community Master Plan, the applicant is also requesting to amend the master plan designation for the properties in the Central Community Master Plan from Medium Mixed Use and Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. The project area is approximately 1.52 acres or 66,211.2 square feet includes the following properties: •1435 South State Street •1433 South State Street •1420 South Edison Street •121 East Cleveland Avenue Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:33 MDT)08/08/2023 08/08/2023 A formal development petition has not been submitted at this time. Preliminary Plans, including the applicant’s description of the proposal can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION Per Chapter 18.97 of City Ordinance, any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. The applicant submitted a housing loss mitigation plan, which can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, that satisfied Housing Loss Mitigation requirements by providing replacement housing. The final plan was evaluated and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director, Blake Thomas, prior to the Planning Commission’s review of this petition. Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current Future Land Use Designation Proposed Future Land Use Designation 1435 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1433 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1420 South Edison Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 121 East Cleveland Avenue R-1/5,000 FB-UN2 Low Density Residential High Mixed Use Existing Future land use map designations (Central Community Master Plan) Subject properties and current zoning PUBLIC PROCESS: • March 6, 2023 – Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Liberty Wells and Ballpark Community Council. Neither council provided feedback on the proposal. • March 6, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • March 6, 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • May 18, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 19, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On May 24, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 2:26:52. The was one public comment. The individual asked about project details and raised concerns about impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Mailing List 4) Original Petitions 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East Cleveland Avenue (collectively, “Property”), amending the zoning map from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and amending the zoning map from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue all pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183; and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01184. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023, regarding applications submitted by Matthew Ratelle of 1435 State Street, LLC (“Applicant”) to amend the zoning map from CC Corridor Commercial to FB- UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street and amending the zoning map from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183; and amending the Central 2 Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01184. WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications; 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 parcels located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-18-103-014-0000, 16-18-103-011-0000, & 16-18-103-006- 0000), as are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and the parcel located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue (Tax ID No. 16-18-103-015-0000), also described on Exhibit “A”, is rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from Medium 3 Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use, and change the future land use designation of 121 East Cleveland Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a development agreement requiring Applicant to replace any dwellings units demolished on the Property with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 1433, 1435 S. State, 1420 S. Edison, and 121 E. Cleveland APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 10, 2023 4 EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 1433 South State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-014-0000 1435 South State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-011-0000 1420 South Edison Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-006-0000 121 East Cleveland Avenue Tax ID No. 16-18-103-015-0000 Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2: 1433 South State Street/16-18-103-014-0000 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 6 OF THE CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; THENCE NORTH 150 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST 15 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 150 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST 15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1435 South State Street/16-18-103-011-0000 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°02'11" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF STATE STREET 252.10 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE NORTH 89°54'32" EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF A 15.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0°02'1 l" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 252.10 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF CLEVELAND A VENUE AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°54'32" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO, BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 15, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89°54'32" WEST 142.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A 15.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE NORTH 0°02'11" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 100.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE NORTH 89°54'32" EAST 142.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF EDISON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 0°02'11" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1420 South Edison Street/16-18-103-006-0000 LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE Contains 1.40 acres, more or less. 5 Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2: 121 East Cleveland Avenue/16-18-103-015-0000 COMMENCING 107 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, THENCE WEST 35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 102.1 FEET; THENCE EAST 35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 102.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ALL THE VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON THE WEST Contains 0.12 acres, more or less. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height.) An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183 pertaining to additional land area eligible for additional building height. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023 to consider an application submitted by Matthew Ratelle of 1435 State Street, LLC to amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code to expand the area eligible for additional building height; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“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 text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3. That Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 3. Multi-family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-use building form standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.C.3 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use 2 H Height Maximum height of 50’.1 All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop use is permitted and required railings and walls necessary to comply with building code requirements are permitted to encroach beyond the maximum height up to 5’. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height of 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Ground Floor Residential Uses: A minimum of 10’ and a maximum of 20’. Ground Floor occupied by retail, restaurants, taverns, brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities: no minimum is required, provided no doors open into the right of way. A maximum setback of up to 10’ is allowed. All other ground floor uses: A minimum of 5’ and a maximum 10’. The maximum may be increased due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. This requirement may be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). Provided front or corner side yard shall provide one tree for every 30 linear foot of front or corner side yard property line. The mature tree canopy must cover at least 50% of the required yard area and sidewalk area. S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 6’ required, except when an interior side yard is abutting a property in a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 35’ or less, then the minimum shall be 15’. 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 be counted towards the minimum setback. R Rear Yard The rear yard minimum shall be 10’, 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 property in a different zoning district shall be counted towards the minimum setback. GU Ground Floor Use Requirements 900 South: The 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 for a depth of 25’. Amenity space for the occupants of the building shall account for no more than 25% of the length of the ground floor space. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030.B for allowed entry features. 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 stepback 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable 3 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 As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow maximum building heights that exceeds those of other districts in the city, the requirement for the midblock walkway is important to maintain the overall scale and pedestrian nature of the downtown. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within this district shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. The following building encroachments are permitted in midblock walkway. Under no circumstances shall a mid block walkway be entirely covered. (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies – All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’; (5) Skybridge – A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. 4 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 Area As required in Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Footnotes: 1. Additional Building Height Regulations. Properties listed in this footnote shall have a permitted building height of up to 65’ and 5 stories. a. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at 800 South or 900 South; b. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 200 West at 700 South, 800 South or 900 South; c. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at Fayette Avenue; d. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 300 West at 800 South or 900 South; e. On the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street. f. On the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and State Street. g. As indicated on the following map: 5 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 6 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 10, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) MAILING LIST 4) ORIGINAL PETITIONS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 January 17, 2023 Applications submitted. February 3, 2023 Petition assigned to staff. March 6, 2023 Petition routed for Department Review Comments. March 6, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Community Councils. March 6, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. March 6, 2023 Project posted for an online open house through April 28, 2023. April 28, 2023 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. May 18, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. May 19, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. May 24, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments. June 23, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. July 10, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022-01183 and PLNPCM2022-01184 – 1435 State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments – Salt Lake City has received these amendment requests, specified below, from Matthew Ratelle with the Colmena Group representing the property owner. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. A. Master Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-01184) 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street –Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Medium Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. 121 East Cleveland Avenue – Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-01183) 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street – rezone from CC Commercial Corridor to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood and allow buildings up to 65 feet in height at Northeast Corner of Cleveland Avenue and State Street. 121 East Cleveland Avenue – rezone from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, 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 Aaron Barlow at 801.535.6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2022-01183 and PLNPCM2022-011840999. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP JOHN N NIKOLS FAM TRNIKOLS, MICHAEL J; TR 2256 S LAKELINE CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 MORSE LAURELWOOD PROPERTIES LC 223 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CATALAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C 1383 S MAJOR ST #E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SOUZA LAND LLC 2230 DOC HOLLIDAY DR PARK CITY UT 84060 FOUNDRY PROPERTIES LLC 722 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WASATCH INN, LLC 1009 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 1438 S PROPERTIES LLC 3424 S STATE ST #A SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SOUZA LAND LLC 2230 DOC HOLLIDAY DR PARK CITY UT 84060 GJACK ENTERPRISES LLC 59 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1435 STATE STREET LLCCANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LL 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 GALLEGOS, JOSEPH M 127 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HALL, JULIEANNE; TR(JH FAM TRUST) 131 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BRADBURY, CHRISTOPHER W 135 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1435 STATE STREET LLCCANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LL 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY 450 N STATE ST #4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 1435 STATE STREET LLC & CANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LLC 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RASMUSSEN, L NEIL & SALLY A; TRS 7988 S STAUNING CV COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 ATK, LLC 1017 W HIDDEN COVE DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84123 SUES ALTERATION UT INC 1441 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NGUYEN, VINH; JTVO, LOAN; JT 1774 W 3500 S WEST VALLEY UT 84119 MOUNTAIN SPORTS PROPERTIES LLC 1435 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TARASEVICH, ROBIN; JTTARASEVICH, SUZANNE; JT 124 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SUGIYAMA, KEN TET AL 132 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ROGERS, BRENDA S 1452 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SCHNEIDER, JEFFREY C 1456 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CASE YONETANI TRET AL 1466 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1470 S EDISON ST., A SERIESOF MAZR HAUS, LLC 1126 E GILMER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MID TOWN, LLC 1740 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LEWIS, KATELYN 1367 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232 OATWAY, DAVIS &BINNEBOSE, BRIANNA; JT 1409 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SEAR‐PITTS, SHANTELL; JTSEAR, SUSAN; JT 1419 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SPIN PROPERTIES, LLC 1421 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HAPPY FAMILY HOME, LLC 956 E GALENA DR WHITE CITY UT 84094 BLAIR, SCOTT A 1431 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LI, ZHONG XIN 145 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FALKNER, CATHY‐LIN 1404 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JCOR PROPERTIES, LLC 721 N MAIN ST LAYTON UT 84041 HATA, GEORGE M. & KIYOKO 1420 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 KINNEY, EMILY‐IONE 165 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MACKIN TRET AL 171 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL READ FORDHAM REV TRET AL 3567 E EASTCLIFF DR MILLCREEK UT 84124 STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OFFACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MGMNT 450 N STATE ST #4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 HOWCRAFT, WAYNE A &JOHNNA; JT 150 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LEE, MATTHEW E; JTCURTIS, NATASIA A; JT 156 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MURPHY, AARON G 162 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 THOR UT XYZ, LLC 2058 W 8870 S WEST JORDAN UT 84088 BEETON, SHANE &ANDERSON, HAILEY; JT 1955 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BAKKEN, JENNIFER L 1455 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 EVANS, LINDA D L; JTMANN, CARRIE E; JT 1463 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 PORTER, WILLIAM S &TINA; JT 1469 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 VAN DE GRAAF, KARA A 1458 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1313 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1328 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1393 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1397 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1401 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1405 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1374 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1382 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1388 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1392 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1400 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1410 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1416 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1438 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1411 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1421 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1420 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1435 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1385 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1433 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 121 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 58 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1458 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1460 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1470 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1446 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1445 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1470 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1465 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1465 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1373 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1425 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1376 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1410 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1396 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1402 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1390 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 166 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 168 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS MR 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 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: 8/14/2023 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: 8/14/2023 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 City Council Announcements September 5, 2023 For Your Information: A.Notification of removal of Artworks from the City’s Public Art Collection: The Mayor approved the recommendation from the Salt Lake Art Design Board to remove the following artworks from the City’s public art collection: a. Wayne Chubin’s Friends of the Park, which was originally placed on the façade of the storage building within Herman Franks Park (700 East 1300 South). b. Thomas Tessman’s Pierpont Benches, which were originally located on the Pierpont Walkway between 200 South & Pierpont Avenue. The recommendations are based on multiple programmatic priorities: 1. Both artworks could not be located and are now considered lost; and 2. Deaccession of both artworks has been recommended as a course of action by a professional assessment of our public art collection. An informational transmittal was received in the Council Office on August 8 satisfying the 45-day advance notice requirement in City Code before an artwork in the City’s collection may be removed. Information Needed: B. November & December Council Meetings: Due to General Election Day, the date of Council meetings in November AND when the Council convenes as the Board of Canvassers is changing, too. November meetings: The Council has typically avoided holding Council Meetings on Election day. Since the elections have been moved to November 21, this conflicts with a scheduled Council Meeting. Does the Council want to reschedule? It could work to reschedule the November 21 (election day) Council Meeting to November 28, 2023. Does November 28th work for Council Members or would you prefer another schedule? Below are the current meetings scheduled and possible conflicts for each Tuesday. ➢November 7, 2023 – Reschedule Nov 21? Possible Conflicts: Mpact Conference (Formally Railvolution) – so far no Council Members are planning to attend, but City staff may be. ➢November 14, 2023 – Currently RDA, Council Work Session & Formal scheduled. ➢November 21, 2023 – Currently Council Work Session, Formal. General Election Day – reschedule to Nov 7 or Nov 28? ➢November 28, 2023 – Reschedule Nov 21? No conflicts December meetings: The Recorder’s office is coordinating with the County on adding District 7 to the ballot, timeline for counting votes and providing final numbers. We are asking that the final election results be provided by December 5 at 4:00 p.m. so that the Council meeting dates don’t need to change. However, in case that’s not possible, could Council Members hold December 6, Wednesday, as a tentative meeting date to quickly convene as the Board of Canvassers? ➢December 5, 2023 - Currently Council Work Session & Formal scheduled. Plan to include the Board of Canvassers meeting here, too. ➢Tentative - December 6, 2023 – If needed for the Board of Canvassers; Possible Limited Formal ➢December 12. 2023 - Currently RDA, Council Work Session & Formal scheduled. If a meeting is needed on December 6th, what time works for Council Members? (Council Members can attend remotely in order to hold the meeting.) C. City's Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee The City's Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee includes three appointments handled by the Council outside of the typical advice and consent process. One of the Council's appointees has come to the end of their term and the Council will need to recommend and approve a new appointment. The Chair & Vice Chair requested that Human Resources help find applicants with public safety and/or union expertise, since that was a contribution of the outgoing member. In the past, the Council has formed a temporary subcommittee to review the applications, hold interviews, and then make a recommendation to the full Council. ➢Are two or three Council Members interested in serving on the subcommittee?