Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/18/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA FORMAL MEETING July 18, 2023 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Chambers or Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 315 or 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Darin Mano, Chair District 5 Victoria Petro, Vice Chair District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7 Generated: 16:23:32 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Ana Valdemoros will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of May 16, 2023 and May 25, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of May 16, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve the work session meeting minutes of May 16, 2023, and May 25, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of May 16, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 5.Remarks from Council Member Sarah Young Council Member Young introduced herself, thanked some of her family members for their support and stated her excitement to serve as the District 7 Council Member. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Grant Application: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Make-Ready Project Funding The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Energy and Environment to Rocky Mountain Power. If awarded, the grant would fund the installation of electrical infrastructure in preparation for Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations for public use at four Westside locations: Day-Riverside Library, Riverside Park, Rosewood Park, and Regional Athletic Complex. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and refer item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Silvia Richards Introduced the Grant Application for Plug-In Electric Vehicle. There was no public comment. 2. Ordinance: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 South 1600 East. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). The applicant is also seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7. Petitioner: Blaine Properties LLC, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022- 01139 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Mano to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Brian Fullmer Introduced the Ordinance to amend the Master Plan. Rebecca Davis spoke in opposition to the amendment because the request does not meet the requirements of medium density zoning. Dean Thomas spoke in opposition to the amendment and stated the little to no area left for more development creating more density. Larry Wright spoke in opposition to the amendment and the effects it would have on the neighborhood, parking and future development. Anthony Arrasi stated he was the requester for the rezone and the the desire to build a single family home in the neighborhood. Ann Wright spoke in opposition to the amendment because the rezone does not fit into the neighborhood and will affect privacy and parking of other residents. Peter Gamvroulas spoke in support of the rezone, stated he is a family friend and developer and the desperate need for the rezone. Evangelos Neothos spoke in support of the rezone and application to change the density, stated new times need new processes implemented. Kristina Robb spoke in opposition to the rezone and stated current issues including the unequal rezones causing displacement in the lower income neighborhoods. Camille Thorpe spoke in opposition to the rezone and stated that it will cause more buildings to be developed and less room in the neighborhoods for the current residents. Judi Short spoke in opposition to the rezone and the issues related with spot zoning in the condensed neighborhoods. Turner Bitton spoke in support of the rezone and the new growth needed in the area to utilize more land that is being left undeveloped and used as storage. Simon Harrison spoke in opposition fo the rezone and stated the want to keep the low density family neighborhood and requested plans of his single family home to ensure the new home fits into the neighborhood. Victoria Gorman spoke in opposition of the rezone and the need to listen to the affected neighbors and issues created from a rezone to change the density. Marley Bramble spoke in support of the rezone to allow the construction of a single family home. Hal Crimmel spoke in opposition of the rezone because of the option to sell the property once it is rezoned and the possibility for more unwanted development. Devin Zander spoke in support of the rezone and welcomed more development. 3. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023; Tuesday, July 11, 2023; and Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 and Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Young to continue the public hearing to August 8. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Ben Luedtke Introduced the Capitol Improvement Program Projects (CIP). Jennifer Robinson requested the funds be used to improve the North West Rose Park neighborhood, fix the streets/ sidewalks, traffic calming and overall safety. Sarah Woolsey requested the approval and funding of the “safe side streets part two”. David Troester requested the funds to be used to repair or replace failing septic systems in the Glendale neighborhood that contaminate property and water along the Jordan River Parkway. Nedra Crow requested the funding to go to the first encampment park and provide the updates needed to improve that encampment. Christy Johnson spoke in support of the CIP funding to improve the first encampment park and the need to preserve the etched rocks and the history located within the park. Fraser Nelson asked for the funding to go to the Ball Park neighborhood by installing lights, benches, trashcans and other necessities to improve and create safety in the neighborhood. Jayla Wolfe asked the funds to be used to expand the 11 Street and Sunnyside pickleball courts to create more room for more community events. Dan Potts requested the funds to create more nature preserves and clean up the RedButte oil spill. Steven Lemmon asked for the funding to restore the Japanese Gardens in Salt Lake City. Richard Layman asked the Council to look how the funds can be used in District 7 and help improve community. Joseph Leyba spoke in support of the Central 9 CIP request for trashcans, trashcan maintenance and branding in the neighborhood. Jim Webster spoke for the CIP funding to go to Yalecrest neighborhood to rebuild a loop and restore the historic wall in the loop. Suzanne Stensaas asked for the funds to be used to improve the streets and decrease the speed around the District 6 Foothill intersections and schools to create more safety. C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street from RB (Residential Business District) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core). The request is to facilitate future redevelopment of the site to allow for a mixed-use structure that may include commercial and multi-family residential uses. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Sattar Tabriz Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00810. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/WestTempleRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). th th Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance (40) of 2023 Rezone at Approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple, the condition that the petitioner enter a development agreement with the City that includes the following requirements: •A minimum of 60% of the ground floor street-facing space shall be occupied by retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities, and/or other uses intended to attract visitors to the property. The remaining required space would be used for tenant amenities other than parking(e.g., leasing office, mail room, gym, etc.). •A minimum of 10% of the dwelling units shall be designated for a minimum of fifteen years to be leased exclusively to individuals and families earning up to 80% of area median income (AMI). AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young RECUSED: Darin Mano Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at Riverside Cottages The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for portions of property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and other portions of these properties from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District), as well as amending the zoning of property located at 552 North 1500 West from R-1/7,000 to SR-3. In addition, the proposal would amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is located within Council District 1. Petitioner: Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owners. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021- 01203, and PLNPCM2022-00674 For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/RiversideCottagesRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Mano to adopt Ordinance (41) of 2023 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at Riverside Cottages. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 3. Ordinance: Rezone at 1549 South, 1551 South, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West,1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low- Density Multi-Family Residential). The amendment is intended to allow the property owner to develop townhouses on the subject properties; however, no development plans have been submitted at this time. If the amendment is approved, the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the newly adopted RMF-30 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. The subject properties are located within Council District 2. Petitioner: Jordan Atkin, representing the property owner, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00733 For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/900and1000WRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Mano to adopt Ordinance (42) of 2023 Rezone at 1549 South, 1551 South, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 4. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 510 South 200 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 510 South 200 West from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Jason Boel, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01108. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance (43) of 2023 Rezone at Approximately 510 South 200 West. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 5. Ordinance: Nonconforming Signs The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs. The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with City goals, supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The proposed changes would also allow for more flexibility for the maintenance, reuse, modification, and updating of existing signs. The changes would also clarify when the removal of such signs is required. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00984 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adopt Ordinance (44) of 2023 Nonconforming Signs. •I further move that the Council adopt a legislative action initiating a petition to review electronic sign standards to comply with changes to federal and state law, and provide recommendations to the Council on best practices for concerns such as brightness, dwell and twirl times, animation, etc. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Item not held 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Council Member Puy took a point of privilege to remind the public that this section of public comment should not be used to talk about previous agenda items. Shih-An Huang spoke about the need for restoration for the International Peace Gardens. Keiko Jones talked about concerns regarding the sanctioned campsites being created in Rose Park and requested help to find a solution if residents around the camps are opposed. Robert Comstock urged the Council to help the homeless, stop the destruction of the single family homes and to not let Salt Lake City be taken over by development. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Addendum No. 7 to Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) for Transit Master Plan Frequent Bus Service Routes Implementation The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into the proposed addendum No. 7 to the Interlocal Agreement with UTA to implement 2023-24 Frequent Transit Network (FTN) service. Addendum No. 7 is the service agreement for the routes on 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South and 1000 North/South Temple. The interlocal agreement is for twenty-years with a goal of full implementation of the FTN as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan. Note that the Plan identifies an FTN route on 600 North which UTA is implementing outside of the City agreement based on ridership levels and significance to the regional network. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Resolution (21) of 2023 authorizing Addendum Number 7 to the Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 2. Resolution: Community Renewable Energy Program Utility Agreement The Council will consider adopting a resolution on the City’s ongoing participation in developing a community renewable energy program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Resolution (22) of 2023, Community Renewable Energy Program Utility Agreement. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend section 21A.34.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The draft ordinance outlines a required application process, criteria, and applicable standards associated for a carriage house reconstruction. Petitioner: Stephen Pace. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00106 The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, therefore an ordinance has not been drafted. If the Council decides to approve the zone amendment, an ordinance would be drafted and considered for approval. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle. The proposal would amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at streets, alleys, and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. Currently the code does not include intersections of alleys and streets, and alleys and sidewalks. The proposed amendment will add these intersections with alleys and add standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposal would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Emina Alibegovic The Council will consider approving the appointment of Emina Alibegovic to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Justin Neville The Council will consider approving the appointment of Justin Neville to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6. Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Anne Olsen The Council will consider approving the appointment of Anne Olsen to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7. Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Spencer Lawson The Council will consider approving the appointment of Spencer Lawson to the Culture Core Finance Committee for a term ending July 18, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 16, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano The following Board Directors/Council Members were absent: Amy Fowler Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kitrell – Deputy City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Joshua Rebollo – Community Liaison, Shellie Dietrich – Police Department Financial Manager , David Salazar – Human Resource Program Manager, Wayne Mills – Planning Manager, Meagan Booth – Principal Planner, Paul Nielson – Senior City Attorney, Kelsey Lindquist – Planning Manager, Andrew Wright – Deputy Chief of Police, Lori Gaitin – Human Resource Program Manager The meeting was called to order at 3:26 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1 Work Session Items Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 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 Josh Rebollo provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City found at: www.slc.gov/feedback/ ◦ Thriving in Place – 45 day comment period is now open and would be closing June 26, 2023 ◾Ballpark Next – voting was open until May 25, 2023 ◦ 1700 South Resurfacing – 300 West to 900 South with comments currently being solicited ◦ City Creek Water Treatment – City Creek closed to traffic from Site 16 from May 18-24, 2023 • Mayor’s Community Office Hours • May Events ◦ Sabores de Mi Patria/Flavors of My Homeland Workshop Series 5/17-9/27 Wasatch Community Gardens' Campus ◦ Acoustic Music Strolls on Jordan River Parkway 5/18 Jordan River Parkway ◦ Living Traditions Festival 5/19-5/21 Washington Square ◦ IFSC Climbing World Cup 5/19-5/21 Pioneer Park ◦ Sugar House Rocks Concert Series 5/19 Monument Plaza ◦ 2023 Queer Spectra Arts Festival 5/20 Publik Space ◦ IMPACT Black Women Experience 5/26 The Edison House ◦ SLC Track Club & Deseret News Spring Series 5K (Race 1 of 3) 5/27 Memory Grove Park Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Homeless resource center (HRC) • Rapid Intervention/EIM location/outreach/site rehabilitation information MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2 • Next Resource Fair to be held at Library Square to be held May 12, 2023, at 9:30- 12:30 • Taufer Park Block Party to be held May 13, 2023 • Kayak (Bicycle Park) Court to be held May 19, 2023, held at Sugarhouse Park, Fairmont Park/ Hidden Hollow • First meeting for Winter Flow Shelter Task Force will be held May 18, 2023, with a decision to be made by August 2023 Council Members and Andrew Johnston discussed the attendance at the Taufer Park block party and the status of the meetings regarding the Miami Model. 2.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Police Department ~ 3:15 p.m. 60 min The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Police Department budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Council Member Mano thanked the Police Department for all the work and services they provide to the City of Salt Lake Ben Luedtke presented: • The location of the budget in the Mayor’s budget book • $1,11 million and increase of 7% from, 2023 resulting from increased costs • The number of requested new Full Time employees (FTE) 11 individuals at approximately $1.4 Million Deputy Chief Andrew Wright and Shellie Dietrich presented the proposed budget highlighting: • Police Department Mission Statement • Insight and overview for the proposed budget requests ◦ Alternative Response – License Plate Reader (LPR) $150,000 ◦ Internal Affairs Program Sergeant $164,266 ◦ Community Response Team $ 283,455 ◦ Airport Operations Program – Revenue Budgeted $917,361 ◦ Operational Inflationary Increase $302,991 ◦ Personnel Base Changes $6,429,307 • Statistics of Patrol Saving time from the implementation of the Alternate Response programs • Thanked the Mayor and Council for their support of the Police Department Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Deputy Chief Wright and Shellie Dietrich discussed: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3 • The License Plate Reader program, concerns from the public and if the cameras could be used to deter crime ◦ The License Plate Reader camera was not like a regular camera and the Police Department could look into making them visible • When metrics for measuring the success of the Community Response Team could be reviewed • Social Worker and Homeless Outreach information listed in the budget book – this was an error in the performance metric and the correct numbers were on the last page of the Staff Report • Timeline of implementing Police Department sub-stations and if there were any needs from the Council to get them up and running • The recruiter position and was participating in activities to attract individuals to the Police Department • The policies/procedures to attract a diverse police force • Results of the department’s audit as listed in the Staff Report (attachment 4) • Council would like a more in-depth discussion on the audit at a later date 3.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Proposed Compensation for City Employees ~ 4:15 p.m. 20 min The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Compensation budget, which accounts for personnel and payroll costs, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Ben Luedtke reviewed the proposed budget highlighting: • Increase in funding for staff • Increase in costs due to adding additional Full-Time Employees (FTE), health care increases, and a new employee benefit (lifestyle savings account) • Department turnover Citywide Mary Beth Thompson, David Salazar, Lori Gaitin and Ben Luedtke presented the budget proposal highlighting: • General Merit Increases $8.9 million to provide a 5.0% increase to all employees including those represented by a bargaining unit – cost to the General Fund $6.1 million • Merit Increase for represented employees only – $1.06 million covers step increase based on years of service for employees represented by the three bargaining units – cost to the General Fund $636,434 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4 • Percentage of Increases for Firefighters and Police Officers • Market-Based Salary Adjustments – $1.05 million for market-based adjustments to employees in lagging benchmark jobs Council Members, Ben Luedtke, David Salazar, Lori Gaitin and Cindy Gust-Jenson • The number of new FTEs being funded by the General Fund and how sales tax dollars affected the ability to fund staffing throughout the years • The market-based salary adjustments and if more adjustments need to be made to help those in lower income brackets • Minimum starting wage for City Employees Lori Gaitlin and Mary Beth Thompson presented the Lifestyle Spending Account highlighting: • Funds would be to help employees benefit their lifestyles in many ways such as financial, emotional and physical wellness as well as enticements for employees to return to work • City Benefits renewal and the programs that were changing Council Members and Lori Gaitlin discussed: • If a higher dollar amount for the Lifestyle Spending Account would be beneficial • Options to set different spending amounts for the different categories • The first year was a learning curve and would help determine the success of the program • Changes to the mental health programs that would affect the plan cost in January 2024 4.Tentative Break ~ 4:35 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Ordinance: Salt Lake School District Signs ~ 4:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow pole signs on school properties. Public and private schools are located in various zoning districts around the City, and not all of the zoning districts permit freestanding pole signs. The signs are used to educate the community about activities at the school. Petitioner: Paul Schulte representing the Salt Lake City School District. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 5 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Brian Fullmer briefly reviewed the proposal. Meagan Booth presented the proposal highlighting: • The purpose of the proposal ◦ One pole sign per school property ◦ Maximum freestanding pole sign height is 15 feet for local streets, and 25 feet along collector and arterial streets ◦ Maximum of three sign faces with a combined sign face area of 180 square feet for signs on local streets, and 540 square feet for signs on collector or arterial streets ◦ No minimum setback, but all portions of the sign must be on school property, and not overhang into the public right-of-way ◦ No advertising of off-premises events, goods, or services ◦ Animated images would not be allowed ◦ Pole signs would be subject to all other requirements for signs, and applicable zoning overlay requirements • Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council • Policy Questions: ◦ The Council may wish to discuss limiting how close pole signs can be placed to homes near schools ◦ The Council may wish to discuss limiting overall brightness of signs or require dimming the sign displays after sunset ◦ The Council may wish to consider whether the School District should notify immediately adjacent neighbors of any changes to existing signs or installations of new signs • Key Considerations • City Department Review • Proposal History Council Members, Wayne Mills, Nick Norris, Meagan Booth, Paul Nelson and Brian Fullmer discussed: • Regulating the brightness of the signs and including restrictive language in the amendment • If schools should or should not be allowed to advertise community events on school signs • If schools were allowed to advertise for events at other school facilities • The reasons off-site advertising was not allowed on school marquees • The difference in paid advertising and free advertising and if schools should be allowed to advertise community events MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 6 ◦ Council Members would like further review of the limits to advertising community events on school marquees • Why the proposal was brought to the City Council now and was not a problem in the past • The number of pole signs a school was allowed under the proposed ordinance Ricky Martinez, Salt Lake County School District, stated advertising would open doors for fundraising for schools, schools would not want two pole signs on the property and the marquee signs were a vital communication tool for the community. 6.Text Amendment Follow-Up 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building heights in the Downtown Plan area. This proposal includes amendments to the following zoning districts: D-1 (Downtown Central Business District), D-2 (Downtown Support), D-3 (Downtown Warehouse), D-4 (Downtown Secondary Business District), G- MU (Gateway Mixed-Use), CG (General Commercial) and the FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 (Form based districts). Additionally, the proposed code revisions aim to accommodate growth and respond to new development pressures, while developing standards for public spaces. The Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/downtownbuildingheights FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the proposal. Council Members, Kelsey Lindquist, Jessica Garrow and Brian Fullmer discussed: • How the proposal affected height in Form Based Zoning (FB-UN2) districts • Areas where the building height would be changed under the new proposal • Reasoning for the proposal and areas of concern such as the Central 9 and 9 District • What was allowed under the Form-Based code regarding height was determined on the form of a proposed structure, this proposal would require setbacks where current Form Based Zoning did not require setbacks • The required setbacks in an RB-UN2 zone and FB-UN1 zones • The proposed use of stepbacks in the ordinance • Height allowances in the Downtown Districts included in the proposed ordinance • Council wanted a list of public benefits discussed in the ordinance th th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7 Ordinance: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation ~ 5:15 p.m. • Areas in the City where a building could be 375 feet tall • Potential Straw Polls and potential outcome of each Straw Poll if they were/were not supported • Council Members wanted additional information on bird-friendly glass Straw Poll Council did not support the six-month overlap to make the new ordinance policy. Supported by all present Council Members. Straw Poll Council supports Planning Staff’s recommendation to require stepbacks for multi- family residential developments adjacent to zoning districts with a maximum height of 30 feet. All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. Straw Poll To keep the proposed as presented to FB-UN2 in the Downtown Plan area. Council Members Mano. Puy, Petro, Wharton and Dugan voted in favor of the straw poll, Council Member Valdemoros abstained from voting. Straw Poll Support Planning Staff’s recommendation to remove the stepback requirements for buildings in the D-1 (Central Business District) zone. All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. Straw Poll Support for Staff to research the bird-friendly glass in buildings and return with more information. All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. Straw Poll Support for retaining the current stepback requirements for buildings in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD). All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. Straw Poll Support for retaining the current height limit in the Downtown D-4 zone. All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. Straw Poll Support for amending the ordinance to include Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) request to remove maximum height limitation in the G-MU zoning district. All Council Members present were in favor of the straw poll. 7.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Justice Court Department Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Justice Court Department budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The Justice Court handles misdemeanor criminal citations, small claims, traffic citations and traffic school for moving violations. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8 Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Written briefing only. 8.Board Appointment Interviews for the Sister Cities Board ~ 5:45 p.m. 10 min The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Sister Cities Board: • Ricardo Becerra • Ronald Joe Zeidner • Ahimara Suarez FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Interviews held. Council Member Mano said Ricardo Becerra, Ronald Joe Zeidner and Ahimara Suarez’s names would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. 10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9 Cindy Gust-Jenson stated Staff needed assistance in scheduling the remaining budget meetings. Council Members stated they preferred to start Work Session meetings at 1:00 pm each Tuesday through budget season and hold a Work Session meeting on Thursday, May 25, 2023. 11.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 10 Meeting adjourned at 6:37 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 16, 2023 11 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Thursday, May 25, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano The following Council Members were absent: Amy Fowler Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Angela Price – Policy Director, Community and Neighborhood, Ruedigar Matthes – Project and Policy Manager, Community and Neighborhoods, Tammy Hunsaker – Director of Community Services, Debbie Lyons – Director Sustainability and Environment, Sophia Nicholas – Deputy Director of Sustainability, Christopher Bell – Waste and Recycling Division Director The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 1 Work Session Items Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 1.Ordinance: New Five-Year Housing Plan, Housing SLC ~ 3:00 p.m. 60 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the proposed new five-year housing plan, Housing SLC. The City’s current housing plan, Growing SLC, expires at the end of the fiscal year, and a new moderate income housing plan is needed to meet State code requirements and receive priority consideration for State funding resources. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 23, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Angela Price gave a brief overview of the Community and Neighborhood Department and timeframe for the proposal. Ruedigar Matthes presented the five-year housing plan for Housing SLC including: • Overview of three goals ◦ Supported by 18 moderate-income housing strategies ◦ Supported by 47 unique action items ◦ Implemented over five years • Guiding Framework ◦ Preserve affordable housing ◦ Protect tenants ◦ Produce new affordable housing ◦ Expand capacity for tenant support ◦ Collaborate to maximize impact ◦ Advocate for tenants and affordable housing • Goals ◦ Make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability ◦ Increase housing stability factors throughout the City ◦ Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity- building opportunities • State requirements • Housing SLC Requirements • Public comment period timeline MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 2 • Public feedback • Responses to Public Comments • Planning Commission having forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council Council Members, Angela Price, Tammy Hunsaker and Ruedigar Matthes discussed: • Council wanting the breakdown on the for and against public comments • What did the salary breakdowns mean for a Salt Lake City resident that would allow people to apply for funding • Percentage of the population that would be assisted in the City with the proposal • If the City was catching up to the rest of the State in helping residents with housing or was it falling behind • Types of housing, if that housing would help in the long run, how housing was changing over the years • Council wanted to see the problems answered, to get other jurisdictions in the State to assist with housing issues • Options for turning unused offices into apartments • Funding for home ownership in the City and the nation • City was required to do five strategies and had already accomplished 18 • Upcoming policies Housing would be working on to promote homeownership possibilities • Advocating for existing homes as well as new construction to be part of the proposals • Housing needed to be a priority and balanced to help those less fortunate • Insurance requirements that blocked the development of condos and townhomes 2.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Sustainability Department and Refuse Fund ~ 4:00 p.m. 30 min The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Sustainability Department budget and Refuse Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 3 Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview of the budget request: • Proposed budget to be $28,493,792 - $3,541,121 or 14% more than last fiscal year ◦ Increase was due to: ◾Collection fee adjustments to cover higher costs for existing services ◾Nearly $2.4 million for new capital purchases (new vehicles replacing old vehicles) ◾Re-appropriating prior year funding for new vehicle purchases that couldn’t be used because of manufacturer supply constraints ◾Two new full-time employees (FTEs) are proposed bringing the total Department staff level to 65 FTEs • The Department consisting of two Divisions: ◦ The Waste & Recycling Division Enterprise Fund which operated like a business where revenues must cover expenses. It provides weekly collection of recycling, yard waste, and garbage as well as for special events, operates a bulk waste collection program (“Call 2 Haul”), supports the municipal landfill, provides education and permitting, and oversees implementation of City ordinance requirements for commercial recyclers. There are 56 FTEs in the Waste & Recycling Division with one new FTE proposed for a total of 57 FTEs. This Division covers over 90% of the Department’s budget. ◦ The Environment & Energy Division was transitioning away from relying on landfill dividends as a revenue source to be fully covered by the General Fund, and FY2024 was planned to be the last year of the transition. The Division seeks to advance the City’s sustainability and electrified transportation goals jointly adopted by the Mayor and Council (see Staff Report for goals). It assists departments with environmental assessments typically performed by consultants and compliance, develops strategies to reduce emissions and improves energy efficiency for City operations and resident’s activities, address food insecurity, and facilitates greater access to renewable energy. There are seven FTEs in the Environment & Energy Division with one new FTE proposed for a total of eight. Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas and Chris Bell presented the proposed budget highlighting: • Environment and energy costs by program • Waste and recycling expenses by program • Environment and energy insight summary • Air Quality Incentives Program ◦ Lawn mower exchange program ◦ Electric (E) – bike program • Waste and Recycling Insight Summary ◦ Increase in costs for maintenance, fuel, tipping and compensation ◦ Capital increase ◦ Container maintenance ◦ Residential service fees ◦ Special event service fee Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas and Chris Bell discussed: • Council wanting more information on the Call 2-Haul program and how illegal dumping was being addressed MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 4 • How to address spring cleaning of neighborhoods, illegal dumping and removal of bulk waste throughout the City ◦ Current program offers recycling and smaller more efficient equipment • The multi-family residential recycling program and the number of people that opted in for the service • The City’s ordinance regulating recycling services for apartment complexes/large developments and how it was enforced • The options for glass recycling and the option to include the cost in base service • Encouraging gas stations to offer recycling options • Food waste disposal • Renewable energy percentages outlined in the budget book and where the jump in percentage resulted from ◦ The increase in percentage was a result of the solar farm coming online • E-bikes were being stolen at an alarming rate, need weatherproof places for storage to be available to City residents ◦ Could be addressed in the City Parking Ordinance requirements for bikes • It was time to look at what could be done with plastic bags in the City • Providing carts/wagons for children for rental along with the bike services • Offering income-funded programs for E-bikes and scooters • Guidance for teaching people how to maintain a bike ◦ Bicycle Collective currently offers this service • Incentivize electric mower sales with retailers 3.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Unresolved Issues Written Briefing TENTATIVE The Council will receive a written briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Jennifer Bruno reviewed the Unresolved Issues as presented in the Staff Report and tracking sheet highlighting: • Ongoing items for discussion: ◦ Increase salary for Prosecutors and Legal Defenders – clarified the dollar amounts for the positions and the purpose of making these position equitable in pay with County employees ◦ Post – 911 call text messaging report/survey system ◦ Increase funding for Economic Development to partner with smaller non- profits MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 5 ◦ Increase funding for lifestyle savings account for all employees ($731,934 for enterprise fund) ◦ Additional funding to ensure Police Department substations were fully funded on North Temple and Downtown ◦ Correct Bio Hive funding • One time items for discussion: ◦ Funding to establish a low or no interest loan program for repairs on naturally occurring affordable housing units for the owners to guarantee the ongoing affordability of those units – $1,000,000 ◦ City-wide Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Incentive Program - to incentivize construction of ADUs City-wide – $ 1,000,000 ◦ Funding for Partnership with Neighborworks for an equity-sharing workforce housing project (RDA/Westside Community Initiative) – $2,000,000 ◦ Partnership with Salt Lake County to add housing to the planned Sunday Anderson senior center reconstruction project (9 Line) – TBD ($3,000,000) ◦ Funding for an addition to current Switchpoint facility on North Temple - the addition would house services and case management for residents. Current funding gap at $500,000 ◦ Sanctioned camping grant to supplement State and County efforts – $250,000 ◦ Black Water Tank Voucher Program – $10,000 ◦ Re-appropriating downtown street activation approved in Budget Amendment #5 – $500,000 ◦ Re-appropriating building security money not yet spent from FY 23 amount – $409,450 Council Members and Jennifer Bruno discussed: • Dollar amounts for the Legal Defenders Association (LDA) and City Prosecutors and if the position should be funded equally to match the County pay scale ◦ Council asked for funds to be placed in a holding account for these positions until the final dollar amounts could be determined to raise the position to match County pay scales ◦ Council wanted more information on why this information was not provided to Council in a timely manner to streamline the process in the future • Updates on unresolved items would be sent to the Council as they arrived • Overall balance of the proposed budget ◦ Staff will send updated figures to Council in the next week Council determined they wanted the following: • First – Defense Attorneys and City Prosecutors working in the same office, courtroom and cases should make the same salary amount • Second – City Prosecutors working alongside County Prosecutors, under the District Attorney’s office should have parity in regard to salary amounts with priority given to the first direction MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 6 Standing Items 4.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Nothing to report. 5.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Nothing to report. 6.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. Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 7 Meeting adjourned at 5:17 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Thursday, May 25, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Thursday, May 25, 2023 8 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and the Salt Lake City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Formal Session on Tuesday, May 16, 2023. The following Board Directors/Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano The following Board Directors/Council Members were absent: Amy Fowler Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer, Danny Walz – Redevelopment Agency Chief Operating Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kitrell – Deputy City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst Council Member Puy presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:11 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1 LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Board/Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.LBA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The LBA’s Capital Projects Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-24 only includes the bond debt services for the Glendale and Marmalade Libraries. (Other Capital projects throughout the City are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget.) The LBA is a financing tool for cities and government entities, like libraries, to bond for capital projects at better interest rates. Capital projects are big projects like parks, public buildings, and street projects. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comments Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Mano to close the public hearing and refer item to the public hearing on June 6, MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass C.LBA ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Mano to adjourn as the LBA and convene as the RDA. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. D.RDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Board will accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Petro to close the public hearing and refer item to the public hearing on June 6, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comment E.RDA ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4 Adjorn as the RDA and convene as the City Council AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 5 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. F.CITY COUNCIL OPENING CEREMONY: 1.The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of February 21, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Mano to approve formal meeting minutes of Feb 21, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall celebrating June 2023 as Pride Month. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 15 of 2023, celebrating June 2023 as Pride Month. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano read the resolution. Johnathan Foulk and Tanya Hawkins from the Utah Pride Center thanked the Council and Mayor for their support of the resolution and the LGBTQIA+ community. G.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance: Early Notification Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would approve various changes to the Salt Lake City Code relating to early notification of the public and recognized community organizations for land use projects. The Council initiated this petition to clarify early notification regulations and public outreach. The purpose of the proposed changes is to increase awareness and participation by the public for various types of City projects while still providing a timely review process for applicants. Related provisions of the City Code may also be amended as part of this petition. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 6 For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCEarlyNotificationOrdinance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, March 3, 2020; Tuesday, September 29, 2020; Tuesday, November 16, 2021; and Tuesday, April 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, September 15, 2020; Tuesday, November 16, 2021; and Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 3, 2020; Tuesday, October 6, 2020; Tuesday, October 20, 2020; Tuesday, December 7, 2021; and Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Items G2 – G10 will be heard as one public hearing. Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the text amendment. No public comment Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2. Grant Application: Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties Transportation Alternatives Program Fiscal Year 2023 The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation. If awarded, the grant would fund the 9-Line Trail Extension West of Redwood Road. The project constructs a new 4/10-mile segment of shared-use path along the north side of Indiana Avenue west of Redwood Road and improves three associated pedestrian/bicycle crossings to make key destination-focused connections. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7 Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: Backman School Community Open Space The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from Parks & Public Lands to the Utah Department of Natural Resources. If awarded, the grant would fund a project that would develop the property located near the Backman Bridge and provide a safer route for children walking to school. The new space will become a community gathering place with a nature playground, native habitat, and an outdoor classroom programmed by Backman Elementary. The public spaces will allow children of all ages to engage and explore nature in an urban neighborhood. The park will also connect to the Jordan River Parkway providing access to more recreational opportunities that support an active lifestyle. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Grant Application: Jordan River Water Trail Tree and Debris Removal The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from Park & Public Lands to the Utah Department of Natural Resources. If awarded, the grant would fund removal of tree branches and other debris from the Jordan River Water Trail to improve the safety and accessibility of non-motorized watercraft. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8 5. Grant Application: Drinking Water Service Line Inventory/Lead Service Replacement Plan Development Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Department of Public Utilities to the Utah Division of Drinking Water. If awarded, the grant would fund wages for existing Department of Public Utilities staff to conduct record reviews, GIS work, and site inspections for the inventory related to the qualifying disadvantaged census tracts. The grant would also fund consultant services to complete a water service line inventory and develop a lead service line replacement (LSLR) plan related to the qualifying disadvantaged census tracts. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6. Grant Application: Pole Mounted Surveillance Camera Installation The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Fire Department to the Department of Homeland Security. If awarded, the grant would fund the purchase of mobile pole mounted cameras for the purpose of conducting surveillance in areas of the City experiencing high incidents of suspected intentionally set fires. The Fire Department will deploy the cameras in areas experiencing increased fire activity specifically providing targeted surveillance of arson. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9 7. Grant Application: Emergency Management Performance Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Emergency Management to the Department of Homeland Security. If awarded, the grant would fund Emergency Management functions and programs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 8. Grant Application: 2024 Police Traffic Services Equipment Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Highway Safety Office. If awarded, the grant would fund the purchase of radar units. If awarded the grant project period will be 12 months beginning October 1, 2023. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 9. Grant Application: 2024 Distracted Driving Prevention Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Highway Safety Office. If awarded, the grant would fund distracted driving enforcement/education overtime shifts. If awarded the grant project period will be 12 months beginning October 1, 2023. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 10 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 10. Grant Application: Race, Equity, and Leadership Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Economic Development to the National League of Cities. If awarded, the grant would fund a consultant to review City practices and resources and engage with City stakeholders to determine solutions to create a more equitable process for minority owned small businesses and entrepreneurs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. Ordinances listed below (G11 – G22) are associated with the implementation of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Salt Lake City, including the Library Fund, for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. All ordinances will be heard as one public hearing item during the May 16th and June 6th public hearings. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to close the public hearing and defer action on items G1-G10 to a future Council Meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the grant applications. Gayloe Dawes spoke to her family’s history in using Backman Elementary, thanked everyone involved in helping the community and expressed excitement over grant item G #4. 11. Ordinance: Adopting the Budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 11 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 12. Ordinances relating to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 City Budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the budget for Salt Lake City, Utah, excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 13. Ordinance: Adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 12 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 14. Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance amending various fees and fee information set forth in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 15. Ordinance: Compensation Plan for All Non-represented employees of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for all non-represented employees of Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 13 16. Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of an MOU between Salt Lake City and AFSCME for Fiscal Year 2023- 24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1004, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 17. Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the International Association of Firefighters for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating the necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters Local 81, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 18. Ordinance: Appropriating Necessary Funds to Implement Provisions of the MOU between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Association for Fiscal Year 2023-24 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 14 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2023-24, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, representing eligible employees. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 19. Ordinance: Accessible Parking Space Violation The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend sections of the Salt Lake City Code to adjust penalties for accessible parking space violations to better correspond with similar penalties described in the State of Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 20. Ordinance: Board Member Employee Status The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would clarify the status of members appointed to Salt Lake City Boards and Commissions who receive compensation for their service. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 15 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 21. Ordinance: Past Due Account Receivable Fees The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to past due accounts receivable fees and incorporating references to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 22. Ordinance: Removal/Bagging of Parking Meters The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to removal of parking meters and incorporating references to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Close hearing and refer to public hearing on June 6, 2023 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 16 close the public hearing and refer items G 11-G 22 to the public hearing on June 6, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Jennifer Bruno gave a brief overview of the ordinances. Abdirizak Ibrahim spoke to the need of improving the Westside of Salt Lake City and reviewed the continued issues with homelessness and crime rates. Allen Sanderson and Allison Jones spoke to the water budget stating the following: •In support of the rate increase •Tier the rates to usage •Need to remove the water assessment from property taxes •Should be moved to the base rate and use rates •Ordinances required to reduce watering at specific times and dates Sarah Bushman spoke to the homeless situation in Salt Lake City, the need for more housing, voucher programs being over extended along with apartment waiting lists, asked if there was there a way for the State to help with the issue. Chris Robstock spoke to the urgent need to repair streets in District 1 and throughout the City. Duke Heninger spoke to the need for sidewalks in the area of 1000 East. H.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for adapting the Seven Canyons Fountain at Liberty Park into a dry art piece, a roof replacement for the Steiner Aquatics Center, and several proposals to use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for revenue replacement and a $10 million contribution to the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah among other items. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 17 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Mano, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 21 of 2023. amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of SLC including the employment staffing documents only for items as shown on the motion sheet. A-2: Additional One-time Funding for Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team ($300,000 from Rescope of CAN Personnel Vacancy Savings) A-3: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services ($73,418 from Recaptured Operations Rio Grande Funds) A-9: Natural Gas Cost Increase ($635,000 from General Fund Balance of which $135,000 to the Fleet Fund) A-11: Environmental Assessment Additional Funding ($50,000 from General Fund Balance) A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement ($4 Million from General Fund Balance to the RDA’s Westside Community Initiative for 9-Line Project Area Property Acquisition) Note the other proposed funds for this item will be considered by the Council at a future date. E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY2023 Revision ($110,000 Rescope of Existing Grant Funds and $50,000 Reappropriation for Advantages Services from Prior Award) AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 2.Resolution: Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2023 for Financing the Construction of the New SLC International Airport The Council will consider approving a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of one or more series of Airport Revenue Bonds, series 2023, for the purpose of financing certain Capital Improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport. The Council's action includes authorizing the execution of a supplemental indenture, a bond purchase agreement, and other documents as required. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCAirports FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 9, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 18 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Petro, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Resolution 16 of 2023, for the airport revenue bond and recognize the date set for a public hearing was scheduled June 6, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass I.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. No questions 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Council Member Puy reviewed the rules of decorum. Robert Comstock spoke regarding issues surrounding Richards Street, including the replacement of homes with parking lots, the increase in unsheltered individuals that were camping in the parking lot, traffic calming was desperately needed off of 2100 South along Richard Street, asked Council Member Mano to schedule a time to meet over the issues. Michael Fraizer spoke to various issues with living in the City and how he was trying to better his life here. Maisie (no last name) spoke to the need for more affordable housing in the City and helping the unsheltered. J.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. K.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Trackland, LLC The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $350,000 loan for MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 19 Trackland, LLC., at 2117 East Wilson Avenue from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Trackland, LLC is a Sugar House based software as a service (SaaS) company that is an add on to Salesforce that improves its function. This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and retention of 8 current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Petro to adopt Ordinance 22 of 2023 approving a $350,000 loan for Trackland, LLC, from the Economic Development Loan Fund. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass L.CONSENT: 1.Resolution: Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2023 for Financing the Construction of the New SLC International Airport The Council will set the date of Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment for a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $600,000,000 aggregate principal amount of one or more series of Airport Revenue Bonds, series 2023, for the purpose of financing certain Capital Improvements to the Salt Lake City International Airport. The Council's action includes authorizing the execution of a supplemental indenture, a bond purchase agreement, and other documents as required. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 9, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 20 2.Ordinance: Salt Lake School District Signs The Council will set the date of Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning text of Section 21A.46.052 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to pole signs on school properties. Public and private schools are located in various zoning districts around the City, and not all of the zoning districts permit freestanding pole signs. The signs are used to educate the community about activities at the school. Petitioner: Paul Schulte representing the Salt Lake City School District, Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-00190 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3.Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 8) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No. 8) for Fiscal Year 2022-23. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 4.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Board – Ricardo Becerra The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ricardo Becerra to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 21 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Board – Ronald Joe Zeidner The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ronald Joe Zeidner to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Board – Ahimara Suarez The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ahimara Suarez to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7.Board Reappointment: Sister Cities Board – Olga Efimova The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Olga Efimova to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 22 8.Board Reappointment: Sister Cities Board – Sheri Sorensen The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Sheri Sorensen to the Sister Cities Board for a term ending July 6, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSTAIN: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass M.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 23 Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm Council Minutes Approved: RDA Minutes Approved: LBA Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ Redevelopment Agency Chair Alejandro Puy _______________________________ Local Building Authority Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council, RDA, and LBA meeting held Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, May 16, 2023 24 Item B1 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 7/18/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.Yes. $21,387 from Sustaina- bility’s budget No new FTEs.Plug-In Electric Vehicle Make-Ready Project Funding Provide infrastructure for the installation of two EV charging stations at four westside locations 1) Day- Riverside Library 2) Riverside Park 3)Rosewood Park 4) Regional Athletic Complex Needs a public hearing No $85,549 Rocky Mtn Power Dept. of Sustainability Division of Energy & Environmt Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver; Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer; Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com; Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore; Department of Police | Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard EC: Department of Sustainability | Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas, Catherine Wyffels FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: June 29, 2023 SUBJECT: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Make-Ready Project Funding FUNDING AGENCY: Rocky Mountain Power GRANT PROGRAM: Plug-In Electric Vehicle Make-Ready Project Funding REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $85,548.98 DEPARTMENT: Department of Sustainability | Division of Energy and Environment COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None DATE SUBMITTED: June 29, 2023 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE Position □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required $21,387.25 In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: Sustainability Department requested $85,548.98 to support the installation of electrical infrastructure in preparation for future publicly accessible Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations at four Westside locations: 1) Day-Riverside Library, 2) Riverside Park, 3) Rosewood Park, and 4) Regional Athletic Complex. The electrical infrastructure includes new conduit, wiring, electrical breakers, junction boxes, and breakers. The $21,387.25 worth of match is sourced from Sustainability Department’s adopted budget. Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 The Council will be briefed about a proposed zoning map amendment for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in City Council District Seven, from its current R-1/7,000 (single-family residential) designation to SR-3 (special development pattern residential). The proposal also calls for amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan future land use map from low density residential to medium density residential. The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct a small custom or modular home for himself on the irregularly shaped lot. The surrounding zoning is R-1/7,000 except for the green shaded City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area shown in the zoning map below. SR-3 zoning is used within the interior portion of the block for a variety of housing types in scale with the area development character. This zoning designation was requested due to reduced lot width requirements and side yard setbacks. It is not typically found in this area of the city. Planning staff noted the following: “The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 2) A 2020 administrative interpretation by the City Planning Division determined the property did not meet requirements to be considered a legal complying lot. The petitioner appealed that decision to the City Land Use Appeals Hearing Officer who upheld the administrative interpretation. The petitioner is now seeking to amend the zoning and future land use maps to potentially construct a home on the property. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 18, 2023 Potential Action: August 8, 2023 Page | 2 The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which twelve people spoke. Nine people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, expressed opposition to the proposal, and three people were supportive. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 6-5 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the proposal and shared why they voted to send a negative recommendation cited the property being an illegal lot and inappropriately sized to construct a home. Because the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Council Chair and Vice-Chair asked staff to request an ordinance from the Attorney’s Office which is included in the meeting materials. Planning staff also noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make the property a buildable lot. If the zoning and future land use map requests are approved by the Council, the petitioner would need planned development, preliminary subdivision, and final plat approval for the lot to be buildable prior to applying for permits to construct a house. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying future land use map amendment. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Note-the green shaded area is the City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to weigh the need for additional housing against changing the zoning designation to a zone with very different development standards from existing area zoning. 2.Does the Council think a development agreement limiting the number of dwelling units on the property to one would help ease neighbors’ concerns? 3.The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if residents who use the property to access their garages will be able to continue if the subject parcel is developed. If so, will that be through an easement? KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area which designates the properties in this neighborhood as low density residential. The plan calls for medium density residential to generally be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods and near neighborhood commercial zoning and business districts. Planning staff noted the property is referred to as a flag lot by the petitioner, but it does not comply with zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Sugar House Community Master Plan policy statements associated with flag lots do not support this amendment. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal generally does not align with goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Community Master Plan. They found the current R-1/7,000 zoning aligns with the future land use map. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. However, Planning noted the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. This would promote a dwelling unit on property that functions as a rear yard and has challenging access. Planning staff found the initiatives and goals in Plan Salt Lake do not support the proposed amendments. Consideration 2-Comparison of R-1/7,000 and SR-3 The table below compares the current R-1/7,000 and proposed SR-3 zoning. Primary differences include reduced lot sizes, and allowing single-family attached, twin homes, and two-family dwellings in SR-3. In addition, Planning staff found developing the subject property under current zoning is not permitted due to its configuration, access, lot width and the legality issues noted above. Based on the lot size and reduced square footage requirements under the proposed SR-3 zoning, Planning staff believes three dwelling units could be built on the property. However, Planning believes it would be difficult to fit more than one single-family dwelling on the property, which is the property owner’s stated intention. Potential density on the lot would be dependent on a subdivision and planned development to approve the illegal lot. Page | 4 R-1/7,000 SR-3 Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs Average height of other buildings Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face If no block face exists, 10 feet Side Setback Corner Setback 6 feet and 10 feet 6 feet Single-family detached: 4 feet Single-family attached: 4 feet when abutting a single-family detached zone, otherwise no yard required. Rear Setback 25 feet 20% of the lot depth but not less than 15 feet, no more than 30 feet. Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet Single-family detached: 2,000 square feet; Single-family attached: 1,500 square feet; Two-family: 3,000 square feet. Lot Width 50 feet Single-family detached -Interior lots: 30 feet -Corner lots: 40 feet Single-family attached -Interior lots: 22 feet -Corner lots: 32 feet Two-family -Interior lots: 44 feet -Corner lots: 54 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%Single-family detached: 60% Single-family attached: 70% Consideration 3-Spot Zoning It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future map amendments are generally considered spot zoning. The requested SR-3 zoning differs significantly from the existing and established single-family residential zoning district. Analysis of Factors Attachment F (pages 51-53) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Page | 5 Zoning Map Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. The proposal is not consistent with Plan Salt Lake or the Sugar House Plan. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. General Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments generally support or has no appreciable on the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Zoning District Purpose The proposed map amendment would allow for medium density development, which would not be compatible with the existing scale of the neighborhood. The properties within this neighborhood primarily consist of R-1/7,000 zoning. The property owner is requesting development rights on a portion of the property that was illegally subdivided. The amendments are to accommodate a single-family dwelling and to legalize the subdivision. Staff believes that these amendments would be to relieve a hardship and would grant special privileges to this property owner. There has not been substantial change in public policy that would warrant the requested amendments. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed SR-3 zone will impose different development regulations than the R-1/7,000 district. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The map amendment doesn’t conflict with any overlays that affect the property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The City’s public facilities and services have adequate capacity to serve the additional dwellings that would be allowed with this rezone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, other than Planning staff’s recommendation to deny the proposals, no Page | 6 responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 5, 2022-Petitions submitted. • January 30, 2023-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Liz Hart. • February 24, 2023- o Routed for review. o Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council, and Downtown Alliance. o Notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. • April 17, 2023- Applicant and Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee meeting. • April 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, so no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. (As noted above, the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair requested an ordinance, which is included in the meeting paperwork.) • May 11, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment Applicant: Blaine Properties LLC •Property is classified as two independent parcels by Salt Lake County •Property is classified as a single lot per Salt Lake City Planning •Application is limited to the parcel with the “flag” configurement •Currently zoned as R-1-7000 •Requesting SR-3 Zone Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition. “In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options to increase the number of units on particular parcels through out the city…” …Missing Middle Housing types are those that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether… “Apart from traditional in-fill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape, of housing stock, should be addressed and leveraged to add incremental density” pg. 19 “Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” pg. 19 “Increase the number of medium density housing types and options” pg. 21 “Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate” pg. 21 “It will be critical for us to encourage and support a diversity of new housing options and types with a range of densities throughout the City to best meet the changing population” pg. 21 PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 1782 S 1600 E MAP AND PLAN AMENDMENT Property Location: 1782 S 1600 E Prior Applications: Administrative Interpretation (2020) & Appeal (2020). The outcome of these applications was that the property is not a legal buildable lot. The property is considered to part of 1572 E Blaine Ave. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPERTY HISTORY 1572 E Blaine Avenue View of the Drive Access of 1782 S 1600 E Looking East from 1782 S 1600 E Looking South from 1782 S 1600 E The applicant is seeking to amend the zoning map from R-1/7000 (Single- Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. The amendment is sought to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling. SR-3 was identified as the desired district due to reduced lot width requirements and setbacks. PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-1/7000 SR-3 Building Height 28’ for pitched roofs 20’ for flat roofs 28’ for pitched roofs 20’ for flat roofs or average height of other buildings Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face. If no block face exists, 10’. Side Setback Corner Side Setback 6’ and 10’ 6’ Single-family detached: 4’ Single-family attached: 4’ when abutting a sfd, otherwise no yard required Rear Setback 25’20% of lot depth but not less than 15’ no more than 30’ Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet SFD: 2,000 square feet SFA: 1,500 square feet Two-family: 3,000 square feet Lot Width 50’SFD: 30’ (Interior) or 40’ (corner) SFA: 22’ (Interior) or 32’ (corner) TF: 44’ (Interior) or 54’ (corner) Building Coverage 40%SFD: 60% SFA: 70% ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON Land Use Changes: Dwelling, single-family attached Dwelling, twin home and two-family The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8- 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed plan amendment matches the density allowance for SR-3. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT Sugar House Plan Applicable policies for low density residential: •Support and enhance the dominant, single-family character of the existing low-density residential neighborhoods. •Maintain the unique character of older, predominantly low-density neighborhoods. •Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of primarily low-density dwelling units. Applicable location criteria for medium density residential: •Proximity to arterial or collector streets; •Proximity to higher density residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District; •Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space; •Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land use into areas of medium density residential. Applicable policies for medium density residential: •Encourage new medium density housing opportunities in appropriate locations in Sugar House. •Encourage a variety of densities in the medium density range while ensuring the design o these projects is compatible with surrounding residential structures. •Continue to prohibit the development of the “box car” design of multi-family dwellings. •Encourage street patterns that connect with other streets. Salt Lake City // Planning Division Plan Salt Lake Applicable Policies: Neighborhoods, Growth and Housing. Growing SLC Applicable Policy: Increase Housing Options Summary: As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments generally do not align with the established and adopted plans, policies and goals. The neighborhood is well-established with R-1/7000 zoning. The property does not meet the intent of the location parameters for medium density classification in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. Ultimately, the amendments are sought to legalize an illegal subdivision for the purposes of development. These goals do not align with the identified policy statements or objectives. Salt Lake City // Planning Division QUESTIONS SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-01138, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 01139. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2023 on applications submitted by Blaine Properties, LLC (“Applicant”), to rezone property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street (Tax ID No. 16-16-328-024) (the “Property”) from R- 1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01138, and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01139; and WHEREAS, at its April 16, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map of that plan. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 8, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property: PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD 0401BEG 152 FT S FR NE COR BLK 3, PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD; W61.25 FT; N 2 FT; W 122.5 FT; S 131.35 FT; E 33.75 FT; N 110.32 FT; E 150 FT; N 20 FT, M OR L TO BEG, TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S 4608-0466 6558* ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 11, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 1782 S 1600 E Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 801-535-7930 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance - No ordinance requested due to Planning Commission’s negative recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map and the Sugar House Plan Future Land Use Map for the property located at 1782 S. 1600 E., which is approximately .1743 acres (7,592 square feet) in size. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units per acre) and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R- 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. The map and plan amendment are necessary to accommodate a single-family structure on the subject property. The applicant identified SR-3 zoning due to the reduced lot width and side yard setbacks required for a detached single-family structure. Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2023 15:15 MDT)05/11/2023 05/11/2023 Zoning Map of the Subject Neighborhood The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment. The property history which is extensively discussed in a published administrative interpretation from 2020, outlines the history of the property. The determination relied on the prior Board of Adjustment decisions that identified the subject property as part of 1572 E Blaine Avenue. The full Administrative Interpretation can be accessed in the provided link, below. The applicant appealed the Administrative Interpretation to the Appeals Hearing Officer. The Appeals Hearing Officer agreed that the lot was illegally subdivided and upheld the Administrative Interpretation. The Appeals Hearing Officer decision can be accessed in the provided link, below. Due to the outcome of the Appeals Hearing, the applicant determined that the alternative route is to amend the zoning map and future land use map in order to pursue the construction of a single-family residence. It should be noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make this property a buildable lot. The applicable adopted plans include Plan Salt Lake, Sugar House Plan and Growing SLC. The plans are generally in conflict with the proposed amendments. The Sugar House Plan designated the properties as Low Density Residential to preserve and protect the older low density single- family neighborhoods. Medium Density Residential should primarily be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods, as well as near the neighborhood commercial zoning and business district. The plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Plan. Additionally, the R-1/7000 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 6 dwelling units per acre. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. With that said, the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. The increase in density will promote a dwelling unit on the property that functions as a rear yard with challenging access. PUBLIC PROCESS: February 24, 2023 – The Sugar House Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. February 24, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. April 17, 2023 – Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNxTNHAkz34 beginning at 1:03. •Concerns with compatibility in the neighborhood. •Lack of current affordability of the existing rental housing. •Concerns of impacts to the neighboring property owners. •History of the property is in conflict with the proposal. •Requests that Salt Lake City require a consolidation to limit future requests. •Concerns with fire safety, due to the narrow access. •Support for the rezone for an additional unit. •A developed property is better than a vacant property. •The lot is illegal and shouldn’t be buildable. •Concerns with the precedent. •The legality of the lot shouldn’t impact whether it’s buildable. •It’s understandable that the current owners wouldn’t understand the items recorded on title. •Can the City afford to enforce rules that limit whether a property owner can building a home? The Planning Commission ultimately forwarded a negative recommendation with a 6-5 vote in favor of denial. The Planning Commission minutes are accessible in the link, below. Administrative Interpretation Records a)Administrative Interpretation published September 9, 2020 (Click to Access) b)Appeal of Administrative Interpretation published December 22, 2020 (Click to Access) Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITIONS: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 December 5, 2022 Petitions submitted January 30, 2023 Assigned to Liz Hart February 24, 2023 Routed for review. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to the Sugar House Community Council. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. April 17, 2023 Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee Meeting. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering the following petitions: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 – Blaine Properties LLC is requesting to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 S 1600 E. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. A. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01138): The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). B. Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01139): The applicant is seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at Kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Property Identification The subject parcel is a .17-acre property located at 1782 South 1600 East (the “Subject Property”) owned by Blaine Properties LLC (the “Applicant”). The Property is what would commonly be referred to as a “flag lot” in that its frontage (on 1600 east) is long and narrow with a more substantial rectangular portion at its southeast. The Property is recognized by the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office as Parcel 16163280240000. While identified as a distinct parcel in County records, Salt Lake City does not recognize the Property as such. The Subject Property is adjacent to another property owned by the Applicant (the “Blaine Property”). The Blaine Property is a .21-acre lot with a duplex. For purposes of land-use designation Salt Lake City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be one cohesive lot. Both Properties are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Salt Lake County Parcel Map. The Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow. The Blaine Property Highlighted in Red. Whether using the City’s designation as one unitary lot or the county’s designation as two distinct lots, it is clear the Subject Property is uniquely configured and irregular in the neighborhood. The Master Plan Amendment (“MPA”) and Zoning Map Amendment (“ZMA”) applications are expressly for the parameters of the Subject Property and do not include the Blaine Property. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Existing Uses and Conditions The Subject Property currently has three predominant uses: 1) It houses a 750 sqft shade structure and roughly half of a 1300 sqft accessory garage (the remaining garage footprint is located within the Blaine Property lot1), 2) It is used by residents of the Blaine Property to access the accessory garage, and 3) it is used as a vehicular access to another adjacent lot’s accessory garage2 (1580 E Blaine Avenue). Harkening to the “Flag Lot” descriptor, the “pole” is asphalted for vehicular passage and the “flag” contains the shade structure and is otherwise vacant and sodded. Purpose for the Amendment The MPA and ZMA are being proposed to provide a higher and better use for the Subject Property than is currently existing or could feasibly be arranged under the current R-1-7000 designation. The Subject Property is currently used for vehicular storage, accessing parking stalls, and quite frankly not much else. The vacant portion of the lot is unused by the owner or its tenants and its value as “open space” is negligible, in that it is surrounded by private properties and built features. The location, size, and shape of the Subject Property lends itself well for the construction of a modest single-family home. A small home on the lot would provide the applicant an opportunity to transform this unused space to one that shelters and houses one new family unit in a beautiful existing neighborhood. Though the applicant’s proposal is modest and reasonable on a property of this size and location, the execution of such a goal has been set back by various impediments in the city process and barriers created by zoning and master plan regulations. History of Impediments and Current Zoning Barriers The Subject Property is certainly unique and unprecedented within the area. Its current configuration is the result of a long history starting in 1919 when the original Progressive Heights subdivision was subdivided. In 1951 Progressive Heights was further subdivided which created three unique lots now known as 1572, 1580, and 1586 Blaine Avenue. Following the latest subdivision, the Subject Lot was issued a distinct Parcel Number in the same year. From 1951-1957, the Subject Lot was left vacant. On May 22nd, 1957, the Subject Lot was forfeited to Salt Lake County pursuant to a tax sale for failure to pay property taxes. In 1977, Salt Lake County sold the Subject Property under its separate Parcel #1616328024 to the then- owners of 1572 Blaine Avenue, namely, David T. and Dorothy L. Cates. In 1985 the Cates’ applied to build a garage on the Blaine Property to be used for the Duplex on the same property. The garage was ultimately built straddling the common property line of the Subject Property and the Blaine Property. There is no evidence that the Cates intended to merge the properties together by this encroachment. 1 The overlapping nature of the accessory garage structure’s footprint has been identified as a reason the City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be “merged” as a unitary lot. 2 There is no formal easement on record for this access. However, the Applicant does not contest this access, nor would a re-zone or subsequent development hinder this access. In the event a plat amendment is recorded the applicant would be in favor of memorializing the access as a recorded easement. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment In 1999, the then-owner Mark Huber applied for and received a permit to build a small single-family home on the Subject Lot. Within a week of being issued the building permit, neighbors upset about a new home being constructed adjacent to them, complained to the City, and requested a stop work order. The city subsequently issued the stop work order to review if the Subject Property was legally buildable. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the Subject Property specifications and zoning ordinances and determined that the Subject Property did not legally exist and first introduced the notion that the Subject Property and the Blaine Property were one lot. Huber then appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the Board of Adjustments (the “BOA”). In the July 19th, 1999 hearing, a contingent of neighbors who were opposed to the building of a home on the Subject Property were represented by an attorney. The attorney introduced the idea of a “lot merger” having occurred with the previous construction of the detached garage. After other public comment from neighbors opposed to any development, the BOA unanimously voted to uphold the administrative decision, not to recognize the Subject Property as an independent lot, and to restrict any development of a new single-family dwelling. To memorialize the BOA’s decision an Abstract of Findings and Order was recorded over the property to notice that the Subject Property “is not an independent lot and may not be developed with a new single- family dwelling”. This ruling by the BOA has since become a barrier to reimagining the Subject Property’s land-use and highest and best use. After the ruling Huber ceased his efforts to develop the Subject Property and did not submit an appeal to the BOA’s decision. Eventually, on February 25th, 2014 both the Blaine Property and the Subject Property were purchased by the applicant. Like Huber, the applicant recognized the Subject Property as an ideal opportunity for the development of a humble single-family home structure. The applicant reached out to Salt Lake City Planning Department to explore the possibility of seeking a land-use redesignation. It was at this point where the applicant became aware of the history of the site and the BOA decision of 1999. In an effort to unwind the decision the applicant requested an Administrative Interpretation to determine whether the Subject Property is a legal complying parcel and a buildable lot. On September 9th, 2020 staff determined that they were unable to evaluate whether the BOA made a legal or correct decision. Given that the BOA decision of 1999 was never appealed by Huber, staff found that the decision remains in effect and that the property could not be developed independently. On September 18th, 2020 the applicant submitted an Appeal of Decision before Planning and Zoning arguing that the BOA decision 1) should be available for review and appeal and 2) that the BOA decision was legally incorrect. This appeal went before the Salt Lake City Land Use Appels Hearing Officer who on December 22nd, 2020 issued his ruling to uphold the decision of the September 9th, 2020 Administrative interpretation. In his ruling the Hearing Officer was sympathetic to the first issue argued by the applicant, namely, that the 1999 BOA decision could be challenged and plausibly overturned. The officer also questioned his authority to overturn a decision by a BOA (that no longer exists). With the latest land-use decision rendered the applicant reached out to city planning staff to see what processes exist to revisit and petition the “non-developable” status of the Subject Property. Two options 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment were given 1) Appeal the decision to the Third District Court, or 2) Submit a MPA and ZMA to rezone the subject property. The applicant has elected to pursue option two with this application for MPA and ZMA. If this petition is granted the applicant will be required to submit a Planned Development (“PD”) and Preliminary Subdivision application before any development of the Subject Property. The applicant understands that the PD application could be run concurrently with the MPA and ZMA, however, due to monetary constraints, the applicant is electing to only petition the MPA and ZMA at this time. Description of the Proposed Use of the Property The property is tucked inside a typical single-family and two-family neighborhood. While lots in the neighborhood more or less conform to Low Density Residential R-1-7 zone characteristics there is a variety of housing types and massing in the area. The property is best suited for a small-scale single- family residence. While no design decisions have been made the property is of ample size to provide space for a small footprint custom or modular home structure. Reasons why the Present Zoning is not Appropriate for the Area The applicant does not dispute that the R-1-7 zone is appropriate for the area at large. For the vast majority of the neighborhood blocks the dimensional standards have efficiently distributed properties with a proper balance of living spaces and open spaces. The R-1-7 has proven to be a value to the community as a rule, but it is desperately lacking in usability for exceptions. The Progress Heights Second Addition subdivision is more than 70 years old, and its current lot configuration has changed immensely since its initial subdivision. While the plat has never been formally amended, lots have been combined and a midblock alleys have been vacated in what surprisingly has resulted in a fairly typical neighborhood residential pattern. Figure 2: Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment The only exception to a typical lot in the plat is the Subject Lot. Its peculiar historical circumstances have left this as the only “flag lot” and only “un-developable” building lot in the entire Progress Heights Second Addition Plat. Exceptions like this lot can be found in various historical neighborhoods throughout the city where development occurred before processes were more formalized and zoning as stringent. Where these unique parcels are of adequate size and dimension, they should not be blocked perpetually from development, but should rather be granted thoughtful consideration to see how they can be developed to their highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character. Thankfully the applicant has identified a city zoning designation that seems to address this exact exceptional situation. The SR-3 special pattern residential provides for lot, bulk and use regulations, including a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. This zone has been used liberally in the city to provide land-use to uniquely located properties where use of the surrounding zoning restrictions would render a site undevelopable. Figure 3: SR-3 Interior Block Examples Shown in Yellow The SR-3 is a designation that recognizes that unique properties should be given unique considerations and that “spot zoning” is not a pejorative but rather a tool for land-use efficiency. SR-3 is definitionally a different zone than its surrounding properties for the purpose of dealing with distinctive site location. Because the property is located midblock in a flagging composition it is petitioned that the lot be reclassified. The request is to amend the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Along with this, the requested zone change is from R-1-7000 to that of the SR-3 zone. Consistency with City Objectives Salt Lake City has made significant commitments to providing a broad array of responses to the housing shortage crisis. City master plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC: A Five Year Plan have clearly established objectives to increase housing where it makes sense and can be of minimal impact to the community. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Plan Salt Lake specifically supports, “Promot(ing) infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” (PSL pg.19), “Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options” and “Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate” (PSL pg. 21). By designating the property SR-3, a medium density zone, a property that has been restricted for development can be made viable to build a modest single-family home. Growing SLC seems to be speaking directly to the subject property when it reads “Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to add incremental density…” (GSL pg. 19) Growing SLC specifically addresses small courtyard cottages and bungalows as “Missing Middle Housing” and prioritizes “finding a place for these (missing middle housing) types throughout the city…”. This petition is in line with Growing SLC in “finding a place” for missing middle housing. Small infill opportunities such as that presented by the Subject Property should be considered individually to see if they can responsibly include more housing or development otherwise. The city’s current objectives are to eliminate certain barriers that have historically and reflexively been put upon properties that don’t fit neatly into usual neighborhood characteristics. “Exacerbating the housing crisis are local barriers to housing development. These barriers, such as density limitations, prohibitions on different types of housing, and other development regulations, have contributed in part to a general supply deficit and economic segregation” (GSL pg. 11). Conclusion Even a cursory review of the site conditions of the Subject Property indicate that it is clearly an appropriate site for a modest single-family residence. It is only in review of the existing zoning designation and the recorded Abstract of Findings that anyone would consider this lot “un-buildable”. To step back and consider this logic is to find that there are no physical and practical constraints but only legal and definitional constraints. The history of the Abstract of Findings shows that the reasons for the barrier to development were not only supported by but wholly introduced by an attorney representing a NIMBY contingent. The language that is memorialized in the Abstract of Findings has for many years obstructed any commonsense development of this infill lot. Fortunately, there is a method to restore a commonsense and higher and better use for the property. That is to redesignate the lot to the SR-3 zone. The zone recognizes that unique properties can be dealt with more nuance than would otherwise be available by simple consultation of the surrounding zoning limitations. The applicant recognizes that one new infill cottage home will have negligible effects on the housing crisis. However, it will also have no real negative effects on the neighborhood that it finds itself in. Rather it will provide one new home that can house one more family and be of an immense value to those who will one day live in it. The applicant implores the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to consider this Petition to redesignate the Subject Property from R-1-7000 to SR-3. EXHIBIT Public Comments in support of development on Subject Property from December 10th, 2020 Appeal of a Decision Hearing March 18, 2021 To whom it may concern; I’m writing to enter my comments into the appeal hearing for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in Salt Lake City. I own an investment property about a third a mile north on 1600 East and have been a Realtor for almost 30 years. I support the property owner’s petition to build a reasonable-sized, single-family home the flag-lot they own. Looking at the property it seems like a logical thing to do. We are greatly in need of additional housing and need far fewer non-food-producing plots that require costly irrigation and maintenance. The family has invested, and paid taxes in, this area for a long time and they’re really just looking to have each other nearby. I think that particular behavior should be supported whenever possible and natural. Thank you for your time and consideration, Melanie Soules Principal Broker Hard-Working Homes 4. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Publication Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Grace Sperry To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47:40 PM PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Dear Kelsey and Elizabeth, I had planned to attend this evening’s meeting but due to a recent death in my family, will not be able to do so. Therefore, I am writing to recommend that Anthony Arrassi’s request to build a single family home on his property be approved. I have watched over the years many unusual properties being approved for single family use or commercial use in the Westminster and Sugarhouse neighborhoods. A case in point would be the four homes recently built on the property at 2660 South Highland Drive. None of those homes are on more acreage than the Arrassi proposed home and all overlook the surrounding homes and all have very small driveways leading to the garages. All those homes are now benefitting the neighborhood and raising the value of the properties in the area. This new single family home would do likewise. Please grant this request for permission to build a new single family home at 1782 S. 1600 East, Salt Lake City, UT . Thank You, Grace Sperry Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council and Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Sub-Committee. Grace Sperry Board of Directors Adan Carillo Alessandro Rigolon Atticus Edwards Christian Harrison Jordan Atkin Matthew Morriss McCall Christensen Rosa Bandeirinha Staff Turner Bitton Executive Director 801-564-3860 turner@slcneighbors.org April 24, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division RE: Petition Number PLNAPP2020-00725 Dear Ms. Lindquist, It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors. SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors is a network of Salt Lake City residents working for affordable housing for all income levels through policies that are pro-housing and pro-tenant. We are writing in support of the proposed rezone request for the subject property. We believe that this rezone request is illustrative of unfair and inconsistent application of land use policy to restrict access to desirable neighborhoods such as Sugarhouse. We believe that it is absurd to defer to a master plan established 22 years ago to dictate the future of a property that could provide much needed housing in a highly desirable area of the city. We further believe that while the subject property is unique, it is deserving of a more valuable purpose than providing off street parking. Salt Lake City’s forthcoming Housing SLC plan and the Thriving in Place study provide two policy goals that we believ e support the development of housing on this unique lot. Specifically: 1) Housing SLC Goal Alignment #1: Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities for low to moderate income households. Based on the size of the subject property, the likelihood that the home constructed will be smaller means that it will likely be more affordable than other properties in the neighborhood. This provides an opportunity for lower income or first-time homebuyers to establish roots in the neighborhood. The construction of this type of infill housing promotes stability in the neighborhood and will make our whole city stronger. 2) Thriving in Place Alignment: Increase housing everywhere. The subject property also aligns with the findings of the Thriving in Place study which found that housing of all kinds is needed citywide. The existing master plan for the area was written at a time with significantly less pressure in the housing market than there is today. We believe that the master plan is detached from the current reality and that any reasonable reading of current city needs would indicate the need for infill housing such as this proposal. Most other master plans in the city call for infill housing and pointing to a document approved 22 years ago as a basis for a decision about future housing goals fails to address the significant need for more housing. Furthermore, to continue to allow the subject property to languish with no valuable purpose harms the future of the neighborhood. We encourage the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council as a matter of fairness and reflecting the significant need for new housing in Salt Lake City. While this proposal will not solve Salt Lake City’s housing crisis, it is indicative of how neighborhoods with significant resources can constrain the housing supply citywide resulting in areas with fewer resources bearing the brunt of a growing city. Sincerely, Turner Bitton Executive Director SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors NEOFITOS ARCHITECTS April 25, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Ms. Lindquist, My name is Angelo Neofitos. I’m an architect and entrepreneur in Salt Lake City. I’d like to express my strong support for Anthony Arrasi’s proposal located at 1782 South 1600 East. (PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNCPCM2022-01139) I like to keep up with development news in our city and when I heard about Anthony’s proposal I was really intrigued by the challenge it poses to Salt Lake’s ideas about development. This is a proposal that questions preconceptions and assumptions. Anthony’s intentions define the spirit of Salt Lake City and our city’s curiosity to break our notions of the past. We are a city experiencing tremendous change. We’re constantly hearing about rapid population growth, the lack of affordable housing and, most recently, about inflation taking over our daily lives. This is a moment in history where we have to become resourceful to survive. In 2014 the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a document titled “Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development”. In this document, the EPA explained the challenges and benefits it foresees facing infill land development in US cities. One of the challenges that the EPA describes is that, “Infill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process.” Salt Lake City cannot afford to let it’s citizens continue to struggle with antiquated zoning codes that promote notions and lifestyles of the past. By prescribing to zoning codes established over 25 years ago, Salt Lake City stands to encumber its future majority population. The EPA states that, “With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties and many sought their own home for the first time. As of 2012, this generation comprises the largest segment of the rental housing market. With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is larger than the baby boom generation. It will continue to grow with new immigrants because most arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.” Anthony is a member of this community and he wants to establish roots and become a homeowner in Salt Lake City, and contribute to everything our great city has to offer. This is not a time to let infill lots with any potential go to waste. What we choose to do with our resources during these critical moment in our economy and history will define our future. Our city and citizens must be resourceful in a time when land has become very scarce. Salt Lake City needs to ask itself when and why, its current zoning codes were established; and can it afford to enforce stale codes which do not meet our citizens needs? Sincerely, -Evangelos Neofitos Resource: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-06/documents/developer-infill-paper-508b.pdf 222 South Main Street 5th Floor - Salt Lake City UT 84101 +1 801.231.9978 • evangelos@neofitos.design • www.neofitos.design COMMENTS 1782 E 1600 South Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Dear Judy, My wife and I live on the 1500 block of E. Blaine Avenue and we want to voice our opposition to any change to the zoning currently in place. This means we are strongly opposed to changing the SR-3 zoning that would allow the current owner to build an additional home structure and / or an ADU. This zoning should stand: this property is one lot, not two, and further, setback and depth restrictions mean this is an unbuildable property. The property is not zoned for these uses and never has been. We purchased our home on this street because we wanted to live in a less dense neighborhood. The current owner of 1782 South 1600 East is seeking to increase density at the expense of the neighbors and neighborhood solely to benefit her own pocketbook. We've heard suggestions the owner wants to rezone to help 'increase the amount of affordable housing stock in the city'. You might ask her now much she charges for the rent on the ground floor unit of her duplex (it was $2700 per month last year) and ask her how much she is going to charge for next year (it's $2900 per month). Her previous tenant moved out because the rent became unaffordable. So, if she's really interested in providing affordable housing, she should be reducing the rent, not increasing it. Further, if she is indeed committed to more affordable housing, you might ask if she has created a mother-in-law apartment in her existing single family home--her current legal residence, and if she plans to build an ADU in the backyard of her current legal residence. That would be a starting point, not trying to wring more dollars out of an existing property that is in no way a "home" for her--it's purely something she considers as a commercial opportunity. Finally, this is the third time that this owner has sought to rezone the property, and the third time the neighbors have had to mobilize to speak out to prevent two or three houses being built on one lot. This is not a hardship case: it's purely an example of a selfish absentee landlord seeking to line her pockets at the expense of the neighbors who live in owner-occupied homes on Blaine Ave and on 1600 East. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer PS--one clarification: We are opposed to changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District with a corresponding Master Plan change. Hal & Ingrid Previously, we had sent you the following email, below, in italics. Let us add in new, additional comments here (in regular font). We are extremely opposed to changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District with a corresponding Master Plan change, because if the zoning amendment is approved then there could be at least four--and up to six rental units on a property the city currently considers to be one lot: 1572 E. Blaine Avenue in Salt Lake City. Currently, there is a duplex on the property. New rules allow for an ADU to be built on that property. Then, if the rezone is approved, creating a new lot, that property could also house a duplex and an ADU or a single-family home and an ADU. The potential for this much higher density development on what currently is one lot is completely out of character for the neighborhood. It also sets a dangerous precedent. What if the other neighbors on the street, who have large lots, sell and the new owner(s) claim that two lots could be created out of one R-1 lot because, well, why not? The current owner of 1572 E Blaine seems intent on negatively impacting the quality of life for the seven neighbors whose property abuts the lot in question. No one wants the rezone. Zoning exists to preserve the stability of neighborhoods. The planning commission should consider whether the desire of one property owner, who lives in Olympus Cove, to rezone a lot historically zoned as one lot should be allowed, as it will open the door to potentially create a small rental village at the expense of those living in owner-occupied homes, who are united in their opposition to the rezone. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer To Whom it May Concern, I am writing this letter in support of the Arrasi family to build a modest home on the vacant lot of 1782 South 1600 East. As a lifelong resident of Wasatch Hollow, I can attest to the fact that this is a wonderful place to call home. The community is close-knit, the schools are excellent, and the amenities are plentiful. However, I also understand that the cost of living in this neighborhood has become increasingly expensive over the years. These increasing costs along with the scarcity of buildable land has made Wasatch Hollow, Progressive Heights and a majority of Sugarhouse become very difficult for many people to afford. As someone who inherited my childhood home and was fortunate enough to avoid the rising costs of living in the area, I understand how difficult it can be to find affordable housing in our community. This is why I fully support the proposed plan for the subject property. By doing so, the Arrasi family is not only creating an affordable home for their children but also providing an opportunity for others to potentially live in this neighborhood in the future. Lastly, from my discussions with the Arrasi family, I understand the home will be proportional in size to the lot, and the building design will compliment the surrounding homes using materials and colors that will blend in with the neighborhood. Furthermore, they have assured me that they will be mindful of the potential impact that the construction may have on the local environment, and will take steps to mitigate any negative effects. A modest home would not only provide an opportunity for affordable housing, but it would also help to maintain the character and charm of our neighborhood. Overall I believe a new home built will be a greater asset to the neighborhood than an unusable vacant lot. I want to express my support for the proposed project and wish the Arrasi family all the best with their plans. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Sincerely, Marley Bramble Wasatch Hollow Community Council Second Vice Chair Agentia Jan Thomas 04-19-23 Judy our concern is the width of the alley way for the access of emergency vehicles. According to existing standards, we understand the width is to be 22 foot wide, however the existing driveway entrance is only 19 foot 11 inches. This could limit the access for fire trucks, if the zoning is changed to SR3 and a house is built on the lot. Also adding a house or an AUD adds to the weekly issues of garbage pickup, where will the cans go in front of the Blaine Ave address? Another concern we have due to the ALLEYWAY being our access to our property for over 65 years the number of cars which will be going in and out at all hours. And in closing, we thought that a plan of what Blaine LLC is wanting to build on the lot would be shown. But all we have been told is it will be a modest home. From that description the zoning should not be amended to SR3. Thank you for all the many hours you work for the neighbor hoods in Sugarhouse. Regards, Dean and Jan Thomas 1580 Blaine Ave. Rebecca Davis Wed, Apr 19, 9:50 PM (12 hours ago) I am strongly opposed to the requested rezone from R1-7000 to SR-3 for the property located at 1782 S 1600 E. I own and live in the home west of this property - 1564 E Blaine. If the rezone is approved, the oversized garage that straddles the property line dividing 1572 E Blaine and 1782 S 1600 E will be demolished. That will create the problem of light pollution that will affect me and other neighbors to the west of me. The level of the rear of the 1572 E Blaine Ave lot was raised when the oversized garage was built. Lights from vehicles coming west down the driveway from 1600 East and turning north on the lot for parking will shine onto my back porch, into my living room, kitchen and backyard. The vehicle lights will illuminate four properties that slope downhill to the west from my property. The requested rezone is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The application for zoning amendment references language from Plan Salt Lake "Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options" (PSL pg. 19) and "Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate" (PSL pg. 21). Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex does not reflect a moderate density increase in housing. Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex is not a "small inflll opportunity" as described in the Zoning Amendment when it references Growing SLC - A Five Year Housing Plan 2018- 2022. This is a neighborhood of single family homes, several duplexes and a fourplex located at the bottom of Blaine Avenue next to 1500 E. Rezoning this one property as SR-3 sets a precedent that could negatively change the character of the neighborhood. As current owners sell their properties, new owners could request zoning changes from R1-7000 to build multiple dwellings on existing lots. Our neighborhood would never be the same. Its character would be destroyed. It would be a mistake to open the door to this possibility by approving the application for rezone to SR-3 at 1782 S 1600 E. Rebecca Davis 1564 E Blaine Ave SLC UT 84105 Wed, Apr 19, 9:55 PM (12 hours ago) Judi, The proposed change in zoning will impact seven homes that this plot of land touches. We bought our home two years ago, our understanding at that time was that the property to our back was a single lot, and if fitted in with the surrounding homes. There was maintained grass and a patio area for use by the occupants. During our two years in our property there have been multiple parties and BBQ’s in the patio area, with music late into the night. To say in the application that this is an undeveloped lot is inaccurate, there are facilities in place and they are used by the occupants. The application claims that the neighborhood has changed immensely. But in reality that claim is baseless if you consider the block on which they are planning to build. As the application clearly shows all the homes are built on large lots with facilities like garages, patio’s, vegetable gardens and grass. This applies equally to 1782 S 1600 E. I oppose the application as written. There is no plan on what the developer would do if the change in zoning was approved. There is also adequate provision within the current city ordinance that would allow the developer to expand the use of the land and meet the objectives of the application to provide an additional single family unit, with access from 1600 E. Regards, Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone Sent from my iPad Pro Denise Dubek Wed, Apr 19, 10:06 PM (12 hours ago) to Hello Judi, I am writing about the request by Blaine properties to re zone 1782 S. 1600 E. to SR-3. I urge the city to consider why this request is causing some stress and safety concerns for me and by the current neighborhood. As I have researched the request, I feel strongly that this potential change could create many safety hazards. The current driveway that leads to the property is too narrow for a large firetruck to drive down. General driveway standards in residential districts according to SLC.gov website regarding residential driveways, should have an approach of six (6) feet from abutting property lines and ten (10) feet from street corner property lines. In front and corner side yards, driveway approach widths shall not exceed twenty two (22) feet in SR-1 and SR-3 residential districts. This driveway doesn't meet this criteria. Due to the close proximity of the current homes in this neighborhood, a fire could easily spread to one of our homes, before a firetruck could get down the narrow, unmarked driveway. Also, where would trash bins get placed for pick up? The request to rezone and create an unwanted dwelling to be built in the middle of our current properties is just a bad consideration. I strongly oppose the request to rezone this property. Thank you for your understanding and for your willingness to consider my concern. Regards, Denise Dubek Property Owner 1792 S. 1600 E. SLC, Utah 84105 Elena Kondrashova Wed, Apr 19, 10:08 PM (12 hours ago) to me To Whom it May Concern, As relatively new Sugar House residents whose backyard backs directly to the Subject Property we were surprised to find out that there was a possibility of a separate lot existing in such an unusual and constrained configuration. The area in question seemed to be an organic extension of the Blaine Property and the two combined fit quite well with the neighborhood’s general layout. It is precisely this neighborhood’s unique characteristics that made Sugar House an attractive home for our family. This is a place with strong community ties, respectful, family friendly environment, modest home sizes and great historical heritage. All of the above are potentially threatened by the unscrupulous buildout. In fact, the applicant states the parcel should be developed to the “highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character.” We believe this is pertinent and already achievable through existing regulations that allow for construction of an accessory dwelling unit on the Subject Property. This view aligns well with the referenced Five Year Plan that seeks to increase housing while minimizing impact to the community. It is our experience that the immediate community is deeply troubled by the proposed amendment, concerned about the lack of concrete construction plans and potential profit prioritization above all else. Without definitive information on the subsequent construction post potential zoning changes we oppose the amendment. Regards, Elena Kondrashova & Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 andrea jimmie Wed, Apr 19, 10:51 PM (11 hours ago) to Judi.Short To Whom It May Concern, I have many concerns and issues regarding the possibility of rezoning the property but my biggest concern is a Firehazard. If there was an ADU what would happen if there was ever a fire? With the recent fire on 1100east and considering all the people who were forced to leave their homes, what would happen if something like that happened? There is not enough room for a fire truck and paramedic to come down that small side street and turn around safely. If the property is rezoned, the possibility of 6 rental units and people driving down the small street where my child plays, rides her bike, and walks her dog is a huge concern. Our neighborhood won't be safe anymore. There are too many unsafe people in the world and the government does nothing to protect our children. I had plans to live in this house for a long time and I never in my wildest dreams would have thought there could be a house or duplex built in my back yard , in between my home and the neighbors. I would no longer feel safe letting my child outside for the fact of the safety of playing outside is not safe due to possible traffic and the simple fact of privacy. It gives me anxiety and stresses me out with the possibility of having to move if that is approved. I'm a single mom and never had plans on moving out of this house. Do me a favor and walk into your back yard and imagine a duplex or building with multiple people living in that building living there. Ask yourself if that is something you would okay with and want for your neighborhood. Sincerely, Andrea Jimmie 1600 east resident Larry Wright Wed, Apr 19, 10:52 PM (11 hours ago) to me Dear Judi I met with Anthony Arrasi and Stephanie Arrasi (property owners requesting the zoning change to SR-3) this afternoon with Camille Thorpe to review their development plans for the lot. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information about future development and to discuss possible negative effects development would have to the neighbors. This lot shares property lines with seven property owners. We walked the property and talked about the height allowable for structures and the impact on the neighbors. We reviewed the setbacks for a structure and how that would affect the neighbors. We covered all the impacts that the neighbors has concerns about. I measured a tree up to 20' to provide a visual reference point for the neighbors so that they could imagine a structure at least that height overlooking their backyards. Anthony did not have a development plan established yet because of the expense, not even a hand drawing of the proposal of a single-family home showing some type of design features. Is it 1 or 2 stories? Is the plan for it to be a modern type home, bungalow, or a cottage style? I had no information to take back to the neighbors other than Anthony wants to build a modest single-family home. Anthony told us that, one way or another, a structure will be built on the property. It will be either a single-family home or a 1000 sq.foot ADU. The neighbors have a choice on which one. The city has deemed that this lot is one lot. Since the Arrasis provided no development plan to evaluate, I request that the planning committee deny the zoning request to change the current zoning from R-1-700 to SR-3. The city recently made changes to allow an ADU on a lot with a duplex already in place; this will adversely affect the neighbors. My property is two doors west of the lot in question, and its value will go down. So will the property values of all seven adjacent neighbors. Just because the city makes it possible to build an ADU on your property dosen't make it the right thing to do. Thanks Larry Wright Ann Wright Wed, Apr 19, 11:03 PM (11 hours ago) to Dear Judi, In regard to the property at 1782 S 1600 E, I would like to state that I oppose rezoning to SR-3. Because of the number of neighbors impacted by any development of this lot, I believe that an SR-3 zoning would give the property owners carte blanche to overdevelop the lot. This entire block is zoned R-1-7000, and anything that occurs on this property should reflect that. There should be more restrictions, not fewer, especially in regard to height specifications. Between this lot and the neighboring lot (to the west) there is a grade change 2 to 4 feet. Please consider the impact of a two story building with minimal setbacks upon that neighbor, not to mention the six other neighbors sharing property lines with the lot in question. To zone the property in question SR-3 would create the potential for future abuse in the event that the lot is resold. It could be developed any way the owner chose. Legally speaking, the lot could accommodate a duplex and an ADU. But that does not make it right. If you were to come walk the lot you could easily imagine the adverse impact of that sort of development on the adjacent homeowners. Please walk in our shoes. The following pattern keeps occurring in our city as the development boom continues: the developer makes a verbal commitment to honor a request for a height restriction, or a setback, a “modest bungalow or cottage,” but when the construction starts these commitments are abandoned. Suddenly, in a neighborhood of single-story dwellings, footings for a two-story structure appear, and the resulting structure throws shade on gardens, violates privacy, obstructs views, and lowers property values. Surely, the people who live in the neighborhood should have some say in the changes imposed on them by investors. Thank you, Ann Wright Dina D Dear Judi, My name is Dina DeWeerd and I reside at 1548 East Blaine Avenue. I am two blocks west of the proposed lot to be rezoned. My husband and I searched for three years for a great neighborhood, close to our jobs to raise our family. As we searched we saw an undesirable trend of investors buying and stacking as many homes possible on what was originally a single family lot. We chose not to purchase there. We were drawn to the charm of Sugarhouse and the R1-7000 zoning was a major factor in our decision to purchase this home in 2009 as we were no longer looking for a high density living situation. I am opposing the request to re-zone 1781 South 1600 East for the following reasons: The request to rezone one lot, is not keeping with the character of the neighborhood that is zoned entirely RI- 7000. The request to rezone, in hopes of building another home behind an investment property does not keep with the character of the neighborhood. Also, this lot has been declared unbuildable by the city in the past. The potential now for ADU’s to be added to the existing investment property and proposed new home, would not represent a moderate density increase in this area. May I ask you to please listen to the voices of the people who LIVE here and who's daily lives will be affected by the decisions of one owner who does not live in the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Dina DeWeerd camille thorpe 1:39 AM (8 hours ago) to , Larry, Rebecca (Thank you, Judi = ) Rezone request to SR-3 1782 S. 1600 Ea Camille Thorpe 1784 S. 1600 Ea Thank you for your consideration, If this were a simple case of “NIMBYISM”, the only owner who could claim it would be – me. My address is 1784 So. 1600 East and this is IN my backyard. But as you can also see there are concerns from seven (7) other neighbors who would be adversely impacted by a change to SR-3, and touching this lot, too. NIMBY is beyond all our backyards and becomes a question of dangerous precedent- setting for other neighborhoods in Sugarhouse. I encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to not approve this zoning change. Normally zoning changes are for an area, not just for one unique spot. Our neighborhood is not opposed to more neighbors. But we are opposed to having this small, unique lot setting precedence for the broader community. And what would the legal definition of a “modest bungalow” be anyway? That unknown factor of what could be built (and added upon) at 1782 S. 1600 East is another reason this neighborhood does not want a SR-3 zoning change. Another reason I am opposed to rezoning here is because it will require so many variance requests that there would be very little chance for governance on any changes. Both of the two-story structures Anthony has talked about are too tall. The ground has already been raised 4-feet. A one-story structure might be a solid compromise indicating that the owners have heard their neighbors, understood the neighborhood place, and appreciate that their current desires could detract from what makes Sugarhouse Sugarhouse. #Not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This zone change proposal could have long lasting effects on those who live here, and determine who will choose to live here, or not. Kind regards, Camille Thorpe | 8:30 AM (1 hour ago) to me Hi Judi – A few thoughts… +++ The applicant has not provided enough information about his intentions to enable his neighbors or the SHCC to form an opinion about the merits of the project. At our meeting on April 17, it became clear that neighbors were uncertain about plans for shared driveway easements, disposition of a large garage that crosses proposed new lot lines, and buildable area/setback/height requirements on the L-shaped lot that the applicant wishes to create. We recommend that the applicant: 1. Defer his review with the Planning Commission 2. Create a site plan of his vision for the two lots that meets the requirements of the proposed R3 zoning 3. Discuss this site plan with neighbors 4. Return to SHCC LUZ for further discussion Judi, As a neighbor in close proximity to the subject property, I am voicing my opposition to the proposed Zoning change for several reasons. The 4,815 sf lot is odd-shaped and a large portion would be un-buildable due to access constraints. With a width of SHCC Letter to PC 1782 Blaine Avenue.docx www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1 April 19, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCM2022-01083 and PLNPCM2022-01139 We received a request for a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for the parcel at 1782 South 1600 East. The property owner anticipates building a single-family dwelling on the property. The property is currently zoned R 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) and they wish to change it to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). This was one of five items on the SHCC Land Use Agenda April 17, with many people in attendance, approximately 6 from this neighborhood, including the petitioner. If the property is rezoned, then the petitioner can begin to design a building(s), which may or may not need to come back through the Planning Commission. We all know we have a group of housing plans coming before the Planning Commission and City Council which are intended to make it easier to develop additional housing for the citizens of Salt Lake City. This lot has been declared unbuildable twice before, but with the new SR-3 zone, may be able to fit in a dwelling of some sort. Part of the problem is the strange shape of the lot, and the difficulty of figuring out how to place a dwelling, while still having adequate access for fire and other neighbors who use either of these “alleys” to access their property. The current duplex on the parcel is not affordable, according to the neighbors, and they know building a new building will be very expensive, so the new units, whether it is one home or an ADU or a duplex, will by definition not be affordable. You can read the attached comments for more information about what exists on the lot currently, including a very large garage (24’ x 56’ according to the Salt Lake County Assessor) that is quite tall right on the property line, that is not well-maintained. There is a lot of animosity from the neighbors about this long-standing problem, and it seems they have not been able to communicate with the petitioners. We recommend that you have two options. Either you deny this request, or ask that the petitioner to develop plans with drawings and sign a development agreement that spells exactly what they will build in terms of one building or two, height and dimensions, and location on the parcel, before this goes to the City Council. We think this should include something that says what the rental cap will be, so as to meet the city’s goals of building more affordable housing. In addition you need to get the fire department to sign off on whether the driveways are adequate for them to get in and fight a fire. fewer than 47 feet, the required SR-3 setbacks would further limit construction. This would create a very different yard for the proposed dwelling, compared to the neighborhood at large. I do have additional concerns over emergency vehicle access with the narrow driveway, and a sharp turn to access the proposed dwelling. Especially during winters with high snowfall...There's nowhere to put the shoveled snow. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you for your public service. Craig Craig Schriber 1532 E. Blaine Ave, SLC 84105 Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Policy and Budget Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: FY 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Staff Note: The Council previously approved holding a CIP public hearing on July 18 and August 8 which have been publicly advertised. The Council is tentatively scheduled to continue discussing CIP project-specific funding on July 18, August 8, and vote on August 15. MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to August 8. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE:FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ANNUAL BUDGET BOOK: Pages 67-68 and 143 – 154 CIP BUDGET BOOK PAGES: - 5-12 shows a summary table of proposed projects and funding sources - 13-15 lists CIP projects not recommended for funding - 19-23 identify existing bonds paid from CIP (does not include General Obligation bonds) and other ongoing obligations - 27-53 has project specific pages for the recommended General Fund CIP projects - 57-108 has project specific pages for enterprise fund capital projects (Airport, Golf, and Public Utilities) NEW INFORMATION The Council added a total of $1,258,815 to the FY2024 CIP budget above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. This funding is from two sources: $644,126 Funding Our Future limited to the five critical need areas, and $614,689 recaptured from capital projects older than three years which are basically General Fund dollars available to any CIP project. As a reminder, the five Funding Our Future categories are: improved street conditions (sidewalk-to-sidewalk), greater housing opportunities, better public transit services, public safety (fire, police, social workers, and 911 dispatch), and parks maintenance. Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,214,126. Of this amount, $496,412 could come from impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding funding to CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are recommended for funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order and updated since the first briefing. Project Timeline: Budget Hearings: May 16 & June 6, 2023 1st Briefing: June 6, 2023 2nd Briefing: July 11, 2023 3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 18, 2023 4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Note: The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project specific funding is approved by September 1. Page | 2 Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety -$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees (second phase listed below) -Council Member Petro expressed interest in only funding the $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs pending available funding -The project could be partially funded in two or three phases: o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the other two phases (at any time) Council Member Wharton: Project #57 requesting $210,000 for Ensign Peak Nature Park Access and Security Improvements -The project would install new lighting, an access gate and fence at the popular trailhead, and landscaping around the entrance -The nature park has experienced on and off nuisance (traffic, noise, littering, trespassing) and criminal activity (fires, public intoxication, firearm discharges) for several years particularly late at night -The project appears ineligible for parks impact fees Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground -$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees -Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements -The project is 10% eligible for transportation impact fees which is $49,412 -The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the Council for adoption -The project could be split into phases which would increase the total cost. Individual cost estimates by intersections and potential phase are: o Phase 1: ▪2600 East / Foothill Drive: $110,000 ▪Westminster / Foothill Drive: $20,000 ▪Laurelhurst / Foothill Drive: $85,000 o Phase 2: ▪Blaine + 2500 E / Foothill Drive: $170,000 ▪Bryan / Foothill Drive: $110,000 Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 -Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street -An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding -The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study Project #1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Council staff asked the Administration how does the proposed Library Plaza structural assessment and visioning project relate to the already funded 200 East Green Loop designs and study, the Washington Square Master Plan, and the several studies already done about the plaza (2002 Library Square Block Plan, 2017 Evaluating Library Square Urban Land Institute Report, 2018 GSBS Architects Library Square Study, and others)? The Administration’s response is copied below for reference. “This March, a planning and design consultant, Wenk Associates, was hired by the inter-departmental City team to work on studying the Green Loop, including more detailed planning and schematic (preliminary) design for the 200 East leg (South Temple to 900 South). Assessing land uses, utilities, transportation, demographics, future development, and other information will help the City understand the possibilities for a drastically different design for the street, including more green space and necessary utilities. This also considers the impacts and feasibility of a “festival street” between 400 South and 500 South. Final documents will form the Page | 3 basis of federal grant applications that the City will submit in April 2024. The Green Loop project will target the Right of Way, as opposed to the Library Plaza CIP application which includes the public space within the block. The submitted CIP application for this funding cycle is intended to provide a vision, plan and conceptual design for Library Plaza ($125,000 of a larger $190,000 Library Plaza application). If funded, this process will identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza and revitalizing the space as a site for large public events, as originally intended. Solutions will mitigate barriers to access and enjoyment, including direct sunlight, lack of shade, urban heat island effect, and protection from the elements. With Salt Lake City being a potential candidate for the 2030 or 2034 Olympics, reimagining and retrofitting this space will be critical if Library Plaza and adjacent civic sites are intended to be used to host significant events and accommodate additional capacity. It is critical that these studies, plans, and schematic designs of 200 East and Library Plaza be completed before the City can confidently understand the need for and costs of additional design and construction of these sites.” Policy Question: ➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the City’s policy goal is to advance the concept of a Civic Campus by further connecting the two sides of 200 East between 400 S and 500 S (Washington Square and Library Plaza). Previous Councils discussed and funded studies to look at changing this one-block section of 200 East to facilitate public events and the Civic Campus concept. Project #60 Maintenance of City-owned Property The Council approved $700,000 for this use in the last annual budget of which $598,685 remains available. Another $700,000 was requested of which $200,000 (the base ongoing funding) was approved as part of the annual budget adoption on June 13. The Administration provided the following list of five projects with high- level cost estimates (FY2023 remaining funds and FY2024 requested funds). The Public Services Department is conducting a facility assessment which may recommend projects to use these funds. Policy Question: ➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether some of the $500,000 requested in FY2024 could be used for other CIP projects since the FY2023 remaining appropriation of $598,685 is enough to cover the cost estimates of the five items listed below. $100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB): (Note this building is also called the Northwest Pipeline Building at 315 E 200 S) The Administration is planning projects that will improve the safety and security of the building and surrounding property while the property is being prepared for redevelopment. These improvements include repair to an existing gate, a new motorized gate to access Magnolia parking, improvements to the park strip, ongoing landscape maintenance and cleanup (including biowaste cleanup), and car towing and disposal. These expenses are anticipated to cost up to $100,000. $200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study: (Note the Council may consider this item as a separate project since the scope is beyond maintenance of city- owned property) The Administration would like to utilize a portion of these funds to issue an RFP for a consultant to develop a Disposition and Development Strategy for a suite of City-owned parcels, with the intent of planning for future space needs, identifying surplus property for future municipal purposes, and identifying property for revenue generation. This effort, anticipated to be as much as $200,000, is somewhat outside of the scope of the approved use of funding and may require a scope adjustment. $100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building Leased by Odyssey House: This project was awarded $500,000 in CIP funding for structural repairs. Public Services is working on a site assessment in order to identify improvements and develop bids. Based on the condition of the building, it is believed that the necessary improvements may require an additional $100,000+ to bring the building up to health, safety, and welfare standards. Odyssey House has abandoned operations in one section of the building due to safety issues and is still operating its programming in the other section on a limited basis. $100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties: The Administration would like to utilize a portion of the funding for maintenance of not only vacant city-owned property but for property that is leased to a third-party (vacant from city municipal function). Projects include replacement of a disintegrating fence at the Salt Lake Acting Company building, anticipated to be up to $15,000. In addition, improvements are needed to the Memorial House building that are the responsibility of the City Page | 4 pursuant to the lease, including items such as HVAC replacement, repair of windows and doors, repair of water damage, etc. These repairs could cost up to $75,000. $50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety Building (PSB): The Administration is planning to use up to $50,000 to prepare Fleet Block and the former PSB for redevelopment. Funds will be used for surveys, title work, appraisals, subdivision of property, etc. Project #61 Urban Trails Maintenance (Note this is proposed to be a new ongoing annual maintenance line item) The Administration provided the following description of this new line item. “These funds will be used for repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow removal, debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom Trail. Short description: These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round.” Surplus Land Fund Updated Balance During the review of capital accounts older than three years, the Finance Department identified a few old property management accounts with land sale proceeds that should have been returned to the Surplus Land Fund because that was the original source for the unused funds. The Surplus Land Funds new balance is $5,128,676 after these proceeds are transferred. CIP Debt Load Projections through FY2027 The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available funding through FY2027. Pay as you go projects reflect new capital projects. The chart shows relatively stable debt load projections using approximately 55% of the annual General Fund transfer to CIP. An important caveat to note is the chart assumes 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues are transferred into CIP annually. The FY2023 budget hit the 9% transfer goal but the City has typically been closer to 7% over the past 15 years. The FY2024 budget transferred 7.1% of ongoing General Fund revenues into CIP (after including the Council’s $1.2 million above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget) which means less funding is available to go to new projects. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase. Page | 5 Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves debt payments and ongoing obligations as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations, and City departments submit project applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations which this year are identical to the advisory board’s except one project; $150,000 for Westside Art was proposed after the CDCIP board completed their deliberations. The Council considers both sets of funding recommendations and ultimately decides project specific funding. Funding for capital improvements sometimes occurs in midyear budget amendments but the annual CIP process is the Council’s largest annual opportunity to fund large public construction projects. This report provides an overview of the proposed overall budget for FY2024, projects of Council Member interest not recommended for funding, policy questions, and further details in the Additional Info section and attachments. Overview of the FY2024 CIP Proposed Budget The total FY2024 CIP budget is $39.3 million which is $7.4 million (16%) less than last year. FY2023 was a record year for CIP with nearly $47 million total funding plus the $67.5 Million Sales Tax Bond and $85 million Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond. The proposed FY2024 CIP budget is closer to the City’s typical total CIP funding level in recent years. However, the General Fund transfer to CIP (first row in the table below) is 6.8% of ongoing revenues which is slightly below the 7% seen in most budget years (last year was a record at 9%). An additional $851,814 would be needed to reach the 7% level for FY2024. Most of the lower total CIP funding is caused by removal of $3.7 million in one-time funds used in FY2023 to replace hand held radio equipment and the shift of $1.8 million from Funding Our Future for parks from CIP (as it was in the FY2023 budget) to personnel costs. The Administration indicates that ongoing funding spent on vehicles this year for those personnel could be added to CIP again next year. The table below details funding sources for CIP by fiscal year. See Attachment 5 for an overview of the major CIP Funding Sources. Other highlights include: $10.3 Million Unrestricted Funds – $10,287,935 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). This does not include the Funding Our Future source which the Council has restricted to five critical need areas. $1.4 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the smallest amount since FY2017. There are over $20.7 million of impact fees available to spend across the four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See Additional info section for more. It’s worth noting the Council sometimes approves significant amounts of impact fees for capital expenses in midyear budget amendments so CIP is not the only relevant budget opening. $300,000 Decrease for County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding source three years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue line items, this one has experienced significant growth in recent years but is projects to slightly decrease in FY2024. $10.9 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $10,901,526 (44%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However, it should be noted that $4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond for which the Council has not approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY2024 projects if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year Page | 6 Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,514,126. Of this amount, $747,000 could come from parks impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding funding to CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are recommended for funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order: Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety -$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees -The project could be partially funded in two or three phases: o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the other two phases (at any time) and potentially with funding from the temporary traffic calming intervention funding in the Transportation Division’s base budget Council Member Puy: Project #18 requesting $500,000 for Madsen Park Improvements -$300,000 is eligible from park impact fees -CDCIP Board said if additional funding is available, then this project is their next highest priority -Madsen Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground -$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees -Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements -Some elements might be partially eligible for transportation impact fees -The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the Council for adoption -A request has been submitted to the Administration for phasing options Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 $ C h an g e % C h an g e Ge ne r al Fund 1 5 ,1 2 6 ,884$ 2 5 ,2 3 1 ,4 3 1$ 2 1 ,1 89 ,4 6 1$ (4 ,0 4 1 ,9 7 0 )$ -1 6 % Fu nd ing Our Futu r e *3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,6 2 6 ,87 5$ (1 ,4 7 3 ,1 2 5 )$ -2 9 % Cla ss C 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 7 % I m p a c t Fe e s**8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 4 ,1 5 9 ,7 5 5$ 2 ,9 6 8,85 0$ (1 ,1 9 0 ,9 0 5 )$ -2 9 % CDBG 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 7 2 2 ,0 0 0$ -$ (7 2 2 ,0 0 0 )$ ONE-TI ME Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o u nts***2 5 2 ,2 7 1$ 1 5 2 ,6 6 0$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sale s Ta x 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 8,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 7 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0$ (3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -4 % Su r p lu s Land Fund 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ -$ -$ ONE-TI ME Sm it h's Naming Rig h t s Re v e nue 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (4 ,0 0 0 )$ -3 % SLC Sp o r ts Co mple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 0 ,5 0 0$ 1 ,9 9 5$ 1 % Me m o r ial Ho use Re nt Re v e nue 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (1 8,5 5 4 )$ -2 7 % TOTA L 3 6 ,0 2 7 ,1 3 1$ 4 6 ,7 3 6 ,9 0 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (7 ,4 0 1 ,2 1 9 )$ -1 6 % TOTA L w ith o u t ONE-TI ME 3 5 ,2 5 2 ,86 0$ 4 5 ,86 2 ,2 4 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (6,5 2 6 ,5 5 9 )$ -1 4 % *I nc lu d e s % to CI P "o ff t h e to p" av aila b le t o a ny pro je c t , a nd fu nding fo r t ra nsit , a nd pub lic rig h t o f w ay infra st ru c ture . A ls o , fu nd ing so urc e is o ng o ing b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h ange t h e u se c a te go rie s in t h e fu ture **Th e re a re fo ur im p a c t fe e ty pe s: fire , p a rks, po lic e a nd st re e ts ***I nc lu de s re c ap t u re d fu nds fro m m u lt ip le funding so u rc e s No t e : Th e re 's a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re duc tio n no t se pa rate d o u t in t h e ta b le ab o v e fo r FY 2 0 2 2 C I P Fu n din g So u rc e s A do pt e d 2 0 2 1-2 2 A do p t e d 2 0 2 2 -2 3 Pro p o se d 2 0 2 3 -2 4 FY 2 0 2 3 t o FY 2 0 2 4 Page | 7 -Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street -An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding -The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study Simplified Funding Log and Project Scores from CDCIP Resident Advisory Board (See Attachment 4 for the simplified funding log) The CDCIP Board scored each CIP application which serves as a general guide to help inform funding decisions but is not meant to be strictly adhered to. The Board recommends that if additional funding were available, then project #18 Madsen Park Improvements be prioritized. The log also includes a social vulnerability index developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) using 16 factors to rank Census Tracts. The next column shows scores from the Sustainability Department where 10 is the highest (best) possible. Then the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails or PNUT Board scores are shown where 1 is the highest (best) possible. The last column on the sight side shows current pavement conditions for public right of way (streets, alleys, curb & gutter, and sidewalks) where applicable. Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years (Attachment 6 – Pending at time of publishing this staff report) The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) states that remaining funds should be considered for recapture from completed projects and unfinished projects that are older than three years unless there has been significant progress. The table in Attachment 6 is the staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP projects. Most of the 128 projects received General Fund dollars or impact fees. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the other sources like Class C, CDBG, impact fees, and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential funding to recapture will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Capital Asset Plan Early Policy Check-in Briefing – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing for an early policy check-in about the guiding priorities and framework for developing the Capital Asset Plan (five-year CIP plan). The Non-departmental budget has a $350,000 transfer to IMS for Capital Asset Planning software to facilitate development and periodic updating of the plan. See Attachment 7 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests from a briefing in 2019. 2.Livable Streets (Traffic Calming) Program Funding Level – The Council may wish to discuss the funding level and pace of implementing the Livable Streets Program. See Attachment 9 with information from the Transportation Division including first year accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones. The Division anticipates completing six or seven zones (neighborhoods) at the proposed funding level of $1.35 million in FY2024 combined with the $2 million from FY2023 CIP. An additional $9 million would be needed to fully fund the remaining 18 high need zones (red, orange, and yellow on the color-coded map assuming an average cost of $500,000 per zone). 3.Combine Two Separate $150,000 Appropriations for Westside Art – The Council may wish to continue the discussion from the RDA FY2024 budget overview about whether to combine two separate $150,000 appropriations proposed for new art on the Westside. One appropriation is proposed in CIP and the other is proposed in the RDA 9-Line Project Area. 4.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for the maximum amounts a project may receive, which hasn’t been updated since 2004 (see section 11 of Attachment 1). 5.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Page | 8 Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings in recent years that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. 6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic-by-topic email requests to consolidated monthly reports. Council Members could then more quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Definition of a CIP Project As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment 1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from projects that finished under budget or were not pursued. Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 8) Cost estimates will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and August. The current version was last updated in July 2022. Cost estimates for various types of projects are based on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. Inflation and supply chain constraints have continued to impact the City’s capital projects so the costs shown in the current version are likely more expensive now. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate increases. The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer-term trends. Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type This chart was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log since FY2017, and whether the application is come a constituent or internal to a City department. The FY2024 CIP cycle has 59 project requests which is about average over the time shown in the chart. FY2021 had the fewest with 19 project requests only from departments (it was intentionally an “abbreviated CIP cycle” per the Administration at the time). FY2023 had the most with 90 project requests. 10 13 19 14 0 24 41 29 67 37 35 40 19 50 49 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2022 FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY) Constituent Departmental Page | 9 Surplus Land Fund The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $2,374,127 and another $2,195,130 is proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6. If approved, then the total available balance would be $4,569,257. The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property. The funds are one-time because the property can only be sold once. Cost Overrun Account The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $823,081 and another $100,000 is proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6 as a reimbursement to the account. The FY2024 CIP budget includes $247,571 of additional funding. If the two appropriations are approved, then the total available balance would be $1,170,652. The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act on a budget amendment which typically takes a few months. 1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks (New annual report is pending from the Arts Council) The Administration stated the annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal year and planned for the next will be transmitted to the Council in July or August. This timing is after the annual budget is adopted so the amount of funding available in CIP overall allows the 1.5% to be calculated and inform how those funds would be used. Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP funding for art. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to maintenance (as opposed to new artworks). This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces and counting. The collection is expected to continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is current as of April 24, 2023, and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #6 of FY2023. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $2,728,850 of parks impact fees and $240,000 of transportation impact fees. The total amount of the four impact fee types is $20,730,097. Impact fees must be encumbered within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the intervening six years. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $0 More than two years away - Parks $13,980,808 More than two years away - Police $1,339,030 More than two years away - Transportation $5,410,259 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Clarifying “Complete Streets” and “Livable Streets” Initiatives Page | 10 (See Attachment 9 for a Livable Streets Program update from the Transportation Division including first year accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones) There are two separate pots of funding – one for “complete streets” and another for “Livable Streets” – which are both under the CIP umbrella. The “complete streets” funding is intended to be used to ensure that major street reconstruction projects meet the standards defined in City Code Chapter 14.06, with elements like bike lanes (Complete Streets). The “Livable Streets” funding is intended to be used for neighborhood scale traffic calming projects as defined by the Livable Streets program presented to the Council in October 2021. This is separate from street reconstruction projects. The program ranked all 113 zones citywide across several variables including crash data, community assets, and resident socioeconomic factors. In August 2022, the Council provided policy guidance that a citywide needs-based equity approach should be used to prioritize zones based on the ranking. CIP Tracking Technology Improvements The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. A project dashboard is in development. Once complete, the Administration plans to make the dashboard publicly available. The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017 2. FY2024 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing 3. FY2024 Mayor’s Recommended CIP Budget Book Log 4. FY2024 Simplified CIP Funding Log by CDCIP Board Scores 5. Overview of CIP Major Funding Sources 6. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years 7. Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019 8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (last updated July 2022) 9. Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary and Updated Zone Map ACRONYMS CAP – Capital Asset Plan (a five-year CIP plan) CDBG – Community Development Block Grants CDC – Centers for Disease Control CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board CIP – Capital Improvement Program ESCO – Energy Service Company FTE – Full-time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GO Bond – General Obligation Bond IMS – Information Management Systems Department PSB – Public Safety Building RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017 (Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.) R 17-1 R 17-13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds, Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement Program funds and other similar funding sources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software). Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project." 2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May. 3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration : a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital program period; b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one- year capital budget. 4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects that: a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies , establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding . 8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely manner. 9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor , and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above. 10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1) year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which reads as follows: a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still required. b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: 1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of $100,000 or less; ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo. c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees. d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval. e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening. However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting." 12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. 13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account. 14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold. 15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance, changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log. 16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible, capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the General Fund budget. 17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s) should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist. 18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects funding log should identify: a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's funding recommendations, b. The Administration's funding recommendations, c. The project name and a brief summary of the project, d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type, e. The project life expectancy, f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area, g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger project, h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded separately, 1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together, j. Timing for when a project will come on-line, k. Whether the project implements a master plan, 1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or sustainability goals, m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund, n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions, o. Communities served, p. Legal requirements/mandates, q. Whether public health and safety is affected, r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and t. Any partner organizations . Debt Management Policies 1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs. 2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings. 3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds. 4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating implications). 6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance. 7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry . 8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt. 9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule. 10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of emergency. 11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating debt financing options . 12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments. 13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the project. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of October , 2017. ATTEST : HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By 4 = ASL CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____ Salt Lake City App ed As To Form By: ~~~~~~~.P aysen Oldroyd Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Requested Funding: $190,000 Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls) visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues, followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain, retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increased usage in line with its original intent as a public event space. Salt Lake City is a potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and reimagining space within this site will be critical first steps if the City wants to use this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture between Public Lands and Facilities. 190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide Requested Funding: $900,000 This request will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices to address safety issues. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings -Crosswalks on Main Street are simply inadequate by modern standards; the Transportation Division has developed a phased improvement plan that began with a 2022 resurfacing project after which Main Street was restriped with one travel lane in each direction. Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks; about half will be done in 2023 with funds already allocated. This request is for construction funds for the remaining locations. 2. Glendale Park / 1700 South - Community engagement show an overwhelming desire from neighborhood residents to have a safer and more comfortable way to cross 1700 South, with residents repeatedly requesting a tunnel or bridge to cross this wide roadway carrying heavy truck traffic. This request is for funds to upgrade the existing crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian- activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south. 3. Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers, signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety. 270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ 270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 1 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 3 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements Requested Funding: $234,000 200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks. The area — between 1700 South and 2100 South — is home to a higher proportion of people with disabilities than any other Census tract in the state of Utah, yet a portion of it is inaccessible to people with disabilities. There is a 300 ft segment of 200 East that does not have sidewalks on the east side of the street between Garfield Ave and Coatsville Ave. Through discussions with City staff and the constituent applicant, we developed a solution that provides a continuous ADA accessible pathway on the west side of 200 East between Garfield Ave and 1700 South. This involves new curb ramps at Downington Ave/200 E and Garfield Ave/200 E), about 50 ft of sidewalk replacement, and pavement markings to formalize the crosswalks. Additionally, a crosswalk upgrades will be added at 200 East 1700 South, where there is a marked crosswalk near a high school, the Salt Lake Community College and the Tim and Brenda Huval daycare center on the north side of 1700 South. Driver cooperation is low at this crosswalk, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) will help to ensure compliance and a safer crossing. 234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments Requested Funding: $1,500,000 Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks, and trash cans. They also empty the trash cans! If accessibility is limited by bicycle and/or pedestrian connections to bus stops, these funds may be used to close those gaps. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million dollar projects; a portion of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds, providing match, and together creating the full project. In some cases, these funds were combined with other projects to maximize those investments, for example by mobilizing construction crews once for two or more related and co-located projects. This also serves to minimize construction disruption to the community. -$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ -$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 2 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 5 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide Requested Funding: $6,600,000 This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer intersections, placemaking, and street greening. • 2100 South (700 E to 1300 E) - This corridor in the heart of Sugarhouse has long needed reconstruction and represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make substantial upgrades to its central role in one of Salt Lake City's largest and most walkable business districts. This street currently does a poor job of serving all who use it. This funding would enable the City to complete a meaningful transformation of this critical roadway with complete streets improvements for all modes. • Virginia Street (11th Ave to South Temple) - This neighborhood road provides access between the Avenues and South Temple for people driving, walking, riding, or taking the bus. The road is missing sections of sidewalk on the west side, lacks bike lanes (more bicyclists use Virginia Street than other principal north-south streets in the Avenues), and has aging medians that the neighborhood has long desired to have removed (and replaced with more effective traffic calming). The requested funding would fill the gaps of missing sidewalk, improve bus stops, enhance pedestrian crossings, add uphill bike lane/downhill shared lane, and implement traffic calming. • Citywide corridor designs and restriping, primarily tied to Streets Division surface treatments and/or in preparation for reconstruction. -$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $750,000 This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation. -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 3 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 7 Livable Streets Implementation Requested Funding: $2,500,000 This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need. 250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 Neighborhood Byways Requested Funding: $800,000 Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking, bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway. Both of these projects are currently in conceptual design with significant community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant. 440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ 440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ 9 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $4,500,000 This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 4 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 10 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion Requested Funding: $507,000 This park (Emery St and 800 S.) currently has a half court - which is used, frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it. Basketball, to an extent, is the glue that holds the youth in our neighborhood together. It creates bonds. Sees no color - just "mad skills"! This park has needed some TLC for a VERY long time. This year, we finally saw some improvements in the form of sprinkler repairs. Our volleyball court received some intense care to pull out weeds, and till the sand. Guess what? The youth and families are now converging for a game or two every other day. "If you build it, they will come," holds true over and over again as we start to see some overdue care on the Westside. Adding the full basketball court, along with the dual pickle ball and tennis court (underway by the Public Lands Dept.) to this Park, will bring it to the light it truly deserves. This project will fund the expansion of the court which includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing, signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting skills over the years). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project - it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long 253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$ 253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$ 11 Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan Requested Funding: $200,000 This project will fund the development of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the 33.5 acres of both Jordan Park and the International Peace Gardens. The CLR will outline site history, elements and features that contribute to the historic and cultural significance of the site, and recommendations to retain and enhance these values. The CLR will inform and be followed by a Master Plan for the site. The master plan will include potential recommendations for how and if Salt Lake City should expand the Peace Gardens and increase amenities and programming at Jordan Park. This funding will include robust community and stakeholder engagement, visioning for both sites, as well as implementation strategies and prioritization. Public Lands has received significant interest from stakeholders, cultural associations and organizations, and individuals to expand the Peace Gardens, which will require formal planning before proceeding with expansion. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 5 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 12 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet Requested Funding: $850,000 In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to replace the existing failing restroom. 202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 13 Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum Requested Funding: $850,000 At the urging and recommendation of Salt Lake City staff, this application comes to rectify a miscalculation by the city in estimating the cost of the 2023 CIP "Three Creeks West – Roadways" project, which calls for reconstructing about two blocks of 1300 South and 1000 West beside the Jordan River. This Council-approved project will install sanitary sewers, storm sewers, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roadway reconstruction and all necessary infrastructure. None of this infrastructure exists in this residential neighborhood, established in the 1920s to 1950s. The oldest house on the roadway was built in 1925 and mine was built in 1939. Installing sanitary sewers will enable removal of failing septic systems that are leaching harmful E. coli into surface water, causing a health threat. This project is endorsed by the Glendale Community Council and residents of all 25 homes on the roadways. Staff tell me the 2023 city-generated estimate for this project fell short to cover costs, and $850,000 more is needed. The project was approved by the CIP citizen advisory board, Mayor Erin Mendenhall, and ratified in resolution by the City Council on Aug. 16, 2022. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $3,500,000 This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 6 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 15 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail Requested Funding: $1,700,000 Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The Village is very near, but not yet connected to, key resources including frequent transit service on Redwood Road; a new Transit Hub approximately 1/3 mile directly north at Orange Street and 500 South; and the existing 9-Line Trail (from Redwood Road to the University of Utah). A charter school, Wallace Stegner Academy, also west of Redwood Road, is an additional key destination to be served by these trails. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the 9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. This segment was not able to be developed during the initial trail construction due to a lack of easement from the property owner; a portion of the $500,000 request will be used to secure that easement as well as to construct the full width of trail. -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 16 Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub Requested Funding: $459,000 The Public Lands Department has the opportunity to acquire the Rose Park Golf Course driving range from its Golf Division for the purpose of improving more equitably accessible public open space. This improvement would vastly expand green space in the Rose Park and Westpointe areas. This project would fund planning, community engagement, and conceptual design for the future driving range site as well as the existing Roots Disc Golf Course as one cohesive recreation hub. This hub would be the largest open space along the Jordan River within Salt Lake City. This funding would not include the acquisition costs of the driving range, only planning and conceptual design for that site. In addition, this project would fund design and construction of specific site improvements identified in the planning and engagement process at the Roots Disc Golf Course. This may include irrigation modifications, additional trees, building upgrades, and naturalized landscaping. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 7 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 17 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Requested Funding: $75,000 Restroom safety and vandalism present ongoing problems in city parks, especially the large, heavily used parks. Friends of Fairmont Park and other stakeholders have raised this issue with Parks officials for some time. Friends of Fairmont invited Parks to present ideas about restroom design on January 11, 2022 and dialogue occurred regarding new designs that could reduce vandalism. We have identified a key design flaw with how restrooms in the Parks are configured, and that if addressed, can significantly reduce (but sadly not eliminate) problems. The Fairmont Park Restroom Pilot CIP for 2022-23 proposes a (1) planning study to update planning guidance for parks restroom policy and practice, (2) conceptual design for a new restroom to be tested in Fairmont Park. It is expected that the new design strategy will reduce vandalism and maintenance costs and increase restroom uptime and safety. The intent is to benchmark a proposed new restroom configuration against the current design in other parks, to test the viability of this approach, developing best practice in park restroom management. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 Madsen Park Improvements Requested Funding: $500,000 This project seeks to improve Madsen Park by increasing activation through improving existing structures and adding new amenities in order to encourage more visitation. The surrounding area is planned to increase in population from apartments on and near North Temple. The improvements at the park would improve the quality of life for all area residents. Improvements include installation of new lighting, playground renewal, installation of a fenced dog park, benches, a small pavilion, seating and signage. Note that this park was selected a District Two location to receive funding from the voter-approved Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities Requested Funding: $855,000 This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored and the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts on the westside. This project would also complete associated amenities on site as funding is available such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access. Public Lands is funding the design of the courts which will be completed in early 2023. This funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other associated amenities. 438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$ 438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 8 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 20 337 Park Development Requested Funding: $550,000 337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden, but has since been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since been sitting vacant. This potential pocket park needs significant development in order to add public land level of service to District 4. Funding would facilitate public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel. Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as possible. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 9 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements Requested Funding: $840,000 There is a great need for improvements along Rose Park Ln. This project would fund replacement of the failed trail, new and modified irrigation, and two solar feedback speed limit signs. The Urban Forestry division has committed to providing trees and installation at the new sites on Rose Park Lane. The trail work would allow for significantly more trees in this area and would contribute overall to a much more beautiful space. The entire stretch of Rose Park Ln is currently covered in weeds and highly neglected. Part of it was irrigated 4-5 years ago for the WestPointe run off ditch (large grassy area/detention basin at the corner of Rose Park Ln and 1700N), but this irrigation was never extended for the remainder of that stretch of road. This lane is highly visible from I-215 with large volumes of traffic going to the beautiful soccer fields just a few feet up the road. This has increased the traffic and speed of that traffic on Rose Park Ln. Safety is an issue as cars will continue to use highway speeds down that road upward of 60 MPH. I believe that fixing the trail, planting trees with irrigation, and erecting visible solar speed limit signs on Rose Park Ln would greatly improve community morale and safety for the families that walk with their children and pets, and bike and run on this trail. Adding trees and speed limit signs will also help in reducing air pollution, high summer heat and traffic noise. I recommend solar radar feedback speed limit signs to help slow down the traffic - one sign after the 2100N Exit just beyond the RAC entrance of the RAC, and the other sign at 1700N entrance. This area has been highly neglected for the last 17 years and continues to see more and more traffic with less and less help or attention in the way of beatification of a vital and thriving neighborhood -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 Richmond Park Community Playground Requested Funding: $530,000 This project will replace one of the oldest playgrounds in the city located at Richmond Park. Utilizing the existing playground space, this project would create two play areas to cater towards younger and older children. This playground would utilize larger equipment with more features to create more potential for play and a higher level of service. The playground will incorporate accessible design to be friendly and usable by a diversity of users of all abilities. This project also includes removal and replacement of safety surfacing throughout the playground site. The new community playground will provide an inviting and engaging place for the Central City community to play while supporting resident health and wellness. This community currently has the lowest level of park service in our city and will significantly benefit from increased amenities. This playground will further activate the park by adding in a place for children to play while adults utilize the community garden. Public Lands has over 70 playgrounds, and this project would address one of the highest needs in our system. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 10 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 23 Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study Requested Funding: $140,000 In summer 2022, City Council approved the rezone of four Public Lands parcels on Rose Park Lane to Open Space. This project seeks funding to conduct a planning, engagement, and conceptual design process on these four parcels, totaling approximately 3.6 acres, for a new park/open space. This will include evaluating different uses on site and conducting studies on completing the trail connection through the open space. There is currently no sidewalk through these parcels, and there are no other amenitized park spaces that directly service this neighborhood. This project would fund initial studies to better inform a next phase for design and construction of the open space. This project is closely connected to the application "Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements" which would complete landscaping and trail improvements on the trail leading to the open space. This project also builds on Public Land's current work to demolish the abandoned house on the property which is a very high priority for the Westpointe community. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24 Jefferson Park Improvements Requested Funding: $530,000 Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks”. The City and our residents have been discussing ways to improve the park for years. The City notes that our neighborhood is “underserved for parks and open space” and given the move to increase the density of housing in the area, we can only anticipate more stressors. It is time to preserve and improve what we already have. The park currently has a small, aging playground with two benches, a set of temporary soccer nets, and an off leash dog area. We request the following: Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the area’s crime, this is essential. Health improvements: Permanent, attractive garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of garbage (including clothing, needles and human waste), and to encourage responsible dog ownership. Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provide residents a place to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 11 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 25 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation Requested Funding: $414,000 This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation occurring in 2022 and early 2023. The first phase of implementation included these ten parks: Westpointe Park, Sunnyside Park, Pioneer Park, City Creek Park, Poplar Grove Park, Cottonwood Park, Rotary Glen/Donner Trail Park, Jordan Park, Riverside Park, Liberty Park. These parks were initially chosen because they are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations currently. Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands' regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan. While some of these parks are classified as Neighborhood Parks, their size and varying amenities necessitate the need for the addition of multiple signs that are not currently present in the park. 82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 26 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase Requested Funding: $497,000 1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability. This application is requesting funds to build a traffic circle at the intersection of 1000 West and 500 North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the study/design while supporting this application for construction funds. Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood. -$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 12 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements Requested Funding: $495,111 We are in need of many improvements in the area to make residents, workers and visitors feel safe and welcomed, and for ease of getting to work safely and efficiently. In addition, there is another emotional need that enhances people's sense of enjoyment and quality of life for both residents and visitors. These much needed enhancements include pedestrian safety improvements to include, but not limited to: 1. Pedestrian-scale, decorative lighting on 800 West from North Temple to dead end at approximately 150 South. 2. Potential for raised crosswalks, RRFB(s), or other enhanced pedestrian crossing features 3. ADA/sidewalk improvements as needed. The Secondary goal, which fulfills emotional needs of the community and quality of life, would be to activate park blocks, including but not limited to: 1. Amenities / improvements for southern three park blocks, which includes the two closest to Folsom Trail and the third (southern-most) at the dead end, which in theory has the lowest volume vehicle traffic, (between 800 W. from North Temple to dead end at approximately 150 S.). Park amenities could include: Benches, Bike racks, Interactive kids’ features, Climbable public artwork, Other public artwork (Arts Council has agreed to work with team and carry out City’s public art process for commission if any public artwork funding is awarded). These improvements to 800 West will make it feel welcoming, inclusive, and safe, especially after dark. These improvements will also support activating an arts centered, vibrant Westside neighborhood. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $250,000 This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary. -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 13 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 29 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension Requested Funding: $1,148,771 Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources (both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed, requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East. The call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been steadily increasing over the past five years. In fact, it recently came to the attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there. In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5 to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus. The three newest and most advanced trucks are too long to be housed in the apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. We have implemented the use of an older, shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new, smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4 years. There is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. 1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 Requested Funding: $1,700,000 Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing assets based on their criticality. 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 14 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 31 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program Requested Funding: $750,000 The Streets Division, part of Public Services will be the project sponsor and implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will deteriorate rapidly and soon require expensive reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost. These roads would also then be eligible for chip & slurry surface treatments a few years down the road. The combination of the Mill & Overlay program with chip and slurry surface treatments would put off the need for full depth reconstruction of eligible roads for many years to come, saving the City money and increasing the quality of City roadways. To carry out this pilot program Streets needs two additional pieces of equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine. These machines would also assist in other maintenance the division performs, as currently a cold milling machine is rented for four months each year (when available) at an annual cost of $70,000. -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ 32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 Requested Funding: $150,000 Design and construction of City staff recommendations on the project area’s six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street. Continued funding on partially funded CCIP, Sugar House Safe Side Streets, from FY 21/22. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has conducted a series of sessions with residents and worked with a contracted Fehr & Peers consultant team. A recommendations document with a draft traffic calming treatment design has been created and shared with residents. This CCIP request seeks to fill the funding gap between what has been awarded in previous years and what is required to complete the infrastructure recommended for implementation in the plan. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 15 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 33 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens Requested Funding: $325,000 The International Peace Gardens in District 2 receives hundreds of visitors per day but contains much tired and dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by stolen plaques and artwork everywhere remind visitors of theft and vandalism and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and botanic diversity. Specific projects are listed in the budget narrative and will be completed in priority order, if funded. Additionally, if funding is leveraged by other sources, this funding would be used to complete additional projects. The types of projects include: Security/GPS tracking chips for each asset, conservation and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space. 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements Requested Funding: $361,073 Improved public access for intended non-consumptive nature users through 1) the installation of boulder manways at all three entrances, 2) complete removal of dysfunctional Preserve-long split-rail fencing, 3) complete removal of rock-filled gabion baskets at both pond-side access points, and 4) creation of sloped cracked gravel beaches at both pondside access points. Installation of low fencing to newly installed manways to help limit access to the Preserve at its two entrances at 1100 West. Installation of a low gate at its northwest entrance to allow for occasional needed operations and maintenance by authorized vehicles. Design and installation of a trash-rack in front of the wetland pond outlet to facilitate water exchange while still allowing in-and-out migration of Jordan River wildlife, especially fishes. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 16 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 35 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement Requested Funding: $400,000 Upgrade an aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection, with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City. The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads, and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948. -$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ 36 Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation / Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation Requested Funding: $500,000 This project will explore different methods of transforming our medians, park strips, and non-active park spaces to reduce the amount of water use in these areas not used for active play. Our park strips, parks, and medians have a lot of grass in them and we would like to have a consultant look at some areas in the City and explore different alternatives to grass or different varieties of grass that will reduce our water consumption. We would then use project funding to be able to change several of these areas and help the City become a leader in transforming these types areas to a better use of water in the City. There are a lot of park strips in the City that are hard to irrigate, so let's try and turn them into something that saves water and is still user friendly. We could also look at areas to be more of a pollinator gardens to benefit the environment while being pleasing to the eye. We would like to research what would be sustaining in our environment while not being a burden on maintenance. It could be mulch, rock, different grasses the sky is the limit. Let us be the innovators and help the City overcome our water woes one park strip at a time. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 17 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 37 Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned Requested Funding: $242,823 Salt Lake City’s greenhouses located in Liberty (LPG) and Jordan (JPG) Parks are showing signs of aging requiring repair and renovation to ensure they continue to support the community’s horticultural, biodiversity, and conservation interests. Part 1 – Structural audits of both facilities are planned to identify the type and extent of repairs needed in order to ensure safe working conditions, compliance with statutory regulations, and enhancing the building’s life cycle by identifying both preventative and corrective actions to secure the properties. Part 2 – Examines to what degree the current structure and any proposed renovations support LPG’s and JPG’s mission statements. Part 2 includes a marketing study to identify a) options to extend mission statements to include innovative programs/activities of interest to the general public and/or that support the development of new collaborative partnerships with other horticultural institutions, and b) identify how to ‘scale up’ select activities/programs (e.g., aid municipalities to promote biodiversity/sustainability) to address conservations interests of a broader set of constituents in order to generate (consultation) self- supporting revenues. Part 3 – Develops a plan, budget, and timetable to conduct a collegiate case competition (in collaboration with the University of Utah’s College of Architecture and Planning) to review/evaluate technical and aesthetic proposals to guide LPG renovations per historical guidelines/updated mission. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 38 First Encampment Park Requested Funding: $125,500 The Park is 26 years old & upgrades & improvements are needed to improve safety & ensure continued usage. Goals include mending and upgrading the sprinkler system and incorporating drip systems to reduce water waste & rock erosion; improving drainage in the dry 'riverbed' to reduce standing water issues; adding motion sensor lighting to improve safety and discourage criminal activity; repairing damaged monuments to improve the perception that the park is valued; replanting water-wise vegetation that has eroded to improve visibility within the park; adding a more visible park sign; adding historical placards with added context; repairing engraved pioneer names damaged by water on the rocks to ensure continued historical value and work with new Park Rangers to share & modernize accessible historical information. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 18 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 39 Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections Requested Funding: $162,500 In October, the Salt Lake City Council approved The Other Side Village (TOSV) pilot project, a tiny home community just west of Redwood Road on Indiana Avenue. Also just west of Redwood Road, the Wallace Stegner Academy (WSA) charter school, Riverbend Sports and Events Complex, and Vincit Amor Event Center are all attracting families and individuals to the evolving, formerly- industrial area. This request for design funding will follow on a Transportation Division study, currently in progress, that is assessing the feasibility, recommended phasing, and cost estimates for a suite of projects on either side of Redwood Road, between 400 S and California Ave. This proposal seeks funds for the design and permitting of three key elements to connect TOSV, WSA, and other destinations to walking, biking, and transit options, and to existing infrastructure such as the 9-Line Trail, a new transit hub opening in early 2023 at Orange Street / 500 S, and sidewalks on Redwood Road. • The design and environmental assessment / permitting of a multi-use trail connection between The Other Side Village development and the new transit hub. • The possible location of one or more GREENbike stations connecting the village, the transit center, and bus stops along Redwood Road. • The design of a signalized crossing of Redwood Road at either Redwood Depot Lane (~950 S) and Redwood Rd or 1040 South and Redwood Road. The final location will be decided in discussion with UDOT. This signal may be a pedestrian and bicycle signal, or a full traffic signal. Future funds will be sought for construction. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance Requested Funding: $200,000 These funds are for hiring contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which SLC does not have the equipment or staff. Examples: enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement, delineators, radar speed feedback signs, pedestrian warning flashers, bike racks, etc. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 41 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding Requested Funding: $4,000,000 This project will complete the last half mile of a 4.6 mile 700 South reconfiguration from 25 Ft wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50 FT wide concrete street with bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage from Redwood Rd to 5600 West. Additional funding is needed to complete the package for multiple reasons: a water main 1,300 feet long is required to be replaced ($650,000); Styrofoam fill was proposed to mitigate settlement over the water main as a cost savings method, however that proposal was rejected; Union Pacific changed the City cost of the rail crossing from $400,000 to $1,200,000; inflation has driven up the cost of construction. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 19 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 42 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade Requested Funding: $336,500 Every day throughout the day many parents, children and volunteers at Rowland Hall, as well as students and families attending Judge Memorial and East High, cross the busy intersection of 800 South 1000 East in conditions that are very dangerous. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to replace the existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at this busy intersection. We suggest moving the RRFBs to the next crosswalk to the west, at Lincoln St 800 South. In addition, the 1000 East crosswalk is in disrepair and we request it be replaced with a colored concrete crosswalk. Drivers of vehicles speed up and down 800 South. The road has two lanes in each direction, eastbound and westbound left turn lanes, and a deteriorated 4-foot median on the intersection's east side. This crosswalk is also at the bottom of a hill that encourages westbound speeding and challenges sightlines from both directions. Currently, there is a tree blocking visibility for the cars driving westbound. There have been many near misses as children cross one side in safety, only to be stranded in the middle of the street as drivers from the other side blow through the intersection unaware that a student has started to cross. Given all of these factors, a more visible way to highlight pedestrians crossing the street, and ensure student and adult safety would be greatly appreciated. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to better protect children and families, moving the existing RRFBs to the next crosswalk to the west (Lincoln St 800 South), and replacing the deteriorated crosswalk with a colored concrete crosswalk -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 43 Central 9th Streetscape Improvements Requested Funding: $85,000 The Central 9th Community Council is seeking CIP Funds to purchase and install nine commercial trash receptacles to be located on 900 S, between West Temple and 300 W. We are also seeking funding for banner arms to be attached to the street lighting on 900 S between West Temple and 300 W and 200 W between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp for Central 9th branding banners. Also we would like laser cut C9 logos to be attached to benches and planters along public spaces on 900 S between West Temple and 200 W as well as 200 W between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 20 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 44 Sugar House Community Map Project Requested Funding: $93,400 Maps present information about the world in a simple, visual way. They are living documents that inform, direct, and recognize a community’s open spaces, historic buildings, public services, and points of interest. Sugar House is a special community—a true inner-city that balances the needs of residents, visitors, merchants, vendors, families, students, and others unlike any other region in Salt Lake City. Strategically placed maps throughout Sugar House would inform and direct pedestrians and cyclists, identify key locations in the community, provide specific branding for Sugar House, and showcase pride for the sweetest neighborhood in Utah. The Sugar House Community Map Project will install eight (8) outdoor maps in the community. The maps will detail assets, historic landmarks, public works, open spaces, places of interest, and walking/biking paths. In addition, each map will include a QR code to connect with the Sugar House Business Alliance. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45 Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades Requested Funding: $2,000,000 Plaza 349 is critical to the day to day operations of the city by hosting several key departments including: Human Resources (HR), Engineering, Information Management Services (IMS), Transportation, and Building Inspection divisions. The city has commissioned a space planning and vulnerability study which identified key elements to be updated including life safety, access controls, and security. Facilities department has also identified key assets, including HVAC system and parking structure, that require updating to ensure operation. This CIP application is for the first phase of the project and will include upgrading life safety, access controls, security, HVAC design, and key HVAC asset upgrades. The estimated cost of the first phase is $2 million. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 46 Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive Requested Funding: $494,126 Building safer intersections for pedestrians and cyclists at major Foothill Drive intersections. In 2017 the Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy was completed with community input and professional planners. Since then little has been done to address the safety issues and solutions suggested in the plan. Residents and users of this corridor are seeking funds to implement changes along the west side at intersections between Bryan Avenuye and 2600 East.The most important intersection is 2500 East and Blaine Avenue near the Beacon Heights Elementary School. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 21 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 47 Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) Requested Funding: $100,000 4th (N) & 4th (W) is a critical piece of the Capitol Hill-Marmalade neighborhood infrastructure. A redesign of the intersection and the evolving 400 N and 400 W corridors has the potential to connect residents and visitors with the rich social infrastructure of the neighborhood. The proposed study is intended to create and improve community gathering places and develop safe, efficient, green, and pleasing neighborhood-wide connections for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and vehicle drivers. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 48 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches Requested Funding: $533,165 Install a new medium sized pavilion for shade and provide a gathering place for families, friends and neighbors. It will be located near the sports fields and north of the parking area, and would be large enough for six picnic tables and provide space for several groups to gather in the shade. Seating: The views from 11th Avenue Park are outstanding, however, there are few places to sit. Seating would be added at the top of the two slopes and adjacent to looped path. Backless benches will allow for viewing either the sports fields, the tennis or the valley below. Landscape enhancements: Increase the number of shade trees in the area near the playground, pavilion, and sports fields. Increased shade will offer refuge for spectators and families with small children. It is also critical to have trees of different age classes to create a healthy urban forest. Concrete Pad: With destination level recreation amenities there is a need to provide restrooms during the peak-use seasons. Seasonal demand can be met with portable units. A concrete pad near the entrance would make the park more usable for all who use the park. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 49 New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails Requested Funding: $262,000 Two proposed crosswalks across 500 E along with new sidewalks connecting to the Liberty Park sidewalk loop. One crosswalk would connect Edith Ave to Liberty Park, and one would connect Williams Ave to Liberty Park. These new crosswalks would benefit the local community by a) increasing pedestrian access to Salt Lake City’s flagship park, b) reducing speed on 500 E by adding visual friction to the road, and c) improving pedestrian safety by allowing people to avoid crossing at busy intersections. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 22 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 50 Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements Requested Funding: $450,000 The intersection at Sunnyside/Arapeen represents a significant impediment to traffic entering the Research Park area and creates traffic congestion that impacts the neighborhood adjacent to Sunnyside Avenue and to Foothill Drive. This volume of left-turning traffic would justify adding a new left-turn lane. Additionally, the 9-Line Trail (Sunnyside Trail) is on the north side of the roadway, and vehicles that make a westbound to northbound left-turn conflict with trail users in an unsafe manner. This project seeks to address these issues through the use of a technology called a "Flex Lane". This relatively new signal technology would allow one of the westbound through lanes to be converted to a shared left-through lane during this morning rush hour, resulting in less congestion and less frustration for residents in the area. In this way, we can use technology to avoid widening the roadway for a dual left and maximize the facility we already have. This technology has recently been employed by UDOT at the intersection of South Temple / State Street for people making a southbound left turn and has resulted in improved conditions in that area. The added benefit of this change would be that we could modify the signal phasing so that when the trail through traffic has a green light, no left turns are permitted. When the left turning traffic has a green arrow, trail users would be stopped. We are also planning some additional bike infrastructure at the intersection. In order to complete this project, it would be necessary to completely rebuild the signal as well as the pavement in the intersection, which is in a failed condition. The project is also planned to include several complete street enhancements to the crosswalks and bike lanes at the intersection. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 51 Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration Requested Funding: $500,000 The Wasatch Hollow Community Council (WHCC) has been collaborating with SLC Public Lands regarding critical improvements to Wasatch Hollow Park. As a response to growing concerns about safety, degradation of the park, and non- compliance with posted off-leash dog guidelines, SLC Public Lands conducted a survey in August of residents. The survey sought input on off-leash dog use and other activities at the park, with the goal of serving a diverse and inclusive community of park users. The WHCC is considering the survey results and other community inputs, and intends to submit recommendations to the City. This project would fund a planning and engagement process at Wasatch Hollow park to identify capital improvements that are well supported by the surrounding community and address existing challenges at the park, specifically related to off- leash dogs and activation. The resulting plan is expected to include recommendations for better separation of the off-leash dog area and the creation of other active and passive use areas where dogs are not allowed to be off-leash, new landscaping and restoration of the field. Remaining funding would then be used for design and construction of plan recommendations. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 23 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 52 Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit Requested Funding: $470,703 Purchase a small portion of private property at approximately 400 West Hansen Ave to create a second (west) access point for Hansen Ave. Initial contact with the property owner indicates that they would be amenable to having the conversation about selling this property. Would include upgrading the property to City standards for a public road. This would convert this current street from a dead end street to one with two access points. There would be many benefits both public and private for this change. As detailed later in this application in more detail. A brief overview is as follows: Currently Hansen Ave (1650 South 300 West) enters and exists about 120 feet from a very busy intersection - 1700 South/300 West. This creates a lot of congestion along with several other problems. Emergency vehicle (Fire trucks/ambulances) access would be significantly improved. City Maintenance (snowplowing) would be significantly improved. Garbage collection would be significantly improved. Freight and package delivery for the existing businesses and the soon to be 175 new residents would significantly improved. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53 Nevada Street Reconstruction Requested Funding: $479,000 Rebuild Nevada St running from Redondo Ave north to Garfield. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 54 Sunnyside Pickleball Courts Requested Funding: $500,000 Idea 1 - Sunnyside 4/6 Pickleball courts at Sunnyside Park on 800 South. Like to incorporate the best elements of all the pickle courts that I have visited in the SLC area. Ideal court location would be just south of the existing pavilion near the parking lot. This an older affluent area that would benefit from the following elements: Tall perimeter fencing to retain the ball within the courts, short fencing separating the internal courts, Sitting or bench area, covered, Night Lights, Flagging above to shade from sun, Paddle Rack system (like Fairnont court), Placard/signage that describes court rules, Court location will not infringe on the 3 existing large fields on the west side of the park used for football and lacrosse, nor the baseball fields on the north side, New Courts in this location will require: Removal of the vollyeball standards, never used, Removal or replanting of trees... Planting should be planted to strategically create shade for waiting players -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Requested Funding: $351,000 Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 24 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 56 Salt Lake City Pétanque Requested Funding: $500,000 I was National champion in a sport called petanque in 2019. Our national organization wanted us to put out bids. So I did and they got rejected as we don't have a facility to hold national tournaments. We are a growing sport and even had a medal winner on the last world games in Atlanta. What we ask for is a venue so we can practice. That way we can get national tournaments to Salt lake City. In almost every park, we see bocce courts but I never seen any bocce players. We are starting to grow as a sport and would love to have our own location. This project is proposing the addition of 16 Petanque courts, along with shade structures and seating at Rosewood Park. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements Requested Funding: $210,000 Ensign Nature Park attracts thousands of visitors at all hours of day and night. However, the park was not designed to handle the volume of traffic it receives, and it shows; the park lacks adequate facilities for visitors (no water or bathrooms), has heavily eroded trails and is not designed to manage the visitor volume. The increase in popularity of the park in recent years has come at considerable cost to the residents in the area - traffic, noise, littering and crime. Most of this adverse impact to the community is at night. The goal of this project is to reduce the impact to the community and be a first step towards enabling the park to be improved over the long-term. Before any other improvements can be sustainably made to the park, we need to limit late night access to the park, for the following reasons: 1) The impact on the community is severe - the late night crowd is loud - drinking, playing loud music, driving loudly, etc at all hours of the day -- it is common for significant numbers of people to be there even at 3am. They frequently leave beer bottles, fast food containers and other trash on neighboring lawns. 2) Public safety - there have been dangerous fires caused by night time visitors to the park at least twice, and firearms have been discharged at least twice in the last 2 years in the area by nighttime visitors. I propose we address this by building a fence with a full-height turn-locking turnstile and ADA gate at the park entrance, so the park can be locked between hours that the city and community agree is reasonable. Many residents in the area are willing to be volunteers to help with unlocking and locking the gate at night, and generally be stewards of the park. Improved lighting and landscaping in this area will further deter after-hours activity. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 58 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion Requested Funding: $502,500 Expand 11th Avenue Park pickleball courts by 4 more pickleball courts (6 current dedicated courts to a total of 10 dedicated courts), with fencing. This proposal also includes creating lines on the 2 tennis courts closest to the pickleball courts to be used by pickleball players if all pickleball courts are in use. This project also includes new signage: number the courts; queuing expectations and paddle holders; court rules. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 25 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 59 Westside Art Project Requested Funding: $150,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. Could be combined with or separate from the $150,000 for new art in the 9-Line RDA Project Area which was approved as part of the FY2024 annual budget. -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60 Maintenance of Vacant City-owned Property Requested Funding: $500,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. $200,000 is separately approved with the annual budget for security and utilities at vacant City-0wned properties. The Council approved $700,000 last fiscal year of which $598,698 remains available. The Administration identified five projects with a total cost of $550,000 to use the FY2023 funding. Projects have not yet been identified for the $500,000 in new funding for FY2024 (would not lapse to Fund Balance). The five projects using the FY2023 funds are: - $100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB) - $200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study - $100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building Leased by Odyssey House - $100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties - $50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety Building (PSB) 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 61 Urban Trails Maintenance Requested Funding: $200,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. Proposed as a new item that would be base funding ongoing annually. These funds will be used for repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow removal, debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom Trail. Short description: These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ AVAILABLE FUNDING BY SOURCE 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 9,099,610$ 3,884,126$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ AVAILABLE FUNDING LESS TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 614,689$ 644,126$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTALS Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 26 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS Page: FY 2023-24 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1 FY 2023-24 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5 DEBT SERVICE CIP DEBT SERVICE CIP 19 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES 22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 27 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 28 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 29 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 30 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 31 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 32 Livable Streets Implementation 33 Neighborhood Byways 34 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 35 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 36 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 37 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 38 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 39 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 40 337 Park Development 41 Jefferson Park Improvements 42 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 43 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 44 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 45 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 46 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 47 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 48 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 49 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 50 Westside Art 51 Cost Overrun 52 Percent for Art 53 ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS CUP Crossover Piping 58 Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design)59 Table of Contents Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations 60 Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction)61 Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)62 Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment 63 UPS Pump Station Replacement 64 Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction 65 SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I 66 TVY Water & Sewer Improvements 67 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 68 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design)69 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction)70 AOC Backup Generator 71 Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway 72 NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor 73 NWS Replacement Controls 74 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS Tee Box Leveling 76 Pump Replacement 77 Maintenance Equipment 78 Parking Lot Resurfacing 79 Property Fencing Project 80 New Construction Projects 81 Irrigation Improvements 82 Cart Path Improvements 83 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Water Main Replacements 86 Treatment Plant Improvements 87 Deep Pump Wells 88 Meter Change-Out Program 89 Water Service Connections 90 Storage Reservoirs 91 Pumping Plants & Pump Houses 92 Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 93 Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)94 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)95 Treatment Plants 96 Collection Lines 97 Lift Stations 98 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)99 Storm Drain Lines 100 Riparian Corridor Improvements 101 Landscaping 102 Table of Contents Storm Water Lift Stations 103 Detention Basins 104 Street Lighting Projects 105 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS City Creek Daylighting 108 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank CIP Summary Documents This page intentionally left blank CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Introduction and Overview Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the annual infrastructure improvements and budgets schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget. The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development & Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects before allocating funding and adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the recommended FY2023-24 CIP Budget are included in this book. In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into the decision-making process. Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or operations expenses, where the departments have included projections of any increases to future operating costs. The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready projects. The Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program. Because the proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the City analyzes the effect that issuance of additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio. Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify the expectations of the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance needs. Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include: –A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches. –A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or more, with few exceptions. –Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and minimize maintenance and replacement costs. –Priorities are given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in the preservation of the community’s prior investment. –The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an existing balance remains on a completed project. –Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding). Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 1 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Allocations Salt Lake City’s FY2023-24 adopted CIP budget appropriates $545,012,942 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C” Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private funds. The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the construction of two fire stations is funded through CIP. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds are funded through the City’s Class C Road fund. Funds to pay debt service, equaling $11,482,326, are included in the adopted annual budget. Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s capital improvement projects. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds funded the reconstruction of Class C roads throughout the City. A total of $10,274,000 was recommended for Transportation projects. Of this amount, the budget appropriates $1,194,000 of General Funds, $240,000 of Impact Fee funds, $2,090,000 of Funding our Future funds, and $6,750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Programs funded include Safer Crossings, Sidewalk Improvements, Frequent Transit Routes, Complete Streets, Livable Streets, Neighborhood Byways, Urban Trails, Traffic Circle Construction, and Traffic Signal Replacement. The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total appropriation of $4,221,000 from the General Fund and Parks Impact Fee funds. Projects funded include Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning, Park Development and Improvements, Bilingual Signage Installation, and Park Restoration and Conservation. Public Services capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of $10,348,771. Of this amount, the budget appropriates $4,598,771 from the General Fund, $3,500,000 of Class C funding, $1,000,000 of Funding our Future funds, $750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding, and $500,000 of CIP funding. Programs funded include Public Way Concrete, Complete Streets Reconstruction and Overlay, Alleyway Improvements, Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot, and the Facilities Asset Renewal Plan. An apparatus bay extension project was also funded for Fire Station #1. A total of $150,000 was also recommended for a Westside Art Project from Funding our Future funds. Capital Projects The CIP pages include details for each recommended project for the FY2023-24 Budget. These pages provide a breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital projects in the FY2023-24 budget is $24,993,771. Enterprise Fund Projects The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf – are by nature, very capital intensive. The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality. Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use the remaining funds in the ARPA Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 2 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations. The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2024, the department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects to be designed in one year and constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. RDA Funds – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific project costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City Creek daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert underground up to the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This $50,000 funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 3 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2023-24. Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects. The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing at the Mountain Dell and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment. Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 4 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 De b t S e r v i c e Debt Service Projects Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond $ 362,950 $ 362,950 Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 747,025 $ 747,025 Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 2,003,973 $ 2,003,973 Sales Tax Series 2019A Bond $ 358,575 $ 358,575 Sales Tax Series 2022B Bond $ 1,999,625 $ 1,999,625 Sales Tax Series 2022C Bond $ 3,088,875 $ 3,088,875 B & C Roads Series 2014 $ 979,503 $ 979,503 ESCO Debt Service to Bond $ 761,000 $ 761,000 Fire Station #3 $ 679,400 $ 679,400 Fire Station #14 $ 501,400 $ 501,400 Debt Service Projects Total $ 10,301,526 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 1,180,800 $ 11,482,326 On g o i n g Ongoing Projects Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Ongoing Projects Total $ 1,200,000 $ — $ — $ — $ 200,000 $ — $ 1,400,000 Ot h e r O n g o i n g Other Ongoing Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Public Services- Smiths Ballfield $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $ 150,500 $ 150,500 Public Services - Memorial House $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Other Ongoing $ 700,000 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 350,500 $ 1,050,500 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 5 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ne w C I P New/Maintenance Projects Total Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning $ 190,000 $ 190,000 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide $ 270,000 $ 90,000 $ 540,000 $ 900,000 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements $ 234,000 $ 234,000 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments $ 990,000 $ 110,000 $ 1,100,000 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide $ 3,293,000 $ 3,293,000 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Livable Streets Implementation $ 250,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,350,000 Neighborhood Byways $ 440,000 $ 360,000 $ 800,000 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 4,500,000 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion $ 253,500 $ 253,500 $ 507,000 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet $ 202,000 $ 648,000 $ 850,000 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities $ 438,850 $ 416,150 $ 855,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 6 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ne w C I P ( C o n t i n u e d ) 337 Park Development $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Jefferson Park Improvements $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation $ 82,800 $ 331,200 $ 414,000 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase $ 497,000 $ 497,000 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension $ 648,771 $ 500,000 $ 1,148,771 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens $ 325,000 $ 325,000 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement $ 40,000 $ 360,000 $ 400,000 Westside Art $ 150,000 $ 150,000 New Projects Total $ 7,284,921 $ 3,240,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 24,993,771 Cost Overrun $ 22,214 $ 225,357 $ 247,571 Percent for Art $ 161,518 $ 161,518 Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects $ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 2,031,300 $ 39,335,686 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 7 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ai r p o r t Airport CIP Projects CUP Crossover Piping $ 505,000 $ 505,000 Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design) $ 405,000 $ 405,000 Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations $ 967,000 $ 967,000 Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction) $ 9,400,000 $ 9,400,000 Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)$ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment $ 78,651,000 $ 78,651,000 UPS Pump Station Replacement $ 1,483,000 $ 1,483,000 Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction $ 1,613,000 $ 1,613,000 SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I $ 2,721,000 $ 2,721,000 TVY Water & Sewer Improvements $ 9,046,000 $ 9,046,000 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 $ 1,068,000 $ 1,068,000 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design) $ 1,559,000 $ 1,559,000 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction) $ 60,808,000 $ 60,808,000 AOC Backup Generator $ 311,000 $ 311,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 8 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ai r p o r t ( C o n t i n u e d ) Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway $ 1,044,000 $ 1,044,000 NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor $ 1,063,000 $ 1,063,000 NWS Replacement Controls $ 624,000 $ 624,000 Total Airport CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 175,993,000 $ 175,993,000 Go l f Golf CIP Projects Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Pump Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Maintenance Equipment $ 424,263 $ 424,263 Parking Lot Resurfacing $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Property Fencing Project $ 55,220 $ 55,220 New Construction Projects $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 Irrigation Improvements $ 4,400,000 $ 4,400,000 Cart Path Improvements $ 525,000 $ 525,000 Total Golf CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 7,034,483 $ 7,034,483 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 9 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Pu b l i c U t i l i t i e s Public Utilities CIP Projects Water Main Replacements $ 14,620,000 $ 14,620,000 Treatment Plant Improvements $ 38,340,000 $ 38,340,000 Deep Pump Wells $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Meter Change-Out Program $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Water Service Connections $ 3,450,000 $ 3,450,000 Storage Reservoirs $ 6,690,000 $ 6,690,000 Pumping Plants & Pump Houses $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility) $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Treatment Plants $ 212,259,773 $ 212,259,773 Collection Lines $ 23,955,000 $ 23,955,000 Lift Stations $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility) $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Storm Drain Lines $ 6,230,000 $ 6,230,000 Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Landscaping $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Storm Water Lift Stations $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Detention Basins $ 365,000 $ 365,000 Street Lighting Projects $ 2,240,000 $ 2,240,000 Total Public Utilities CIP Projects $—$—$—$—$—$322,599,773 $322,599,773 RD A Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects City Creek Daylighting $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total RDA CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 10 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Su s t a i n a b i l i t y Sustainability CIP Projects No Projects $ — Total Sustainability CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP $ 505,677,256 $ 505,677,256 GRAND TOTAL $ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 507,708,556 $ 545,012,942 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 11 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Salt Lake City Impact Fee Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT Street Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees TOTAL Impact Fee Projects Im p a c t F e e s Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide $ 90,000 $ — $ 90,000 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments $ 110,000 $ — $ 110,000 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion $ — $ 253,500 $ 253,500 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet $ — $ 648,000 $ 648,000 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities $ — $ 416,150 $ 416,150 337 Park Development $ — $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Jefferson Park Improvements $ — $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation $ — $ 331,200 $ 331,200 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement $ 40,000 $ — $ 40,000 Total Impact Fee by Type $ 240,000 $ 2,728,850 $ 2,968,850 Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 12 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects Fiscal Year 2024 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s Public Lands Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 1060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 200,000 $ — $ 200,000 Constituent Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum 948 W 1300 South to 1106 W 1300 South; and 1225 S 1000 West to 948 W 1300 South, SLC UT 84104 $ 850,000 $ — $ 850,000 Public Lands Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub (Other Funds - $225,000 Parks Impact Fees) Roots Disc Golf Course - 1250 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116Rose Park Golf Course Driving Range - 1386 North Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 $ 270,000 $ 225,000 $ 495,000 Constituent Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Citywide $ 75,000 $ — $ 75,000 Constituent Madsen Park Improvements (Other Funds - $300,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1000 W and South Temple St, Salt Lake City, 84116 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 500,000 Constituent Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $294,000 Parks Impact Fees) 2100 N Exit off I-215 to Rose Park Ln and 1700 N intersection, Salt Lake City UT 84116 $ 546,000 $ 294,000 $ 840,000 Public Lands Richmond Park Community Playground (Other Funds - $212,000 Parks Impact Fees) 444 E 600 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 $ 318,000 $ 212,000 $ 530,000 Public Lands Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study 1954 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161944 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161932 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161902 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 $ 140,000 $ — $ 140,000 Constituent North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 100 South 800 West SLC, Utah 84104 $ 495,111 $ — $ 495,111 Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 The local, neighborhood streets within the area bounded by 900 East on the west, 1100 East on the east, 2100 South on the south, and Garfield Avenue on the north. $ 150,000 $ — $ 150,000 Constituent Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 950 S 1100 W, SLC, Utah, 84104 $ 361,073 $ — $ 361,073 Public Lands Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation Citywide $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000 Constituent Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned 600 E 1300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 841051060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 242,823 $ — $ 242,823 Constituent First Encampment Park 1704 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 125,500 $ — $ 125,500 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 13 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Constituent Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections The approximate mid-point of the proposed trail between the Other Side Village and the new transit hub at 500 S and Orange Street. Proposed Redwood Road signalized crossing: 1040 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 162,500 $ — $ 162,500 Transportation Multimodal Capital Maintenance (Other Funds - $200,000 FOF Other)Citywide $ — $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Engineering 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 700 South Street from 4600 West to 5000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 4,000,000 $ — $ 4,000,000 Constituent 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 800 South 1000 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 $ 336,500 $ — $ 336,500 Constituent Central 9th Streetscape Improvements 200 West between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp and 900 South between West Temple and 200 W in Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 $ 85,000 $ — $ 85,000 Constituent Sugar House Community Map Project Multiple locations throughout the Sugar House area $ 93,400 $ — $ 93,400 Facilities Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 349 S 200 E, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 $ 2,000,000 $ — $ 2,000,000 Constituent Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 and1. Blaine Avenue and 2500 East2. 2600 East3. Bryan Avenue4. Westminster Avenue5. Possible modifications at Laurelhurst $ 494,126 $ — $ 494,126 Constituent Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) 400 N 400 W Intersection and Corridors, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 100,000 $ — $ 100,000 Public Lands 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches (Other Funds - $533,165 Parks Impact Fees) 581 Terrace Hills Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ — $ 533,165 $ 533,165 Constituent New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails (Other Funds - $13,000 Street Impact Fees, $131,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1216 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105978 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105(Southeast and southwest corners of Edith Ave and Williams Ave @ 500 East) $ 118,000 $ 144,000 $ 262,000 Transportation Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $45,000 Street Impact Fees, $405,000 Qcent Tax) 2240 East Sunnyside Ave., Salt Lake City UT 84108 $ — $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Constituent Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration 1631 E 1700 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000 Constituent Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 400 West Hansen Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 $ 470,703 $ — $ 470,703 Constituent Nevada Street Reconstruction Nevada Street from Redondo North to Garfield, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108 $ 479,000 $ — $ 479,000 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 14 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Constituent Sunnyside Pickleball Courts (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1800 E. Sunnyside Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Constituent 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 1200 E Zenith Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut 84106 $ 351,000 $ — $ 351,000 Constituent Salt Lake City Pétanque (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees) Rosewood Park, 1400 N 1200 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Constituent Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 163 E Ensign Vista Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 210,000 $ — $ 210,000 Constituent 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion (Other Funds - $502,500 Parks Impact Fees) 584 Terrace Hills Drive, Salt Lake City UT 84103 $ — $ 502,500 $ 502,500 Total Unfunded CIP Projects $ 13,873,736 $ 3,860,665 $ 17,734,401 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 15 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Debit Service Capital Improvement Program This page intentionally left blank Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $362,950 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2013 October 1, 2023 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. A portion of the Series 2013B Bonds were refunded with the series 2021 Bonds. As of June 30, 2023, $355,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due on October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2023. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $747,025 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds September 2014 October 1, 2034 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property, and roads. The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2023, $7,460,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2034. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $2,003,973 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2016 October 1, 2028 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City. Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. As of June 30, 2023, $13,880,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2028. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $358,575 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 April 1, 2027 General Fund Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 19 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown. The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. As of June 30, 2023, $1,270,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April 1, 2027. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $1,999,625.00 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2042 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022C 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $3,088,875 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2032 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B&C, were issued in November 2022 to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving capital improvement projects, including: City Cemetery irrigation and road repairs and reconstruction; Pioneer Park; 600 North Corridor; new radio towers for City communication; an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency back-up generators; Westside railroad quiet zones; Warm Spring Plunge structure stabilization; Smith's Ballpark; urban wood re- utilization equipment and storage additions; and Fisher Mansion stabilization; and various other capital improvement program projects. The Series 2022B bonds were issued with a par amount of $40,015,000. As of June 30, 2023, $40,015,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2042. The Series 2022C bonds were issued with a par amount of $24,240,000. As of June 30, 2023, $24,240,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2032. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $979,503 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds August 2014 April 1, 2024 Class C The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East. The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2023, $960,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2024. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 20 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ESCO Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $93,500 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division. ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County $150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment. ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $517,000 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $501,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 April 15, 2037 General Fund The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2023, $5,220,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15, 2037. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $679,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 April 15, 2038 General Fund The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project. The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2023, $6,950,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15, 2038. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 21 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES Crime Lab Rental Payments 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $600,000 General Fund Yearly rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab. Facilities Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $350,000 General Fund The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock. Trail Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $200,000 ¼ Cent Tax These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round. Public Lands Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $250,000 General Fund The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock. Percent for Art 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $161,518 Funding our Future To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures, and other works of art. (1.5% of CIP) Cost Overrun 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $22,214$225,357 General Fund & Funding Our Future Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 22 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Smith Ballfield Naming Rights 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $150,000 Other -Donations Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 33 yrs. old. CIP Memorial House 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $50,000 Other - Rental A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation. Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use of the funding is to be determined. Real Estate Services – Surplus Land 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $700,000 General Fund Salt Lake City Corporation holds several properties in its real estate inventory that are not used for city functions but that are either vacant or are leased to third parties. This fund is for the maintenance, security, and improvement of these properties. Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source Sales Tax Revenue Bonds October 2019 April 1, 2038 RDA Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it. The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. As of June 30, 2023, $56,790,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2038. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 23 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank General Fund Capital Projects This page intentionally left blank Project Title:Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Project Address:200 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Project Description: Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls) visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues, followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain, retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increase usage in line with its original intent as a public event space. Salt Lake City is a potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and reimagining space within this site and adjacent properties will be critical first steps if the City wants to use this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture between Public Lands and Facilities. Proposal ID:423313 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: Planning Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $190,000 $190,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 27 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide Project Address: Main St Crossings (900 South to 2100 South): This second set of crossings is likely to include: Layton Ave, Van Buren/Bryan Ave, Cleveland / Merrimac Ave, Paxton / Kelsey Ave, Fayette, OC Tanner, Grove Ave.Glendale Park Crossing: 1300 West 1700 SouthCitywide Project Description: This project will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices to address safety issues. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings - Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks; about half will be done with funds already allocated in FY23. This request is for construction funds for the remaining locations. Anticipated construction is 2024. 2. Glendale Park / 1700 South - This request is for funds to upgrade the existing crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian-activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south. 3. Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers, signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety. Wide crosswalks like this one on Main Street will receive pedestrian refuge islands. Proposal ID:424230 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $270,000 $270,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $90,000 $90,000 1/4 Cent Tax $540,000 $540,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 28 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements Project Address: Route: 200 East from 1700 South to Westminster AveKey intersection: 200 East Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Project Description: 200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks. Potential layout for new curb ramp and sidewalk at 200 East and Downington Ave. Proposal ID:417914 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $234,000 $234,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 29 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks, and trash cans. If bicyclist/pedestrian connections to bus stops are problematic or don’t exist, these funds may be used to address those issues. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million-dollar projects; a portion of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds, providing match, and together creating the full project. Bus shelters, trash cans, and bike racks are all part of Salt Lake’s transit improvements along Frequent Transit Network routes. Proposal ID:424222 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $110,000 $110,000 FOF Transit $990,000 $990,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 30 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide Project Address: 1000 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, UT, 84106, 200 North Virginia Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84103, Citywide Project Description: This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer intersections, placemaking, and street greening. This year's request focuses on three aspects: two critical streets, both tied to Streets Bond Funding in the 2024 construction season, and third, an allocation for citywide restriping and corridor designs, primarily in conjunction with planned maintenance. For these streets to be reconstructed and/or restriped to meet both City Ordinance and community expectations, these additional funds are needed. Rendering of updated design on 2100 South Proposal ID:424210 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $3,293,000 $3,293,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: The reconstructed streets will reduce pavement maintenance costs but may create increased operating expenses in other Departments and Divisions due to landscaping and new Complete Streets elements. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 31 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation. Proposal ID:423889 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets $750,000 $750,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 32 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Livable Streets Implementation Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need. Traffic circles are one tool identified in the Livable Streets Report to help slow traffic on neighborhood streets. Proposal ID:424211 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $250,000 $250,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 33 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Neighborhood Byways Project Address: 975 North Star Crest Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point)1400 South 1600 East, Salt Lake City UT 84105 (Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point) Project Description: Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking, bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway. Both projects are currently in conceptual design with significant community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant. Technicians finishing up the installation of a neighborhood byway crossing in Poplar Grove along 400 South. Proposal ID:424216 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $440,000 $440,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 34 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Proposal ID:423853 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Class C Funds $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 35 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion Project Address:Poplar Grove Park (Indiana Avenue and Emery St.), Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Project Description: This park currently has a half court – which is used frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it. This project will fund the expansion of the court which includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing, signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting skills over the years. Not all will play on the court, but some could still benefit from this improvement by volunteering to plant flowers). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project - it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long time. Proposal ID:419327 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $253,500 $253,500 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $253,500 $253,500 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance is expected to increase by $1,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 36 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet Project Address:356 N Redwood Rd, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to replace the existing failing restroom. It should be noted that Cottonwood Park was selected as one of District 1’s “Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trails, or Open Space” projects, funded by the GO Parks Bond. Proposal ID:424360 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $202,000 $202,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $648,000 $648,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $2,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 37 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Street segments identified by Roadway Asset Services (RAS) as backlog candidates for 3” Overlay (OCI of approximately 40-50) are included below as recommended projects. Suggested Project areas: 2.34 Lane MilesWasatch Drive - 1300 S to Michigan Ave (partly within Bonneville Golf Course)800 E - 100 S to 400 S (signal loops at 100 S)Work displayed below on the map. Proposal ID:424280 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 38 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail Project Address: 1900 West Indiana Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 841041851 East Sunnyside Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Project Description: Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar Grove neighborhoods. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the 9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. This section of Indiana Avenue lacks even a sidewalk connecting “The Other Side Village” to transit stops on Redwood Road. Proposal ID:424227 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 39 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities Project Address:273 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored, and the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts in the city’s westside neighborhoods. This project would also complete associated amenities on site, as funding is available, such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access. Public Lands has already separately funded the design of this court project. This CIP funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other associated amenities. Proposal ID:424358 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $438,850 $438,850 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $416,150 $416,150 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance costs will decrease by $1,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 40 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:337 Park Development Project Address:337 South 400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Project Description: 337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden but has since been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since been sitting vacant and in a state of disrepair. This potential pocket park needs significant development to add park service to District 4. Funding would facilitate public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel. Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as possible. Proposal ID:423315 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $550,000 $550,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $7,500. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 41 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Jefferson Park Improvements Project Address:Fremont Ave and West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Project Description: Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks”. The park currently has a small, aging playground (to be replaced through separate funding by Public Lands in 2023) with two benches as well as a set of temporary soccer nets and an off-leash dog area. The constituent applicants request the following: •Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the area’s crime, this is essential. •Health improvements: Permanent, attractive garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of garbage (including clothing, needles, and human waste), and to encourage responsible dog ownership. •Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provides residents with a place to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation. Proposal ID:417708 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $530,000 $530,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance would increase by $4,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 42 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Parks Bilingual Signage Installation Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation occurring in 2023 and early 2024. The first phase of implementation included ten parks and were initially chosen because they are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations currently. The second phase of implementation, to be completed with this funding proposal, are the next largest parks with varying amenities that necessitate the addition of signage that the park currently lacks. Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands' regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan. Proposal ID:423318 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $82,800 $82,800 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $331,200 $331,200 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact: $2,900 Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 43 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fairpark Roundabout Construction Phase Project Address:500 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: 1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability. This application is requesting funds to build a roundabout at the intersection of 1000 West and 500 North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the study/design while supporting this application for construction funds. Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood. Proposal ID:416618 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds ¼ Cent Tax $497,000 $497,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 44 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary. Proposal ID:424439 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets $250,000 $250,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 45 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension Project Address:211 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Project Description: Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources (both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed, requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East, in the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown. The call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been steadily increasing over the past five (5) years. In fact, it recently came to the attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there. In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5 to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus. The three newest and most advanced SLCFD aerial apparatus (trucks) are too long to be housed in the apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. Consequently, we have implemented the use of an older, shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new, smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4 years to build. Additionally, there is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. Proposal ID:425243 Department:Fire Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $648,771 $648,771 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Other $500,000 $500,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 46 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing replacements based on asset criticality. Proposal ID:426588 Department:Facilities Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance cost will be reduced as new assets are more efficient, switching from reactive repair work to ongoing preventative maintenance. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 47 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program Project Address:Citywide Project Description: The Streets Division, part of Public Services, will be the project sponsor and implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will continue to deteriorate and soon require a costly reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost, compared to reconstructing. To carry out this pilot program the Streets Division needs two additional pieces of equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine. Proposal ID:426528 Department:Streets Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $750,000 $750,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Average yearly maintenance cost: $19,400 (for both pieces of equipment) Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 48 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens Project Address:1060 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Project Description: Despite receiving hundreds of visitors per day, the International Peace Gardens in District 2 has dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by stolen plaques and artwork remind visitors of theft and vandalism, and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and botanic diversity. This request consists of multiple projects that include: conservation and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space. Proposal ID:418741 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $325,000 $325,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual Maintenance Impact: $1,000-$3,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 49 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement Project Address:1300 East @ 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 or1300 East @ 100 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Project Description: Upgrade one aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection, with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City. The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads, and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948. 75-year-old traffic signal at the busy intersection of 1300 East 400 South. Proposal ID:424235 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $40,000 $40,000 1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: This signal reconstruction will reduce signal maintenance costs, as keeping an older traffic signal alive past its normal expiration date typically includes extra repairs. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 50 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Westside Art Project Address:Westside of Salt Lake City Project Description: An art project will be incorporated into the City’s westside neighborhood. Proposal ID:N/A Department: Project Type:Art Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $150,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 51 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cost Overrun Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects. Proposal ID:NA Department: Project Type:Overrun Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $22,214 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $225,357 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 52 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Percent for Art Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to provide art at City developed projects. Proposal ID:NA Department: Project Type:Art Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $161,518 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 53 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Enterprise Fund Capital Projects This page intentionally left blank The Department of Airports The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use the remaining funds in the ARPA grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations. The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 57 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:CUP Crossover Piping Project Description: This project will provide crossover 12-inch diameter piping from the existing 12-inch chilled water supply and return lines to the 20-inch supply and return hot water piping that feeds the Airport Terminal and Concourse areas from the Central Utility Plant (CUP). This would enable the Airport to maintain chilled water for cooling and hot water for heating as a backup to the system if there is a failure of lines that run underground from the CUP to the Terminal and Concourse areas. Project Justification: The existing chilled water and hot water piping systems run underground from a standalone location in the CUP north to the Airport Terminals and Concourse areas. If a failure of either supply lines happens, the crossover piping would facilitate the transfer of chilled water and/or hot water to keep the supply of cooling or heating to continue in a temporary operation mode until a permanent fix could be made. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 November 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $401,000 $54,000 $8,000 $2,000 $40,000 $505,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $505,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 58 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design) Project Description: As outlined in the SLCIA Master Plan, Runway 14-32 has two FAA hot spot locations and numerous non- standard geometry challenges. This runway accounts for only 1 percent of total aircraft operations at SLCIA and is unnecessary in the SLCIA runway system to meet FAA-defined wind coverage requirements and thus is not eligible for federal funding assistance. This means the entire cost of any and all corrective solutions would be paid by SLCDA. Through engagement with SLCDA staff and stakeholders, it was determined the cost to correct the runway hot spots outweighs the benefit the runway provides to the airport system. The Master Plan concluded that the final solution for implementation is to remove Runway 14-32. Project Justification: Projects in the short-term phase of airport development focus on modifications to the airfield that enhance airport operational safety. These projects address changes in runways and taxiways needed to reduce the potential for runway incursions and comply with current FAA airport design standards. This request is to develop the design on removing Runway 14-32 and modifications needed to the existing taxiway connections at Taxiways J, M, P, and Q. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $367,000 $20,000 $18,000 $405,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $405,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 59 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations Project Description: This project will replace the existing piping, pumps, and valves in the Intermediate East Pump Station (IEPS) and the East Pump Station (EPS) for the glycol pump stations. Project Justification: The piping, pumps, and valves for the glycol pump stations have been in service for over 20 years and are approaching the end of their useful service life. The piping and equipment are obsolete and can no longer be maintained, and are showing significant signs of deterioration due to the corrosive nature of the deicing fluid. New pumps that are more efficient, require less maintenance, and safe guard against system failure will be installed. These pumps are long lead items and are critical for de- ice operations on Taxiway L and the 34R de-ice pad. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 203 July 2023 October 2023 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $734,000 $155,000 $5,000 $73,000 $967,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $967,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 60 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction) Project Description: This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure and bring the taxiway geometry to current FAA standards. The project will consist of replacing the pavement on Taxiway F between Taxiways G and F1. Work will include demolition of existing concrete pavement and econocrete base, unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new econocrete base course and new portland cement concrete. Also included is the installation of new in-pavement centerline base cans and the reinstallation of centerline and taxiway edge lights complete with new underground cabling and connectors. Finally new asphalt shoulder paving and pavement marking will be done. Project Justification: Taxiway F connects Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R with the terminal area. It has a high volume of aircraft use because it serves as a major taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft. The taxiway concrete panels are showing signs of pavement distress including surface spalling, full depth slab cracking, and corner breaking indicating that the pavement is at the end of its useful service life. This area has received multiple patches where the concrete has settled indicating possible base failure. This project will make a significant contribution to safety and capacity by ensuring that the taxiway pavement integrity is preserved while minimizing FOD. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date April 2024 October 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $9,400,000 $9,400,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $7,050,000 $2,350,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 61 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway U & V Proper (Design) Project Description: This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $4,725,000 $4,725,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $4,725,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 62 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment Project Description: This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 March 2024 November 2026 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $64,560,000 $6,339,000 $1,291,000 $5,000 $6,456,000 $78,651,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $36,570,000 $42,081,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 63 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:UPS Pump Station Replacement Project Description: The glycol collection system is deteriorating in older portions of the airport. In new development the ability to divert low concentration surface water has been implemented to improve the efficiency of the reclamation process. This project will replace the pumps at the UPS Cargo facility pump station due to deterioration and add a diversion vault with actuators, similar to more recent installations. The actuators help manage the large volume of water that does not need treatment which is generated from the cargo ramp deicing pads. Project Justification: The pump station near the UPS Cargo facility is rapidly deteriorating and is in need of replacement. The surface water that is collected during inclement weather that does not need to be treated at the reclamation plant needs to be diverted to storm drain. This project replaces essential infrastructure as well as improves efficiency of the reclamation process, ultimately reducing processing costs. The pump station work needs to be completed prior to the start of the Airport's deicing season to accommodate the air cargo carriers. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2023 October 2023 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,164,000 $178,000 $23,000 $2,000 $116,000 $1,483,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,483,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 64 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction Project Description: This project is for site development within General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support future expansion. Work will include demolition of an existing row of T-hangars along with asbestos mitigation, if necessary, and site preparation consisting of taxilane pavement reconstruction and rerouting of existing water and storm drain utilities. Project Justification: The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft. This project will construct a taxilane for access to undeveloped areas at the Airport and allow for future growth. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,126,000 $141,000 $23,000 $210,000 $113,000 $1,613,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,613,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 65 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I Project Description: This project will widen the existing taxilane north of the existing shade hangars and construct a new ramp complete with underground utilities for a proposed future site for a new T-hangar at the South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA). Project Justification: An existing taxilane north of the shade hangars will be widened approximately 21' to accommodate Group II aircraft to access a new 220' x 750' ramp where a future T-hangar will be constructed. New underground utilities consisting of gas, power, communication, water, storm drain, and sewer will be installed and stubbed up to within 15 feet of the future T-hangars. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $2,276,000 $216,000 $46,000 $1,000 $182,000 $2,721,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $2,721,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 66 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:TVY Water & Sewer Improvements Project Description: This project will provide water and sewer infrastructure to the Tooele Valley Airport (TVY) to support the future aerial firefighting facilities being constructed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This work includes the installation of a sewer lift station, 16,500 LF of sewer line, and 16,500 LF of water line. Project Justification: Salt Lake City Corporation recently signed a lease agreement with the BLM which will begin construction of government facilities including a Single Engine Airtanker (SEAT) base of operations to include Air Attack, Helitack operations, retardant distribution and containment systems, and an Aviation Dispatch Center building on approximately 10 acres at TVY. Development of future hangars and facilities cannot occur until water and sewer utilities are available at TVY. The BLM is expected to begin construction of their new facility in 2023 and have an operational SEAT base by 2025. SLCDA is working on an agreement with Grantsville City to connect the water and sewer utilities. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 April 2024 October 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $7,399,000 $259,000 $148,000 $500,000 $740,000 $9,046,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $9,046,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 67 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 Project Description: Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) has created a Master Plan for a phased installation program of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and infrastructure relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. For the past several years, the Airport has received rebates from Rocky Mountain Power which have reimbursed up to 75% of the cost to purchase and install EVCS on the Airport campus. This year the Airport will apply for funding incentives to install infrastructure for 16 level 2 EVCS for employee parking. Project Justification: Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Nonattainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute to respiratory problems. This project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The Airport is proposing to install infrastructure and purchase 16 Level 2 EVCS for the employee parking lot. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $884,000 $89,000 $2,000 $5,000 $88,000 $1,068,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,068,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 68 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design) Project Description: This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot. Project Justification: The Environmental Assessment (EA) currently underway requires the design of the surplus canal relocation to be completed to a 60% design level. This budget request is to complete the balance of the design and provide contract documents for bid, award, and construction administration for the FY2025 construction season. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2025 June 2028 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,410,000 $19,000 $10,000 $120,000 $1,559,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,559,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 69 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction) Project Description: This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified that a new employee parking lot will be needed to accommodate the forecasted increase in employee numbers at our facility. The existing South Employee Parking Lot will be reutilized to accommodate the forecasted increase in passenger parking. With passenger numbers already approaching past 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase both their operations and employee numbers at SLCIA, the need to expand our parking has been accelerated. There currently is not enough parking to sustain peak days. This program will provide an immediate and long-term parking solution. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2025 June 2028 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $45,185,000 $4,784,000 $904,000 $5,417,000 $4,518,000 $60,808,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $60,808,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 70 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:AOC Backup Generator Project Description: This project will provide a new 480V backup generator to support the Airport Operations Center (AOC) building users that have been affected by power outages. Project Justification: The Airport Operations Center (AOC) is considered a vital building where Airport Control is directed and maintained. After a number of recent power outages, the facility users requested the building service loads to be backed up by a new generator. The AOC building is currently supported from two electrical services and two emergency standby generators. Envision Engineering, one of the Airport's on-call electrical consultants, has completed a study to evaluate the AOC standby branch capacity on the south side of the building and proposed options to backup these loads for the vital functions of the AOC. The option selected was to move the entire distribution panel NDL-1A-01 to a new 480V generator to meet the demands for full backup power. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 December 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $250,000 $29,000 $5,000 $2,000 $25,000 $311,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $311,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 71 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway Project Description: This project is for additional site development in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support current demand for corporate hangar development. Work will include demolition of the FAA FMP building and construction of a new hangar access road. This project includes site preparation and construction of taxilane pavement and installation of new underground utilities to a future hangar lease area. A new 475-foot wide by 30-foot long hangar access road and taxilane pavement will be constructed up to the future hangar lease line. Project Justification: The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft for future hangar facility development. This project will construct infrastructure to allow for future growth. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $783,000 $75,000 $48,000 $60,000 $78,000 $1,044,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,044,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 72 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor Project Description: This project will replace the Electrical Main Distribution equipment for buildings NS1 and NS4 located in North Support and provide a power factor capacitor bank for NS4 to condition the power output within this building. The work includes the purchase and installation of all new main electrical distribution equipment for the incoming high voltage Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that feeds the main breakers and switchboards in both buildings. This also includes miscellaneous conduit, cabling, and junction box work. Project Justification: The NS1 and NS4 North Support buildings were constructed approximately 37 years ago and replacement parts for the original electrical equipment in these buildings is no longer available. This is due to the electrical manufacturer going out of business. Since parts are no longer available for purchase, any failure of the electrical infrastructure in either of these buildings will impact Airport Fleet Maintenance, Warehouse, and Roads and Grounds staff and equipment. Also impacted would be the CASS, Radio, and Electrical shops. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 December 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $905,000 $77,000 $7,000 $2,000 $72,000 $1,063,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,063,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 73 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:NWS Replacement Controls Project Description: This project will replace the existing Variable Air Volume (VAV) units that have reached the end of their useful life in the tenant area of the National Weather Service (NWS) facility. The units will be replaced with new VAV units with Direct Digital Controls (DDC). Project Justification: The existing VAV units are pneumatically controlled and have reached the end of their useful life and will be replaced with new units that have integrated DDC controls allowing BACKNET connections for the control and maintenance by Airport Maintenance. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $494,000 $66,000 $10,000 $5,000 $49,000 $624,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $624,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 74 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 The Salt Lake City Golf Division The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects. The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing at the Mountain Dell and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 75 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Tee Box Leveling Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing tee box leveling at all 6 courses ($60,000). Salt Lake City customer satisfaction surveys and course evaluation initiatives have shown that the biggest area of needed improvement is the condition of the tee boxes. This is an area where course labor can be utilized to perform a large portion of the work. The Golf Division proposes utilizing Golf CIP funds to pay for needed equipment and supplies. Each course will undertake a four-year plan to address tee box leveling of existing tee boxes and to begin construction of new forward tee boxes. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $60,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 76 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Pump Replacement Project Address:Glendale Project Description: The Golf Division will be replacing the first of five irrigation pumps at Glendale golf course ($20,000). The replacement of these pumps will take place over a 5-year period. This is the first of 5 pumps that are nearing their life expectancy. At any time if one of these pumps goes down it will have impact on our ability to irrigate the golf course. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Replacement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $20,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 77 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance Equipment Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional used equipment (usually lease-return equipment from high-end private courses). The plan would be to purchase equipment if available such as Sprayer, Groundsmaster, Greensmaster. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Equipment Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf Operating Fund $424,263 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 78 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Parking Lot Resurfacing Project Address:Mountain Dell Project Description: The Golf Division will be resurfacing the parking lot at Mountain Dell. This improvement project is estimated to cost ($250,000). The current parking lot surface is beyond just normal sealing and patching and will require full replacement. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $250,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 79 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Property Fencing Project Project Address:Nibley Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be replacing property fencing at Nibley Park golf course ($55,220). The projects consist of removal of existing damaged fencing along the northern perimeter (2700 south) and replacing it with new fencing material. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $55,220 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 80 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:New Construction Projects Project Address:Glendale Project Description: The Golf Division will be entering into the planning phases of a new construction project at Glendale Golf Course ($1,300,000). The projects consist of a double-decker range structure and new fencing at Glendale. This project will position the Glendale driving range to take advantage of changing market conditions and will expand the range capacity and extend the use of the range by 3 to 4 additional months annually, having a significant increase in driving range revenue generation and providing an enhanced recreation opportunity for City residents and visitors. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Construction Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $1,300,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 81 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Irrigation Improvements Project Address:Rose Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing irrigation improvements at Rose Park ($4,400,000). The current mainline system is as old as 65 years and is in desperate need of replacement. This project also includes a turfgrass reduction plan and some redesign of certain holes to allow for a more efficient system, utilizing fewer heads and potential water use reduction of up to 40%. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvements Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $4,400,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 82 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cart Path Improvements Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing cart path improvements at all 6 courses ($525,000). Well-maintained golf cart paths are critical for the overall customer experience and for helping to preserve golf course playing conditions. The existing paths are decades behind receiving proper repair and expansion. Additionally, with slight modifications, many cart paths can be used by non-golfers during the off season or other times when conditions are not ideal for golf. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvements Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $525,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 83 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2024, the department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 85 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Water Main Replacements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 1,300 miles of aging water pipe. Over the past 10 years, Public Utilities has replaced an average of 18,820 linear feet per year. The budget includes two major transmission line projects: 1) $5,000,000 for the continuation of a master plan project – East-West Conveyance Line – Terminal Reservoir to 300 East and 2) next phase of Upper Conduit for $3,500,000. This category also includes $6,120,000 for routine replacement of pipelines in poor condition at various locations in the system with $2,950,000 related to the Funding our Future streets bond projects. The department is continuing to develop a more robust way to identify pipeline replacement priorities and corrosion related issues within the system. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $14,620,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 86 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Treatment Plant Improvements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: All three city-owned water treatment plants (WTPs) were built in the 1950's and early 1960's. Each plant is nearing the end of its expected life and will need to be rebuilt. The City Creek WTP will be rebuilt first based on DPU’s receipt of a FEMA BRIC grant for this project. The grant is a 70% match up to $36.6M. Work during the coming FY includes completion of design ($1.7M), start of construction ($12.5M), and continued public engagement ($290K). The reconstruction of the Big Cottonwood WTP will be delayed until sufficient budget is available to design and construct this important project. However, construction of the Big Cottonwood Creek Pump Station ($10M this year) and associated SLA Replacement – Cottonwoods Connection pipeline ($10M this year) will begin as part of a regionalization approach that allows Big Cottonwood Creek water to be treated using available capacity of the existing Little Cottonwood WTP. This pump station and pipeline will serve as redundancy to both the Big Cottonwood WTP and the portion of the Big Cottonwood Conduit that conveys drinking water from the plant to the City’s drinking water distribution system. This cost center also includes replacing failing components as they wear out as part of annual budget ($2M) to ensure regulatory compliance until larger projects can be funded. Finally, the budget for capital project support of $1.65M includes contracted project management support necessary for delivery of these important projects. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $38,340,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Estimated operational increase of $2.2M per/year. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 87 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Deep Pump Wells Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The Department would like to bring more wells online to help supplement water supplies, first starting with inactive wells. One of these inactive wells is the budgeted 1500 East Well. This well and other inactive wells are being evaluated for future use and repair or rehabilitation, as required to bring wells to current codes and Division of Drinking Water standards. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $100,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 88 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Meter Change-Out Program Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The budget includes the continuation of the small meter change out program piloted in 2015 and initiated in 2018. Metering water consumption by customers is the source of our revenue. Approximately 51,100, or 63%, of the system’s water meters have been replaced with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) read meters. With optimal conditions, 10,000 to 12,000 meters per year can be replaced. Supply chain issues have created delays thus replacement is planned at 8,000 meters per year. The plan is to complete the residential AMI meter change out program in the next 4 to 4 ½ years. AMI technology provides hourly usage information instead of relying on monthly data. An online portal provides our customers with information to better manage their water usage and alerts to the status of their water service. Better information will assist us in water conservation efforts. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,500,000 Priority: Ongoing program Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 89 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Water Service Connections Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Water service extends beyond the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. Approximately 37% of our service connections are in this outlying area. Repair and replacement of these connections are part of an ongoing program. The components of this program are service line replacements, new connections, and small and large meter maintenance and replacement. Public Utilities is determining the best way to implement the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revision (LCRR) including developing inventories, sampling plans, public outreach, and lateral service line replacements. The plan will include resources, personnel, and capital needs. Budget associated with the LCRR includes $500,000 to support pothole work associated with inventory development and service line material identification. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $3,450,000 Priority: Project/need specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Estimated operational increase of $100,000 per year associated LCRR line replacement and temporary filters. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 90 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storage Reservoirs Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU owns and operates six raw water reservoirs that store snow run-off. SLCDPU operates Little Dell Dam, for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy with a capital improvement budget of $400,000 for controls replacements. Little Dell and 5 of SLCDPU’s reservoirs are used to store water that is treated for drinking water. All seven of the reservoirs are a contingent way for the Department to meet exchange agreements for secondary water. Three of the reservoirs are used by ski areas for snowmaking. The raw water storage reservoir at Mountain Dell has a $6,040,000 proposed budget for outlet replacement, upstream waterproofing, and land restoration work. SLCDPU has received a 30% matching funds, grant of $265,000 in December of 2022 for engineering and planning for Lake Mary Dam’s restoration. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $6,690,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 91 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Pumping Plants & Pump Houses Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: As a result of its size and topography, the water distribution system consists of more than 50 different pressure zones. Pump stations are often connections between pressure zones, pumping treated water from one zone to another. The utility has over thirty pump stations with many still needing back-up power or generators for system resiliency. Planned projects for this fiscal year are the Arlington Hills Pump Station Full Backup Power project, $700,000, and the University Pump Station Piping Replacement and Equipment Upgrades project, $200,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $900,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 92 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Culverts, Flumes & Bridges Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: These secondary water conveyance systems are critical to maintaining our water exchange agreements. Planned projects within this category are the flume from Double Barrels to the railroad tracks for $2,200,000 and the JSL Canal Enclosure at Millcreek for $2,000,000. These projects are intended to support the long-term resiliency and reliability of systems that are critical to maintaining water deliveries. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $4,200,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 93 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 100,000,000 gallons of finished water storage in 22 tanks and reservoirs. These components require on-going inspection and maintenance. The location and elevation of these facilities is critical to the operation of the water distribution system. The budget includes $1,850,000 dedicated to maintenance and repair of both the 15th East Reservoir and Park Reservoir structures. Other projects include slope stabilization efforts at the Canyon Cove Upper Tank, $50,000, and drainage upgrades at the Capitol Hills Tanks site, $400,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,300,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 94 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $400,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $400,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 95 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Treatment Plants Project Address:1365 West 2300 North Project Description: The largest budgeted item in this category is for the construction of a new water reclamation facility. The $210,499,773 estimate represents the continuation of a multi-year project and includes design, construction, and program management. Existing plant improvement projects include Capital Asset Rehabilitation and Upgrades for $1,300,000, digester rehabilitation and cogeneration projects for $210,000 and $250,000 respectively. These existing plant improvements are critical to maintaining existing operations while the new water reclamation facility is commissioned. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $212,259,773 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Temporary dewatering will continue to have an operational impact in FY24 for chemical costs. The annual operational cost of wastewater treatment is anticipated to increase by $2M to $4M for power and chemical costs when the construction of the new water reclamation facility is complete and operational. This estimate will be refined as construction progresses. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 96 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Collection Lines Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 667 miles of aging sewer collections pipelines. Proposed budget within this category includes pipe renewal & replacement projects, City/County/State driven projects, and master plan projects. Master plan projects are the largest budgeted item in this category and total $23,955,000. This includes $1,500,000 for the 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 2; $6,000,000 for 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 3; $12,000,000 for 2100 S Upsizing Project; and $250,000 for South Temple Upsizing Project. Master plan projects identified within this category support system condition improvements and growth related capacity constraints. Pipe renewal & replacement projects are budgeted for $2,155,000 and consist of Emergency Operations Support, 2100 S Sewer Rehab (600 E/400 E), and other small improvement projects intended to improve system operations and reliability. The budget includes $1,650,000 for capital project support, program management, and emergency projects. Project budgets to support City, County and State driven projects are estimated at $400,000 which includes Misc. Public Services Projects and the 700 N Sewer Rehabilitation design, which is to be completed in advance of the planned roadway improvements. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $23,955,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 97 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Lift Stations Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The Proposed lift station renewal and replacement program anticipates two projects for FY 2023/2024. The first of these projects includes the 5300 West Lift Station capacity improvements budgeted for $2,500,000. This project is intended to support growth within the International Center and surrounding inland port development area. The Industrial Lift Station Improvements budgeted for $250,000 are intended to improve the existing lift station operating conditions and to mitigate sanitary sewer overflows that have been experienced over the past several years. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,750,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 98 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $350,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $350,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 99 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storm Drain Lines Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The largest item in this category is $5,730,000 for projects supporting City, County, and State driven projects, including $4,430,000 in work supporting Funding our Future streets bond projects. Other projects in this category total $1,300,000 for various collection lines and public utility defined projects to include Highland Drive storm drain improvements, northwest drain bypass to Jordan River improvements, and Emigration Creek at 1700 South improvements. Other local area projects to be completed by city crews at various locations are budgeted to be $500,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $6,230,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 100 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Riparian Corridor Improvements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The planned riparian project for FY 2023/2024 is Emigration Creek – 1700 S Outlet Protection. Riparian vegetation will be restored and a wingwall and apron will be installed to reduce erosion in Emigration Creek. This work will accompany the rehabilitation of the 1700 S culvert which conveys Emigration Creek through the roadway. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $250,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 101 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Landscaping Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The landscaping budget includes $50,000 for the Northwest Oil Drain canal remediation. This budget is to reserve funding for cleanup and closeout on the remediated portions of the Northwest Drain. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $50,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 102 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storm Water Lift Stations Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Storm water lift station work includes the design of a storm water lift station in Swede Town budgeted for $200,000. This will provide improved drainage services in Swede Town and surrounding area east of the railroad. The Northwest Drain Lift Station Reconstruction is intended to increase capacity of the Northwest Drain and is budgeted for design in the amount of $450,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $650,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 103 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Detention Basins Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Detention Basins work includes the continuation of the design of the Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping Project. This project will design detention basins to be installed within the city to reduce the Granary Floodplain. The Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-mapping is budgeted for $365,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $365,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 104 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Street Lighting Projects Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Planned projects for FY 2023/2024 are $2,240,000 to upgrade to high efficiency lighting and other system improvements on arterial streets, collector streets, and in neighborhoods. This includes budget to hire a contractor to perform inspections on new street lighting facilities, consultant support to develop an Implementation Plan for new Master Plan related projects, and budget for improvements for base level lighting services and three enhanced lighting groups. The master plan determines and guides best practices for upgrades and new lights. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Street Lighting Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Funds Enterprise Funds: $2,240,000 Priority: Ongoing program Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Reduce electricity costs.Replacing aging poles and wiring throughout the city.Continued research on Smart City and Lighting Control Technology. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 105 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City Creek daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert underground up to the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This $50,000 funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects 107 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:City Creek Daylighting Project Address:Folsom Corridor – North Temple Project Area Project Description: Appropriation of funds to support a design plan to daylight (bring to the surface) a portion of City Creek that runs north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. Project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Proposal ID: Department:RDA Project Type: Category: Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $50,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but it’s anticipated that City Parks and Public Utilities will maintain the creek and associated amenities. Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects 108 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 104 4 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Internal #7 Serious 2 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 103.29 Citywide $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Satisfactory 3 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 103.14 5 $ 234,000 $ 234,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability 6 Failed 4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 101.86 Citywide $ 1,500,000 $ 1,100,000 Citywide (N/A)6 N/A 5 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 100.71 Citywide $ 6,600,000 $ 3,293,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Failed 6 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 100 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Ranges from Poor to Failed 7 Livable Streets Implementation 99.14 Citywide $ 2,500,000 $ 1,350,000 Citywide (N/A)5 N/A 8 Neighborhood Byways 98 Citywide $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Highest Vulnerability 7 N/A 9 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 97 Citywide $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed 10 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 96.86 2 $ 507,000 $ 507,000 Highest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #8 Fair 11 Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 96 2 $ 200,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Internal #5 N/A 12 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 95.57 1 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #4 Failed 13 Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum 95.29 2 $ 850,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability 1 Serious 14 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 95.29 Citywide $ 3,500,000 $ 1,250,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed 15 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 94 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 N/A 16 Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub 93.86 1 $ 495,000 $- Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #9 N/A 17 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design 93.43 Citywide $ 75,000 $- Lowest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #4 Poor 18 Madsen Park Improvements 93 2 $ 500,000 $- Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #3 Fair 19 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 92.57 1 $ 855,000 $ 855,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #1 Failed 20 337 Park Development 92.29 4 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Internal #8 N/A 21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements 92 1 $ 840,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability 4 Constituent #6 Failed Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 1 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 22 Richmond Park Community Playground 92 4 $ 530,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Internal #10 Serious 23 Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study 91.14 1 $ 140,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA not ranked Very Poor 24 Jefferson Park Improvements 90.86 5 $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #2 Very Poor 25 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 89.86 Citywide $ 414,000 $ 414,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Internal #6 N/A 26 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 89.57 1 $ 497,000 $ 497,000 Highest Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory 27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 89.14 2 $ 495,111 $ - Highest Vulnerability 5 Fair 28 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 87 Citywide $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Serious/Failed 29 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 86.57 4 $ 1,148,771 $ 1,148,771 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 30 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 85.57 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to Failed 31 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 84 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)1 N/A 32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 83.14 7 $ 150,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 3 N/A 33 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 82.86 2 $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Constituent #1 Poor 34 Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 82.29 2 $ 361,073 $ - Highest Vulnerability NA Constituent #9 Satisfactory/Poor 35 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 80.14 4 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Failed 36 Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation 80 Citywide $ 500,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Internal #3 N/A 37 Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned 78.57 Citywide $ 242,823 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 5 Constituent #7 Fair/Poor 38 First Encampment Park 77 5 $ 125,500 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 1 Satisfactory 39 Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections 76.57 2 $ 162,500 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 6 N/A 40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance 76.43 Citywide $ 200,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)5 Ranges from Poor to Failed 41 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 72.29 2 $ 4,000,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 2 Failed 42 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 70.43 5 $ 336,500 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 4 Very Poor Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 2 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 43 Central 9th Streetscape Improvements 70.43 5 $ 85,000 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A 44 Sugar House Community Map Project 68.71 7 $ 93,400 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 3 Very Poor/NA 45 Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 68.57 4 $ 2,000,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to Failed 46 Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive 67.86 6 $ 494,126 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 4 N/A 47 Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) 65.57 3 $ 100,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory 48 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches 64 3 $ 533,165 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Internal #2 N/A 49 New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails 60.14 5 $ 262,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 4 Constituent #5 N/A 50 Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements 60 6 $ 450,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 2 Failed 51 Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration 56 6 $ 500,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Constituent #10 Fair 52 Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 53.14 5 $ 470,703 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A 53 Nevada Street Reconstruction 52.71 6 $ 479,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Serious 54 Sunnyside Pickleball Courts 49.29 6 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 55 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 48 7 $ 351,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 1 Serious 56 Salt Lake City Pétanque 44.57 1 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 43.43 3 $ 210,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Poor 58 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion 40.57 3 $ 502,500 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA N/A 59 Westside Art Project N/A 1, 2, and/or 3 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 TBD NA N/A Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 3 Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Funding Sources General Fund Dollars (Most flexible funding source; can be spent on any project) These are the City’s most flexible unrestricted funds available to be spent on any CIP project. The Council transfers a portion of General Fund revenues into the CIP Fund as part of each annual budget in June. The City collects a variety of revenue sources that all go into the General Fund such as property taxes, sales taxes, franchise taxes, building permits and license fees, and many others. A Council audit identified 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues as an ideal funding level to help ensure the City keeps up with capital investment needs. The City reached that 9% funding level in FY2023. In the prior two decades the City’s annual General Fund transfer into the CIP Fund averaged closer to 7%. Funding Our Future 0.5% Local Salt Lake City Option Sales Tax (Critical need categories: housing, public transit, streets, and public safety; a fifth category of parks maintenance was added in FY2023) The 0.5% sales tax increase was authorized by the Legislature only for the capital city as part of the State prison relocation from Draper. The City’s local option sales tax was increased as part of the FY2019 annual budget and was branded “Funding Our Future” along with a Streets Reconstruction Bond approved by voters (all those bond funds have now been budgeted). Prior to enacting the sales tax increase the City conducted impact research, public hearings, open houses, workshops, letters, online information, and other extensive outreach. The funds from the sales tax are limited to the critical need categories as determined by the Council. The definition of the critical need categories has evolved over the times such as expanding public safety from only police to also include 911 dispatch, fire, medical, and social workers. The number of categories was originally four and a fifth category, parks maintenance, was added in FY2023. There is no legal limitation to the categories which are subject to the Council’s annual appropriation process and subject to change. Class C Funds (State gas tax) Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations as recorded in the Engineering Division’s Six Year Pavement Plan which is regularly updated. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and the County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding. Per state law, Class C funds may be used for: 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way 3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund) 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals 5. Engineering and administration costs 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects 7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards 8. Matching federal funds 9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys 12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating 13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible) County Quarter Center (0.25%) Sales Tax (Limited to transportation and streets eligible uses per state law) The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is an ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle- focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g., widening) existing roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for the Utah Transit Authority or UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and Class C funds. Impact Fee Eligibility (Four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation / streets) Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service provided can continue with the additional impacts of the new developments (such as serving more residents or workers). As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not encumbered or spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest. General Impact Fee Guidelines: 1. Impact fees are to be used to keep a current level of service for new growth to a City. 2. Cannot be used to cure deficiencies serving existing development. 3. May not raise the established level of service in existing development. 4. Cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for staff/administration, operation, and maintenance. 5. Impact fees can only be used to pay for the portion of the project directly attributable to growth (it’s uncommon for projects to be 100% eligible for impact fees). 6. Must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected, or they shall be returned to the developer with interest payments per state law. 7. Must use an adopted Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities needed to serve new growth and set fees costs by development type. 8. Repair and replacement projects are not growth related. 9. Upgrade projects are not growth related. 10. Repair, replacement, or upgrades can be included as part of a mixed project where the scope will create increased capacity to serve projected growth. 11. Impact fees must be spent in the same geographic boundary (service area) in which they are collected. The City’s Impact Fee Facilities Plan designates the entire city as the service area. The Transportation section was updated in 2020. The other three sections were adopted in 2016. Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8319062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre $209.89 Total $209.89 8314031 Driver Feedback Signs $86,320.00 8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program $21,518.62 8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru $2,219.83 8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C $112,657.56 8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp $38,047.09 8319504 Street Reconstruct 1500S/2700S $8,281.62 8320501 Streets Reconstruction 20 $1,497.88 8320502 Street Overlay 20 $99,454.82 8320503 Traffic Signal Upgrades 20 $0.74 Total $369,998.16 8300800 ESCO Steiner - County Ongoing $439,527.00 8317076 SLVSWMF Projects $132,043.12 8319705 ZAP Oak Tennis Pro $4,721.20 8319710 Trans Choice 9 Line $62,203.69 8319720 Millcreek Sugarhouse County $27,021.29 8320070 FY20 Landfill Monitoring $207,402.00 Total $872,918.30 8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp $8,598.00 8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion $234,427.36 8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House $12,039.79 8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation $35,565.72 8317064 Jordan River Trail – Union P $500,000.00 8321800 Community Nutrition Hub $75,462.02 8322633 200 South Dominion Donation $300,000.00 8323401 Backman Community Donation $20,000.00 8600071 Smith Ballfield Naming Rights $374,908.15 8619621 Transportation Safety Improvem $630.25 Total $1,561,631.29 8315015 Fire Station #14 furnishings $6,265.96 8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap $25,335.87 8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $103,181.93 8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W $13,194.60 8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction $476,232.86 8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements $16,990.39 8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh $7,343.15 8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH $21,634.16 8317055 Capital Facilities Plan $4,928.32 8318028 Bridge Maintenance $76,503.76 8318044 East West Connections Study $970.74 8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails $57,732.81 8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway $24,336.20 8318048 Miller Park ADA access $364,735.10 8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control $4,432.91 8318053 Parks and Rec HVAC $9,900.00 8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP $110,104.00 8319085 Cost overrun $56,027.29 8319301 Delong & Parks Yard Improvemen $20,915.09 8319401 Glendale Park Playground Path $43,476.17 8319403 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr $1,428.58 CDBG Class C County Donations Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8319405 Rose Park Multiloop Trail $148,007.23 8319406 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage $39,545.97 8319616 Whitlock Curb and Gutter $18,909.88 8319619 1900 East Reconsruction $68,502.51 8319621 Traffic Signals Upgrade $0.68 8319622 1400 E Sunnyside Intersection $64,662.90 8319701 Library Parking Equipment $59,576.57 8319721 Millcreek Sugarhouse GF $485.95 8319741 WestsideMultimodal GF $29,657.50 8319900 Transportation Acctg SalesTax $2,241.02 8320085 Cost overrun $70,381.00 8320401 Liberty Park 7 Cany Fountain $695,580.27 8320402 Hidden Hollow Water Enhancemen $379,928.03 8320404 10 E Senior Ctr Retaining Wall $2,378.51 8320405 Libert Prk Drainage Fueling S.$94,837.45 8320406 Community Parks Signage $248,665.00 8320407 Three Creeks Con Phase III $492,800.00 8320432 Liberty 7 Canyons Fountain $127,968.00 8320442 Match UT FHA Foothill Trails $144,106.12 8320602 Bus Stop Signal Enhancements $772,947.60 8320603 McClelland Str Phase 2a $124,740.00 8320701 Sorensen Unity Connecting Corr $875,000.00 8381200 OPEN SPACE LAND MATCHING $11,600.00 8395046 OPEN SPACE LAND TRUST $9,103.01 8600001 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - GF $598,685.20 8600005 Crime Lab Rent $101,842.10 8600040 Percent for Art $255,895.77 8600042 Maintenance Percent for Art $43,133.35 8600401 Parks Maintenance $206,898.27 8600402 Public Lands Maintenance FOF $1,170,528.45 8600701 Facilities Maintenance $451,424.24 8600702 Facilities Asset Renewal $964,847.78 8619402 City-wide Park Walkway Safety $5,386.33 8619409 Fairmont Stream Access Beautif $17,000.00 8619411 Westside Trail Connections $249,922.91 8619602 Bridge Maintenance $150,000.00 8619603 Saw Cutting Sidewalk -$33.59 Why is this negative? 8619624 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration $35,322.27 8619625 Sunnyside 9 Line Trail $3,342.01 8620608 Sugarhouse 600 E Traffic Calmi $149,068.28 8620621 Bridge Maintenance $250,000.00 8686058 Elections Expenses $91,546.00 Total $10,672,104.46 8405005 Public Safety Building Replcmn $0.28 8406001 Gladiola Street $2,244.33 8412002 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design $124,593.18 8416004 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $42,832.69 8416005 9line park $4,420.71 8417011 Marmalade Park Block Phase II $73,264.60 8417012 Parley's Trail Design & Constr $327,678.45 8417013 Rosewood Dog Park $1,055.97 General Fund Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8417014 Redwood Meadows Park Dev $9,350.26 8417017 Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn $2,945.50 8417018 Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence $1,569.60 8418002 Cwide Dog Lease Imp $261.73 8418003 Bikeway Urban Trails $181,845.59 8418005 Bridge to Backman $251,757.84 8418016 500 to 700 S $22,744.01 8419008 Traffic Signal Upgrades $450.00 8419103 ImperialParkShadeAcct'g $6,397.50 8419150 Pioneer Park $3,022,323.09 8419201 Eastside Precint $21,639.09 8419202 Fire'sConsultant'sContract $58.00 8419203 Street'sConsultant'sContract $12,374.31 8419204 Park'sConsultant'sContract $42.00 8420110 Transp Safety Improvements $32,028.03 8420120 Complete Street Enhancements $18,699.37 8420125 Street Improve Reconstruc 20 $383,308.67 8420134 Jordan Prk Event Grounds $399,055.66 8420136 9Line Orchard $142,612.29 8420138 Rich Prk Comm Garden $8,103.29 8420142 Wasatch Hollow Improvements $413,726.49 8420406 IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks $54,807.56 8420420 UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails $121,329.10 8420424 Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen $110,390.48 8420430 FY20 Bridge to Backman $117,628.28 Total $5,911,537.95 8600002 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT -$27,171.28 Why is this negative? Total -$27,171.28 8316079 University bikeway $1,200.80 Total $1,200.80 8318100 Fire Training Center $19,313.38 8319801 PolicePrecinctLandAquisition $1,299,688.00 8381600 Regional Sports Complex land p $489,836.03 8381750 Building Assessment - City Bld $19,602.62 Total $1,828,440.03 $208,275,255.98 Impact Fees Land Sales Private Donations Sale of Property Grand Total Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019 1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council consideration. Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of deferred maintenance Appropriations vs. funding need identified in Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that tracks each asset $6.8 million annually or $68 million over ten years Expand the City's urban trail network with an emphasis on East-West connections Total paved/unpaved network miles; number and funding for improved trail features; percentage of 9-Line completed $21 million for 9- Line implementation Increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement condition survey every five years $133 million cost estimate (in addition to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Master Plan Distance of improved trails completed; number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD Advance the City's sustainability goals through building energy efficiency upgrades Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD Focus on renewal and maintenance projects over creating new assets Number, funding level and ratio of renewed assets vs. new assets $TBD 2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CAP projects. The idea of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5 million, and over $5 million. 3.Measure CAP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CAP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CAP. A high alignment would indicate the CAP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs. 4.Council Adoption of CAP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CAP each year with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding. Does the Administration have a preference? Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000 $200,000 $220,000 Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 $270,000 $290,000 4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 $550,000 $585,000 8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000 $850,000 $915,000 Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000 $90,000-$115000 $75,000-$115,000 Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000 $90,000-$175,000 $75,000-$175,000 City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000 $230,000-$350,000 $200,000-$350,000 Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000 $45,000-$62,500 $45,000 -$65,000 Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $250,000-$350,000 $300,000-$450,000 $325,000-$455,000 New Playground $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000 $550,000-$650,000 $585,000-$715,000 Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000 $450,000-$550,000 $525,000-$650,000 Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $325,000 Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF $54.00-$65.00 $58.00-$70.00/LF Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000 $210,000 $220,000 New post tension court $250,000 $300,000 $360,000 $400,000 Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40" width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF $30.00-$35.00 $32.50-$40.00/LF Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF $13.00-$18.00 $13.00-$20.00/LF Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF $7.00/SF $10.00/SF Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF $12.00/SF $15.00/SF Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF $8.00-$13.00/SF $10.00-$15.00/SF Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000 $330,000-$460,000 $365,000-$500,000 Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +$85,000+$90,000+ Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750 $600 $750 Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000 $135,000-$250,000 $145,000-$275,000 Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles = 1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+$ 700,000 $746,000 Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile)2,000+$2,500+$ 4,000 $4,300 Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000 $750,000-$1,250,000 $799,000-$1,331,000 Traffic Signals - New $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000 Traffic Signals - Upgrades $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000 HAWK Signals $ 130,000 $ 150,000 $ 175,000 $350,000 Drinking Fountains Multi-purpose Field Improvements Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts) Path/ Trail Improvements Regular CIP Project Costs; General Rules of Thumb NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (could be out of date), vary by project, and do not include ongoing maintenance Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work) Studies Crosswalk - Flashing $ 60,000 $75,000 $85,000 $90,000 Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights $ 25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $37,000 Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000 $20000 - $30000 $21,500 - $32,000 Driver Feedback Sign $ 8,000 $9,500 $11,000 $12,000 Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk $ 25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $43,000 Pedestrian Refuge Island $ 10,000 $12,000 $15,000 $16,000 Curb Extension at Intersection $ 20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $32,000 Crosswalk $ 1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200 Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)$ 280,000 $ 335,000 $ 360,000 $587,000 Crack Seal (Lane Mile)$ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $11,000 Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)$ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $761,000 Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 - $1,700,000 $1,088,000 - $1,811,000 Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)$ 4 $5 $6 $7 Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12 $9 - $15 $ 12 - $17 Note: Last updated July 2023 Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary From the Transportation Division -Hired four new transportation planners. -Worked with the Administration and City Council to change the prima facie speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph. Additional 20 mph signs are currently being prepared for installation near elementary schools throughout the city. -Updated the Livable Streets and Transportation Safety web pages. -For Livable Streets Zone 1, phase 1 of the traffic calming project for the Capitol Hill area has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -Our first public meetings were held this spring for Livable Streets Zones 2, 3 and 4. -Speed bumps to be installed on 2100 East and 1300 South. The project has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -The Slow Down West Sugar House project has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -Temporary traffic calming devices were installed in the Sugar House Safe Side Streets project area. -As part of the Emery Street Livability Improvement Pilot Project, temporary traffic calming devices have been installed on Emery St with more on the way over the next couple of weeks. -Extensive work has been performed to update the crosswalk flag program. -Livable Streets enhancements were installed at a school crosswalk located at 2150 E Westminster -A roundabout has been designed for 700 S 1000 W. The project is currently being prepared for advertisement to obtain contractor bids. -In-roadway crosswalk warning signs were installed at multiple locations. Zone Prioritization and Status Based on Funding Level The prioritization of the zones hasn’t changed, therefore the overall map remains the same. Since this program is so new, we’re still working off estimates of the amount of funding each zone will require for their Livable Streets improvements. If we assume that the average of each zone will be $500K, then, based on the original $2M plus the new $1.35M funding will provide us with enough funding for approximately $3.35M/$500K = 6.7 Zones, or about six or seven zones. The attached map highlights the locations of the top 7 Livable Streets zones. We’re already working on Zones 1-4. Based on these assumptions, the FY2024 $1.35 million request will fund all or a portion of the projects in zones 5, 6 and 7. Note, the color coded prioritization map on the following page is from the Livable Streets Program 2022 Final Report page 13. Council staff added zone numbers one through seven to help compare the two maps. An interactive version of the zones map is available on the Transportation Division’s website here: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/livable-streets/#LivableStreetsProjects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CAP Plan, Matrix, & Policy Goals/Metrics Council Briefing July 18, 2023 Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, and Mike Atkinson Capital Asset Planning Model Funding Sources Funding Source Description Transportation Fund Quarter Cent Sales Tax - Transportation and Streets projects Bonds General Obligation and Revenue Special Assessment Area Central Business District - Economic Promotion Grants Federal, State, County Class C Roads State Gas Tax General Fund Most flexible funding source, can be spent on any project Public/Private Partnerships Potential future funding source Impact Fees Fire, Parks, Police, and Transportation/Streets Donations Individuals and foundations Capital Asset Plan Elements Division Master Plans Division specific documents RDA & Public Utilities Input Strategic Collaboration 10 Year Division Capital Planning Long-term capital planning Annual Constituency Requests Reviewed to align with internal requests & not ranked Impact Fee Facilities Plans Determine Impact Fee Eligibility Capital Asset Plan Funding Sources Committees Finance Committee Provide detailed information on Funding Sources CAP Committee Internal project ranking and submittal to CDCIP Board CAP Committee Scoring General Fund Capital Asset Plan CAP Manager Funding Sources Final Scoring & Budget Finance Committee CAP Committee Once projects have been evaluated by the CAP Committee, they are forwarded to the CDCIP Board for recommendation to the Mayor and City Council. Mayor City Council Criteria Critical Failure Legal Obligation Risk: Life, Health & Safety Outside Funding Completed Project Design Promote Equity Environmental Conservation Beautification Efficient Investment Workforce Support Community Request Points (0-4):4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y/N [Project Name] Submitting a request: When submitting a request, please provide answers to the following questions in addition to any information available related to the criteria. 1. Describe the project. 2. What is the problem the department is trying to solve? 3. Who will the project serve, and how will it improve services? 4. What is the requested timing of project completion, and what is the implication if the request is delayed or denied? 5. Is this a replacement or a new capital asset project? 6. Is there an estimated cost at this time? 7. What is the current annual maintenance and the estimated future annual maintenance? 8. Has the capital asset project been scoped? 9. Has the capital asset project been designed? *Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolution 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communities, Our City Family. CAP Matrix* 2019 Council Policy Goals and Metrics Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-Level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of deferred maintenance Appropriations vs. funding need identified in Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that tracks each asset $6.8 million annually or $68 million over ten years Expand the City's urban trail network with an emphasis on East-West connections Total paved/unpaved network miles; number and funding for improved trail features; percentage of 9-Line completed $21 million for 9-Line implementation Increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement condition survey every five years $133 million cost estimate (in addition to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Master Plan Distance of improved trails completed; number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD Advance the City’s sustainability goals through building energy efficiency upgrades Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD Focus on renewal and maintenance projects over creating new assets Number, funding level and ratio of renewed assets vs. new assets $TBD 2023 Mayor Goals – CIP Related Our Environment •Work with the City’s Sustainable Infrastructure Steering Committee to draft and propose internal policy requiring capital projects to consider environmental justice impacts and incorporate green and sustainable infrastructure. •Complete Foothills Trails Master Plan evaluation and Plan addendum in collaboration with key stakeholders and indigenous leaders. Our Community •Develop a 5-Year Strategic Plan for Planned Growth to more effectively utilize impact fees for community benefits. •Complete the Neighborhood Byway Design Guidebook and finish design and/or construction of at least four neighborhood byways throughout the city. •Implement action items on the Vision Zero program to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities. •Propose adoption of Life on State to improve transportation and land uses along the corridor. THANK YOU Presented by Department of Finance CAP Matrix* Cri�cal Failure: When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will prevent a cri�cal failure of a structure. Does this project follow the Sustainability Ordinance? Legal Obliga�ons: When reviewing this criterium, considera�ons include coming into compliance with ordinances and execu�ve orders, various contractual agreements, or state and federal mandates. Risk: Life, Health, and Safety: When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will correct various types of code viola�ons or increase safety/reduce crime. Outside Funding: This criterium assesses whether there is outside funding support for a par�cular ini�a�ve, including federal and state grants, coordina�on with other agencies, public/private partnerships, or dona�ons. When analyzing outside funding, it should be noted how much of the funding will s�ll need to be provided by the City in addi�on to any outside support. Project Design Complete: This is in accordance with Resolu�on Number 29 of 2017 which states, "The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construc�on funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more �me passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-es�ma�ng project costs by funding capital projects in a �mely manner.” Promote Equity: Considera�on should be given to underserved areas of the city in order to improve the infrastructure of the city as a whole ("close the gap amongst neighborhoods") rather than improving some areas and allowing others to deteriorate. A map showing the condi�on of the infrastructure of the city could help in performing this analysis. Environmental Conserva�on: This criterium involves analyzing whether a project provides environmentally sustainable solu�ons or helps preserve natural resources (watersheds, rivers, green space, etc.) Efficient Investment: The main considera�ons for efficient investment are whether a project func�ons to increase revenue or reduce expenses. Projec�ons on this front should be as accurate as possible and veted through the Department of Finance. Workforce Support: This criterium focuses on whether a project supports the physical, mental, or economic well- being of City employees, in keeping with the Mayor's goal of suppor�ng "Our City Family". Beau�fica�on: This relates to aesthe�c improvements including Art incorpora�on, Historic Preserva�on, Site Beau�fica�on, and other opportuni�es that express the City's value for the arts and improving quality of life through projects that go beyond func�onal efficiency. Community Request: While the financial limita�ons of any municipality inhibit the ability to act on every request - the concerns and desires of our residents are vital to understanding how best to allocate our limited resources, therefore, projects that are closely aligned with community requests should be given proper considera�on. *Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolu�on 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communi�es, Our City Family. Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1350, 1358, 1370 South West Temple Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2022-00810 MOTION 1 (adopt with development agreement) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance with a condition that the petitioner enter a development agreement with the City that includes the following requirements: •A minimum of 60% of the ground floor street-facing space shall be occupied by retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities and/or other uses intended to attract visitors to the property. The remaining required space would be used for tenant amenities other than parking (e.g., leasing office, mail room, gym, etc.). •A minimum of 10% of the dwelling units shall be designated for a minimum of fifteen years to be leased exclusively to individuals and families earning up to 80% of area median income (AMI). MOTION 2 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 3 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1350, 1358, 1370 South West Temple Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2022-00810 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE One person spoke at the July 11, 2023 public hearing expressing her support for rezoning the properties to TSA-UN-C with a maximum height of 75 feet rather than the requested TSA-UC-C zoning designation which allows heights up to 90 feet. The commenter noted the historic significance of single-family homes on two of the properties and acknowledged a lack of protection from demolition. She expressed appreciation for the visual documentation of the homes. The commenter said the community does not have the bandwidth to propose an area historic district to help protect neighborhood historic structures. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. BRIEFING UPDATE At the May 23, 2023 briefing, several Council Members discussed the importance of ground floor activation that includes publicly accessible businesses to add to what is referred to as a festival street in the Ballpark Station Area Plan. Tenant amenities such as a leasing office or gym would not contribute to that objective. Planning staff followed up with the petitioner after the briefing. They propose meeting the 80% ground floor activation requirement with a minimum of 60% devoted to uses that bring visitors to the site such as retail establishments and services, restaurants, bars, art and craft studios and/or other uses determined to be substantially similar by the Planning Director. The remaining required space would be used for tenant amenities other than parking (e.g., leasing office, mail room, gym, etc.). Item Schedule: Briefing: May 23, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 In addition, the petitioner told Planning staff they anticipate 27 units on each of five floors (135 total units) with 8 2-bedroom, 14 1-bedroom, and 5 studio per floor. They also said they would consider up to 10% of the dwelling units at 80% area median income (AMI). When asked about tenants in the homes, the petitioner said a resident of 1350 South West Temple moved due to neighborhood conditions, and the bookstore owner is in the process of moving from 1358 South. A Council Member expressed a desire not to have the buildings vacant until the project is potentially constructed. The petitioner said that someone is planning to move into the house at 1350 South until it is demolished, and he is looking for a short-term tenant for the house at 1358 South. The petitioner is proposing a development agreement requiring them to replace the housing unit within three years, allowing time to construct the new proposed building. In addition, they propose the existing buildings will have a maximum vacancy period of 24 months before demolition. The following information was provided for May 23, 2023 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for parcels at 1350 South, 1358 South, and 1370 South West Temple in City Council District Five from their current RB (Residential Business) zoning designation to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core). The petitioner’s stated objective is to consolidate the parcels, demolish the current structures, and construct a mixed-use development with residential units above ground floor retail. The parcels, shown in the image below, are located directly west of Smith’s Ballpark and within the Central Community Master Plan area and the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan. Both plans include future land use maps and the Station Area Plan’s map applies to the subject parcels as it is directed to the ballpark neighborhood. The map designates the parcels’ location as “Heart of the Neighborhood,” and recommends a Transit Station Area Urban Station district, either the requested TSA-UC or TSA-UN (Transit Station Urban Neighborhood) district, for the area. The zoning map amendment application was received before the Ballpark Station Area Plan was adopted by the Council. Because of this the petitioner was required to submit an application to amend the Central Community Master Plan. Once the Ballpark Station Area Plan was adopted and its future land use map applied to the area, the Central Community Master Plan amendment was no longer needed, and that application was closed. Parcels at 1350 South and 1358 South each have a single-family home, and 1370 South has a single-story office building. The home at 1350 South was constructed in approximately 1903, and the 1358 South home, constructed around 1897, in recent years has been used as a library. The office building at 1370 South was constructed in 1968. None of the subject parcels are within a historic district, so the buildings are not protected from demolition either under current or proposed zoning. However, as discussed in Key Consideration 4, a visual record of the home at 1350 South was created and sent to the Marriott Library. A six-story apartment building is located to the south of the office building across Albermarle Avenue. A parking lot serving the baseball stadium is located north of the home at 1350 South. Neither is part of the proposed zoning amendment, but they are mentioned to provide context of area land uses. Page | 3 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its January 11, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke in support of the proposed rezone. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with a condition that the housing unit is replaced within 24 months. The petitioner informed Planning staff they would not be able to meet the timeline, so a development agreement was drafted to ensure the housing unit is replaced if the proposed project is developed. It is worth noting the home at 1358 South has been used as a business, so no dwelling units will be lost at that location if the structure is demolished. Aerial image with the subject parcels highlighted. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask Planning staff if the unknown future of Smith’s Ballpark has an impact on their recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject properties. 2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about the mix of apartments (studio, 1, 2, 3+ bedrooms) in the proposed development. 3. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if any of the proposed apartments will be affordable units, and if so, at what percentage of AMI. Page | 4 4. The Council may wish to ask how the petitioner plans to incorporate ground floor activation principles into the development. 5. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about anticipated vehicle and bicycle parking in the proposed development. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compatibility with Applicable Master Plans The subject parcels are in the area covered by the Central Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005. They are also within the Ballpark Station Area Plan adopted last year. Planning staff noted the small area plan takes precedence as it is focused on the ballpark community more directly than the master plan. As discussed above, the subject parcels are in the “Heart of the Neighborhood” on the Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use map. A Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood district is recommended for this area. Amending the zoning map would allow high-density mixed-use with ground floor retail and residences above. The area plan also calls for creating a festival street on West Temple between 1300 South and Albermarle Avenue. This would allow for community activities and may help with pedestrian-oriented development. Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, encourages “redevelopment of underutilized sites where public infrastructure is available and where it supports a mix of land uses.” Planning staff believes the subject sites meet the recommendation as they are within a half-mile of a light rail station and served by bus lines. They are also on an arterial street that connects to Interstate-15. Consideration 2-Future Zoning Map Amendments to the Ballpark Station Area The recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan recommends changes to assist with redevelopment and revitalization of the area. The plan calls for modifying TSA districts to better accommodate needs of the “Heart of the Ballpark Neighborhood.” The Mayor initiated a petition to amend the zoning map, so properties in the area comply with the Ballpark Station Area Plan future land use map. Planning staff is working on these modifications to rezone the area to TSA-UN-C. This current petition is a request to rezone the property to TSA-UC-C, which has a maximum height of 90 feet. The TSA-UN-C zoning is 75 feet. If the current rezone request is approved and the petitioner submits a building permit application before the Administration’s petition is considered and potentially adopted by the Council, they would be able to construct a building up to 90 feet high. Consideration 3-Concept Plan A concept plan was submitted which provides an idea of what the petitioner is proposing for the site. If the proposed zoning map is approved by the Council, any use allowed in the TSA-UC-C zoning district would be allowed provided it meets standards for the district. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 5 Concept drawing provided by petitioner. Consideration 4-Community Feedback The Ballpark Community Council discussed the proposal at its October 6, 2022 meeting. Much of the discussion focused on preserving the structures at 1350 South and 1358 South. As noted above, they are not protected from demolition either under the current or proposed zoning districts. The community council recommended that the property owner contact Preservation Utah for comment and create a record of the 1350 South home. Since the home does not have historic designation or protection, Preservation Utah did not comment on potential demolition of the sites. Responding to community input, the property owner and applicant created a visual record of the 1350 South home and forwarded it to the Marriott Library to keep in their records and make it available to the public. Additional comments at the Community Council meeting included increased area traffic concerns, and an improved pedestrian environment on West Temple. City Transportation found infrastructure is sufficient to meet the needs of high-density use. As discussed above, the Ballpark Station Area Plan recommends density allowed for this area in the proposed TSA zoning district. The “Heart of the Neighborhood” and overall Ballpark Station Area Plan encourage pedestrian-oriented development and redevelopment. Active ground floor uses of at least 80% street facing, and a minimum of 60% ground floor glass are required in the proposed TSA district. These and other required design standards are intended to improve the pedestrian experience and safety with more “eyes on the street.” Consideration 5-Rezone and Existing Structures If approved, the proposed zoning map amendments will render the existing structures nonconforming under the new zoning district. Required minimum building height, maximum setbacks, and several design standards under TSA would not be met. As the sites are being redeveloped all TSA-UC-C standards would need to be adhered to. Also, a TSA development score is required for site redevelopment. This score allows design flexibility while implementing the City’s vision for station area plans, and measures compatibility between proposed projects and the plan. The subject sites would be eligible for points awarded for reducing or eliminating nonconformity on the site. Planning staff found the proposal meets the overall area goals of the Ballpark Station Area Plan and Plan Salt Lake, for creating higher density housing near light rail, and for providing attainable housing. The Page | 6 proposed zoning map amendments meet housing loss mitigation standards if a development agreement requiring replacement of the loss of one residential unit is included. ZONING COMPARISON RB (Current)TSA-UC-C (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 30 feet 90 feet (Buildings with a roof that has at least 2 sloping planes may be allowed up to 105 feet.) Front Setback 20% of lot depth, but need not exceed 25 feet. (For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the front yard shall be no greater that the existing yard.) None required (At least 50% of the street facing building façade shall be within 5 feet of the front or corner side property line.) Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet Interior side yard: 6 feet provided that on interion lots one yard must be at least 10 feet. (For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the front yard shall be no greater that the existing yard.) Minimum: None, except a 25 foot setback is required when adjacent to an OS, R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 Zoning District. The minimum shall increase 1 foot for every 1 foot increase in building height above 25 feet and is applied to the portion of the building over 25 feet in height. (At least 50% of the street facing building façade shall be within 5 feet of the front or corner side property line.) Rear Setback 25% of the lot depth, but the yard need not exceed 30 feet. Minimum: None, except a 25 foot setback is required when adjacent to an OS, R-1, R-2, SR, RMF-30, RMF-35 or RMF-45 Zoning District. The minimum shall increase 1 foot for every 1 foot increase in building height above 25 feet and is applied to the portion of the building over 25 feet in height. (At least 50% of the street facing building façade shall be within 5 feet of the front or corner side property line.) Lot Size Minimum lot area: 5,000 square feet for single family detached dwellings or retail service establishments when located within an existing building originally designed for residential use. Minimum lot area: 2,500 square feet Minimum lot width: 40 feet (Any legally existing lot may be developed without having to comply with the minimum lot size or width requirements.) Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 26-28) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. In brief, Planning staff felt the proposed TSA-UC-C zoning complies with the applicable Page | 7 standards. 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. Complies 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 Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable 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 concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • August 11, 2022-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • September 1, 2022-Petition assigned to Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner. • September 14, 2022-Master plan amendment application submitted. • September 22, 2022-Information about petition sent to Ballpark Community Council Chair, and surrounding neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the sites. • October 6, 2022-Ballpark Community Council meeting to discuss amendments. • October 18, 2022-Ballpark Station Area Plan adopted. Master plan amendment no longer needed, and that application is closed. • December 27, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to surrounding neighbors and property owners and posted to City and State websites. • December 29, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the property. • January 11, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Page | 8 • January 24, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • January 25, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • February 23, 2023-Development agreement sent to Attorney’s Office. • April 10, 2023-Development agreement received from the Attorney’s Office. • April 28, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. _______________ Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 4-28-2023 4-28-2023 TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT:PLNPCM2022-00810 – West Temple Rezone STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the property Zoning Map Amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by the property owner, Sattar Tabriz and Renpro Two, to amend the zoning map for three properties located along West Temple, at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple. The rezone would amend the properties on the Zoning Map from RB (Residential Business) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core). The Planning Commission heard the request on January 11, 2023, and forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map with one condition –That a development agreement is recorded on the 1350 South West Temple site, to ensure the replacement of the one residential dwelling unit. That draft development agreement has been included in this transmittal as Exhibit 2. The properties under review front along the west side of West Temple, just south of 1300 South. The three sites are directly west of Smith’s Ballpark Stadium. 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 Lisa Shaffer (Apr 28, 2023 09:51 MDT) All three properties are within the newly adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan, adopted by Council on October 18th, 2022. The Ballpark Station Area Plan includes a Future Land Use Map that designates the subject properties as part of the “Heart of the Neighborhood”. The Heart of the Neighborhood designation recommends a transit station area urban station district for this area, this may be either the TSA-UC (Transit Station Area Urban Center) or TSA-UN (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood). The proposed zoning map amendment would meet the intent of the Ballpark Station Area Plan’s Future Land Use Map. The purpose of rezoning the subject sites is to demolish the three existing structures on the sites and redevelop the properties to high-density mixed use – with a retail ground floor and residential units on the upper floors. PUBLIC PROCESS: •Information regarding this request was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council on September 22, 2022. o The Ballpark Community Council met on the proposed amendment on October 6, 2022. ▪Comments received during this meeting were concerns over safety of the area, impacts of a high-density residential development, traffic, preservation of the two existing structures, pedestrian experience, and active ground floor uses. •Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal on September 22, 2022. •Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed December 29,2022 to all neighbors within 300 feet of the subject site. •A public hearing notice was mail and public notice was posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on December 27, 2022. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda for January 11, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes for January 11, 2023 (Click to Access) c)PC Staff Report for January 11, 2023 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1)Chronology 2)Development Agreement 3)City Council Public Hearing Notice 4)Mailing List 1. CHRONOLOGY West Temple Rezone Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00810 August 11, 2022 Zoning Map Amendment application submitted August 17, 2022 Zoning Map Amendment application completed and accepted September 1, 2022 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen September 12, 2022 Master Plan Amendment application submitted September 14, 2022 Master Plan Amendment application completed and accepted September 14, 2022 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen September 22, 2022 Chair of the Ballpark Community Council notified of the proposed amendments September 22, 2022 Early notification of the proposal sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the sites October 6, 2022 Ballpark Community Council meeting to discuss amendments October 18, 2022 Ballpark Station Area Plan adopted by Council. Master plan amendment request closed November 29, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding preservation of the structures located at 1350 and 1358 S. West Temple December 27, 2022 Public hearing notice was mailed and posted on City and State websites December 29, 2022 Public notification of the Planning Commission hearing mail to property owners and residents within 300 feet January 5, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding preservation of the structures located at 1350 and 1358 S West Temple and concerns of massing and no pedestrian interest of the redevelopment January 11, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing 2. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: Planning Director 451 S. State Street, Suite 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a political subdivision of the State of Utah (“City”) and Sattar Tabriz, (“Developer”). City and Developer may be referred to herein collectively as “Parties.” RECITALS A. Developer is the owner of approximately .23 acres of residential land located in the Ballpark neighborhood with an address of 1350 S. West Temple and parcel number 15-13-226- 004-0000 (hereinafter the “Property”.) B. Developer submitted an application seeking to amend the Zoning Map to allow the development on the Property and two other parcels of a certain Mixed-Use Project described as the West Temple Apartments. C.In order to erect this designated mixed-use project at the aforesaid address it would be necessary to amend the Zoning Map so that the Property, currently classified as Residential Business District (RB), could be reclassified as Transit Station Area Urban Center Core District (TSA-UC-C), thus allowing for an increase in density. D. Specifically, Developers intend to erect a six-story mixed-use project containing approximately one hundred thirty-five dwelling units. E. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission heard this matter on January 11th, 2023, at the conclusion of which the commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on the petition to the Salt Lake City Council, subject to Developer entering into a development agreement requiring Developer to replace a residential dwelling unit situated on the Property that will be demolished as part of the proposed development project. F. The Salt Lake City Council held a public hearing on the petition on and at a meeting on voted to approve Ordinance No. of 2023, which approved Developers’ petition to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning to Transit Station Area Urban Center Core (TSA-UC-C), subject to Developer entering into a development agreement with the City to ensure compliance with certain conditions relating to the replacement of one dwelling unit. G. City, acting pursuant to its authority under the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (Utah Code §§ 10-9a-101, -803, as amended), and in furtherance of the land use policies, goals, objectives, ordinances, and regulations of Salt Lake City, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, has elected to approve and enter into this Agreement. For good and valuable consideration, therefore, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in reliance on the foregoing recitals, City and Developer agree as follows: 1.Incorporations of Recitals. The Parties hereby incorporate the foregoing recitals into this Agreement. 2.Obligations of the Parties. The Developer and the City agree as follows: (a) Developers’ Obligations: Developer agrees to comply with the following conditions, limitations, and design requirements in its development of the Property and construction of all structures and improvements thereon: i Development of the Property shall include at least one residential dwelling unit; (b) City’s Obligations: Following recording of this Agreement against the Property, the City shall cause Ordinance No. of 2023 to be published within 14 days of Developer providing proof to the City that the Agreement has been recorded. The City is further obligated to issue all necessary permits and certificates of occupancy for development of the Property that meet all requirements of law and satisfy Developers’ obligations under this Agreement. 3.Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. 4.Other Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other any further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives and intent of this Agreement. 5.Construction/Interpretation. Developer has been informed that it is customary to consult legal counsel in the preparation and negotiation of the terms of development agreements. Developer has either done so or chosen not to. Should litigation arise from any breach of this Agreement, the Parties agree that no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 6.Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. 7.Covenants Running with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute real covenants, contract and property rights, and equitable servitudes, which shall run with the land subject to this Agreement. The burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties, and to their respective successors, heirs, assigns, 2 and transferees. Developer shall record this Agreement against the Property with the Salt Lake County Recorder. 8.Term. This Agreement shall terminate upon the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development on the Property that meets Developer’s obligations as set forth in section 2(a) of this Agreement after required inspections confirm that all requirements of law and this Agreement have been met. 9.Waiver. No action taken by any Party shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of compliance by such Party with respect to any representation, warranty, or condition contained in this Agreement. 10.Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute an equitable action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the foregoing and the purpose of this Agreement. 11.Utah Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. 12.Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Each Party shall use its best efforts and take and employ all necessary actions in good faith consistent with this Agreement to ensure that the rights secured by the other Party through this Agreement can be enjoyed. 13.No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is between the City and Developer. No other party shall be deemed a third-party beneficiary or have any rights under this Agreement. 14.Force Majeure. No liability or breach of this Agreement shall result from delay in performance or nonperformance caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Party affected (“Force Majeure”), including, but not limited to, fire, extreme weather, terrorism, explosion, flood, war, power interruptions, the act of other governmental bodies, accident, labor trouble or the shortage or inability to obtain material, service, personnel, equipment or transportation, failure of performance by a common carrier, failure of performance by a public utility, or vandalism. 15.Entire Agreement, Counterparts and Exhibit. Unless otherwise noted herein, this Agreement is the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and Developer. 16.REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Developer represents that they have not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, or brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt 3 Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 17.GOVERNMENT RECORDS ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT ACT. City is subject to the requirements of the Government Records Access and Management Act, Chapter 2, Title 63G, Utah Code Annotated or its successor (“GRAMA”). All materials submitted by Developer pursuant to this Agreement are subject to disclosure unless such materials are exempt from disclosure pursuant to GRAMA. The burden of claiming an exemption from disclosure shall rest solely with Developer. Any materials for which Developer claims a privilege from disclosure shall be submitted marked as “Business Confidential” and accompanied by a concise statement of reasons supporting Developer’s claim of business confidentiality. City will make reasonable efforts to notify Developer of any requests made for disclosure of documents submitted under a claim of business confidentiality. Developer may, at Developer’s sole expense, take any appropriate actions to prevent disclosure of such material. Developer specifically waives any claims against City related to disclosure of any materials required by GRAMA. [Signature Page to Follow] 4 EFFECTIVE as of the day of , 2023. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office , City Attorney CITY: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ATTEST: Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office City Recorder STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2023, by Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public 5 DEVELOPER: Sattar Tabriz By: Sattar Tabriz STATE OF UTAH § § COUNTY OF SALT LAKE § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2023, by duly authorized member/shareholder/partner of WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public 6 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property 1350 S West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT Tax ID No. 15-13-226-004-0000 HOLLAND SUB 0525LOTS 27 & 28, BLK 1, HOLLAND SUB 5054-0652 5784-1259 08957- 7609 7 3. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00810 – West Temple Rezone – Salt Lake City received a request from Sattar Tabriz with Ward Engineering, the property owner, for a proposed Zoning Map Amendment to the properties located at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple. The requested amendment would rezone the properties from the current RB (Residential/Business) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) Zoning District. The requested application is to facilitate future redevelopment of the site to allow for mixed-use structure that would include commercial and multi-family residential uses. 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 Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00810. 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. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME COLMENA 1300, LLC; HARVEST ROAD, LLC OWN_ADDR 1000 S MAIN ST own_unit OWN_CITY SALT LAKE CITY OWN_STATE UT OWN_ZIP 84101 LC F I S 1000 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 1300 BALLPARK, LLC 1000 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 Current Occupant 105 W 1400 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT THE PLUMBER, LLC 105‐109 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 119 W 1400 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 124 W 1400 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT FIREFIGHTERS CREDIT UNION 124 W 1400 S # 101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JEFFERSON BALLPARK, LLC 1240 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 126 W ALBERMARLE AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 127 W ALBERMARLE AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1306 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1308 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1309 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1310 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1312 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1314 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1317 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1321 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT L.L.C. LISA ANNE MADSEN 1328 SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 Current Occupant 1333 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1338 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1339 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1340 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT CARVER SHEET METAL WORKS, INC 1349 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 135 W 1300 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1350 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1355 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1357 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1358 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1365 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1370 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1376 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant BALL PARK APARTMENTS, LP 1380 S JEFFERSON ST 1380 S WESTTEMPLE ST Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY 84115 UT UT 84115 Current Occupant 1381 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1385 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1386 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT STANLEY J BANKHEAD 1388 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1390 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1394 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1395 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1397 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1401 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT SANDRA L TANNER 1429 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY INC 1429 E ROOSEVELT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SANDSTONE CAFE LLC 2182 E BALD EAGLE CT DRAPER UT 84020 MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SLC 301 W SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 EVANS, EDMUND P CORP 3211 W STARLITE DR WEST JORDAN UT 84088 SHERRY VINA; ANTHONY D VINA (JT)3751 S WASATCH BLVD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 VICTORIA JOURDIN, LLC 38 S NORTHRIDGE WY SANDY UT 84092 RUECO, LLC 4267 SUMMERMEADOW DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 RENPRO TWO, LLC 6434 S 1650 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 Current Occupant 77 W 1300 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT BIJCO LLC 8704 S SUGARLOAF DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SLC PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JEFFERSON STREET LLC PO BOX 571217 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84157 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street from RB Residential Business District to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street from RB Residential Business to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area Urban Center Core pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00810. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on January 11, 2023 on a petition submitted by Sattar Tabriz (“Applicant”), the property owner and representing the property owner, Renpro Two LLC, to rezone properties located at 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-226-004; 15-13- 226-005; 15-13-226-006) (the “Properties”) from RB Residential Business to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area Urban Center Core pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00810; and WHEREAS, at its January 11, 2023 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petitions; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending 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 Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby are rezoned from RB Residential Business to TSA-UC-C Transit Station Area Urban Center Core. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action:Approved.Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinance rezoning 1350, 1358, 1370 S West Temple APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: January 25, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned: 1350 South Wet Temple Street Tax ID No. 15-13-226-004 HOLLAND SUB 0525LOTS 27 & 28, BLK 1, HOLLAND SUB 5054-0652 5784-1259 08957- 7609 1358 South Wet Temple Street Tax ID No. 15-13-226-005 HOLLAND SUB 0525 LOT 29 & N 1/2 OF LOT 30, BLK 1, HOLLAND SUB 5239-0627 5694- 0682 5697-0455 5747-0697 6254-2856 06396-0429 1370 South Wet Temple Street Tax ID No. 15-13-226-006 HOLLAND SUB 1231 LOT 1 & S 1/2 LOT 30 BLK 1 HOLLAND SUB 6254-2856 8098-0991 08326-7145 10786-2036 Item C2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Riverside Cottages Zoning and Master Plan Amendments (1500, 1516, 1520, 1522 West 500 North, and 552 North 1500 West) PLNPCM2021-01075/01203 & PLNPCM2022-00674 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Riverside Cottages Zoning and Master Plan Amendments (1500, 1516, 1520, 1522 West 500 North, and 552 North 1500 West) PLNPCM2021-01075/01203 & PLNPCM2022-00674 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Two people spoke at the July 11, 2023 public hearing opposing the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. Concerns cited include neighborhood impacts such as pedestrian safety, parking, traffic and congestion, a lack of privacy for surrounding residents, and the plan doesn’t maintain the neighborhood’s visual character. Other concerns expressed include the proposed homes do not provide sightlines to streets, sidewalks and driveways, and the plan is inconsistent with the area master plan. The Council was asked to encourage the developer to develop the site under current zoning. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. BRIEFING UPDATE During the June 6, 2023 briefing the petitioner said the proposed new homes will be for sale and located within the block’s interior. From the petitioner’s planned development application, it is anticipated the homes will have multiple floor plans with up to four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. Options for a studio apartment or accessory dwelling unit are also discussed. Existing homes on 500 North are rentals and are being renovated. An existing walkway serving Backman Elementary School is not impacted by the proposed development. An additional walkway from 500 North through the development to Backman Elementary is included in the planned development currently being reviewed by Planning. Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 The Attorney’s Office notified Council staff that the ordinance for this proposal includes a condition requiring replacement of demolished dwelling units. However, the zoning map amendment must be in place for construction of the replacement housing. It is recommended that the condition is clarified to require a development and use agreement or restrictive covenant against the property requiring replacement housing. Staff will work with the Attorney’s Office to make this change to the ordinance. The following information was provided for the June 13, 2023 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about the following proposed zoning amendments: •Amend the zoning map for the southern 110 feet (approximately) of parcels located at 1500 West, 1516 West, 1520 West, and 1522 West 500 North from their current R-1/7,000 single-family residential zoning designation to R-1/5,000. •Amend the Northwest Community Master Plan future land use map from low-density residential to medium density residential, and amend the zoning from R-1/7,000 single-family residential to SR- 3 special development pattern residential for the following parcels: o 552 North 1500 West o Northern portions (beginning approximately 110 feet north of the 500 North right-of-way line) of the above-mentioned parcels at 1500 West, 1516 West, 1520 West, and 1522 West 500 North. The petitioner’s stated objective is to create an interior-block development of seventeen single-family detached homes in the blue shaded portion of the image below. Single-family homes are located on the four parcels fronting 500 North (shaded in green below) and would be retained under the proposal. There is a single-family home on the 552 North 1500 West parcel that would be removed under the proposal. Replacement housing would satisfy housing loss mitigation requirements. If approved by the Council, one result is parcels fronting 500 North would be split-zoned as R-1/5,000 and SR-3. This would be resolved by a lot line adjustment through the planned development and subdivision processes associated with the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments at its September 28, 2022 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke and a letter with petition from nearby residents was read. The letter expressed concern about on-street parking and speeding vehicles on 500 North, overcrowding of local schools, and opposition to changing the neighborhood’s character. Commissioners stated they believed the project would not impact traffic on 500 North. They also said the proposed zoning district enables limited additional density without significant impact to existing properties. The person who spoke agreed with concerns expressed in the letter. She also asked about water rights on the subject properties. The petitioner was asked about problems with water rights, and he said he was unaware of any. The Commission determined the issue was outside its purview. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously on all three petitions to forward positive recommendations to the Council. Following the meeting, Planning staff worked with the petitioner on additional information needed. (Please refer to the project chronology later in this report for additional information.) Page | 3 Area map showing proposed zoning changes Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division 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. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if the existing and proposed homes are anticipated to be for rent, for sale, or both. 2. In keeping with the Council’s interest in housing affordability, the Council may wish to ask for more information about what price point the developer / petitioner will list the properties (whether for sale or rent). The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about the anticipated size of the proposed homes and number of bedrooms in each. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff provided the following table summarizing the proposed amendments for each of the subject parcels. Page | 4 Table courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. 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 4-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compliance with Relevant Master Plan Policies The subject parcels are in the area covered by the Northwest Community Master Plan, adopted in 1992. That plan recommends preserving single-family development in the area and raises concerns about new development altering the neighborhood character. Current R-1/7,000 zoning is considered low-density residential, while the proposed R-1/5,000 and SR-3 zoning would be a mix of low- and medium-density residential. Policies within the more recent Plan Salt Lake (2015), and Growing SLC (2018) suggest infill development including medium-density housing in the city. Planning stated they would be more concerned about potential negative impacts to the neighborhood if the proposal called for higher density or more intense uses. However, the requested SR-3 zoning is intended to promote infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Zoning in the immediate area is largely R-1/7,000 zoning with single-family houses on lots larger than 7,000 square feet. There are some duplexes on adjacent property to the north, and a nearby small planned development to the west. The zoning for these is R-1/7,000 and R-2 (single- and two-family residential) which are both considered low-density residential. Planning staff believes development under the proposed SR-3 zoning would be comparable to these and compatible with the neighborhood. Consideration 3-Traffic on 1500 West Page | 5 The petitioner indicated he is planning to retain the four single-family homes fronting on 500 North. If that is the case, access to the proposed homes on the block’s interior (blue shaded area in image above) would likely be from 1500 West. Student drop-off and pick-up for Backman Elementary (located northwest of the subject properties) is on 1500 West. In addition, Planning stated it appears that residents of the duplexes to the north also use the street for parking. New development that would use 1500 West for access could add to traffic and parking issues on this section of the road. Those would be considered with a development application. Consideration 4-Housing Loss Mitigation Report The petitioner submitted a housing loss mitigation plan and as noted above, satisfied requirements by providing replacement housing units. The plan was evaluated and approved by CAN Director Blake Thomas. ZONING COMPARISON Planning staff provided the following table on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is replicated here for convenience. Differences between the zoning districts are shown in bold. R-1/7,000 (current)R-1/5,000 (proposed)SR-3 (proposed) Maximum Building Height 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 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 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 Front Setback Average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. 20 feet where there are no existing buildings within the block face. Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. Average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. 20 feet where there are no existing buildings within the block face. Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. Average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. 10 feet where there are no existing buildings within the block face. Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet Interior: 6 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other Corner side yard: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other Corner side yard: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet (Single- family detached) Single-family attached and twin homes: No setback unless next to a single- family dwelling, then 4 feet required Rear Setback 25 feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less 20% of lot depth – not less than 15 feet not more than 30 feet Lot Size Single-family detached: 7,000 square feet Single-family detached: 5,000 square feet Single-family detached: 2,000 square feet Single-family attached: 1,500 square feet / unit Two-family/duplexes: 3,000 square feet Permitted Uses Single-family detached dwellings, parks, home occupations Single-family detached dwellings, parks, home occupations, dormitories Single-family dwellings (detached & attached), twin homes, duplexes, parks, home occupations Page | 6 Analysis of Factors Attachment F (pages 23-27) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed master plan amendment changing the future land use map to medium-density residential fulfills the intended outcomes of policies within Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC, and the Northwest Community Master Plan. In addition, Planning staff felt the proposed changes to R-1/5,000 and SR-3 zoning comply with the following applicable standards for zoning map amendments. 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. Complies 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 Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable 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 stated additional comments would be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 13, 2021-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • December 16, 2021-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner. • March 31, 2022-Zoning map amendments determined to be complete after applicant submitted housing loss mitigation plan proposal. • April 25, 2022- Public notice sent to Fairpark and Rose Park Community Council chairs, and surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject properties. An open house page posted to the Planning Division website. Page | 7 • May 23, 2022-Planning staff determines the proposed SR-3 zone does not align with Northwest Community Master Plan future land use map. A master plan amendment petition will be necessary. • July 12, 2022-Master plan amendment application submitted and assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner. • July 29, 2022-Updated notice sent to the Fairpark and Rose Park Community Council Chairs and surrounding neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the sites. The open house page on the Planning Division’s website is updated. • September 14, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to neighbors within 300 feet of the subject site. Notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning listserv. • September 16, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on affected properties. • September 28, 2022- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. o Planning staff requests accurate legal description of the areas to be rezoned. • January 24, 2023-Petitioner submits accurate legal description of the subject properties. • February 3, 2023-City Survey confirms submitted legal descriptions. • February 21, 2023-Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • March 14, 2023-Planning received draft ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • April 5, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R- 1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District, amending the zoning of property located at 552 North 1500 West from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North and 552 North 1500 West (the “Property”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District, for portions of the Property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North (the “Southern Portion”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01203; and amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District for the portion of the Property located at 552 North 1500 West and the northerly portions of the properties located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North (the “Northern Portion”) as legally described in Exhibit A pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075; and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential as to the Northern Portion pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 00674. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 28, 2022, on an application submitted by Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone the Southern Portion from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01203, to rezone the Northern Portion from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075, and amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Northern Portion from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00674; and WHEREAS, at its September 28, 2022, 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 area identified as the Southern Portion in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R- 1/5,000 Single Family Residential; and that the area identified as the Northern Portion in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. Amending the Northwest Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Northwest Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the area identified as “the Northern Portion” in Exhibit A attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Condition. This ordinance is conditioned upon (1) the Applicant recording a development agreement, in a form approved by the city attorney, to replace any dwellings demolished on the Property, and (2) the Applicant obtaining approval of a Planned Development in accordance with City Code § 21A.55 or its successor. 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: ______________. Rezone 552 North 1500 West, and 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney June 21, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 552 North 1500 West Tax ID No. 08-34-230-026-0000 1500 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-023-0000 1516 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-025-0000 1520 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-004-0000 1522 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-003-0000 Legal Description of “the Property” containing 1500, 1516, 1520, 1522 West 500 North, and 552 North 1500 West: Beginning at a point on North Right-of-Way Line of 500 North Street, said point being 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West from the Northeast corner of Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Meridian; thence along the said North Right-of-Way Line S89°59'51"W 198.88 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 425.21 feet; thence S63°20'00"E 36.63 feet; thence East 97.78 feet; thence N43°15'00"E 52.00 feet; thence N89°59'38"E 153.68 feet; thence S00°00'44"W 148.95 feet; thence S89°59'27"W 121.74 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 297.69 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 2.327 acres, more or less. Legal Description of “the Southern Portion” to be rezoned from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000: Beginning at a point on North Right-of-Way Line of 500 North Street, said point being 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West from the Northeast corner of Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Meridian; thence along the said North Right-of-Way Line S89°59'51"W 198.88 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 113.67 feet; thence N89°59'27"E 198.53 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 113.69 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 0.519 acres, more or less. Legal Description of “the Northern Portion” to be rezoned from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 and subject to the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential: Beginning at a point 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West and N00°12'40"W 113.69 feet from the Northeast corner of Section 34, ; thence S89°59'27"W 198.53 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 311.55 feet; thence S63°20'00"E 36.63 feet; thence East 97.78 feet; thence N43°15'00"E 52.00 feet; thence N89°59'38"E 153.68 feet; thence S00°00'44"W 148.95 feet; thence S89°59'27"W 121.74 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 184.00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 1.808 acres, more or less. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Riverside Cottages Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments (PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021-01203, & PLNPCM2022-00674) STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner aaron.barlow@slcgov.com or 801-535-6182 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the proposed Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owners, initiated the following amendment requests in anticipation of a future redevelopment project (see table and map on next page): Master Plan and Zoning Man Amendments (PLNPCM2022-00674 & PLNPCM2021-01075) Amending the Northwest Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezoning from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential for the following properties •552 N 1500 West •Northern Portions (beginning approximately 110 feet north of the 500 North right-of-way line) of 1500 W, 1516 W, 1520 W, and 1522 W 500 North. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01203) Rezoning the southern (approximately) 110 feet of 150 W, 1516 W, 1520 W, and 1522 W 500 North from R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential to R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:15 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 Riverside Cottages Amendments Page 2 of 4 On September 28, 2022, the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map and Northwest Community Master Plan. The applicant is currently working on submitting a Planned Development Petition for the proposed development. Additional information, including the applicant’s description of the proposal, can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment request includes five properties. Four of the five (1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 W 500 N) face 500 North. The other is located within the block’s interior and is accessed from 1500 W near Backman Elementary School. Petition Current Proposed Affected Property Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-00674) Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 552 N 1500 W & Northern portions (approximately 110 feet north of the 500 North right-of- way line) of 1500 W, 1516 W, 1520 W, and 1522 W 500 North. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01075) R-1/7,000 SR-3 Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01203) R-1/7,000 R-1/5,000 Southern 110 feet of 1500 W, 1516 W, 1520 W, and 1522 W 500 North Riverside Cottages Amendments Page 3 of 4 HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION: The applicant was required to submit a housing loss mitigation plan as part of this request, per Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a housing loss mitigation plan is approved by the city before any petition is approved for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units. A housing loss mitigation plan is required for this petition because both the SR-3 and R-1/5,000 zoning districts both allow nonresidential uses. Options for mitigating residential housing loss include providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units, and, where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s housing trust fund. The applicant intends to provide replacement housing. To ensure that any demolished housing on the site is replaced, the Planning Commission has recommended that the applicant obtain Planned Development or Building Permit approval for replacement housing as a condition of approval for this request. If the City Council approves the proposed Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, the corresponding ordinance would not be effective until after the approval of a Planned Development petition or Building Permit application. No timeline for completing the replacement housing after approval was included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The draft ordinance can be amended to include any additional requirements or timelines the Council wishes to place on this request. PUBLIC PROCESS: • April 25, 2022 – Public notice regarding this request was sent to the chairs of the Fairpark and Rose Park Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An Open House was also posted on the Division’s webpage. o The Community Councils did not provide formal comments. • May 23, 2022 – Staff determined that the proposed SR-3 district would not align with the Northwest Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map and that a Master Plan Amendment petition would be needed to ensure consistency between the plan and the proposed zoning district, and requested such from the applicant. • July 12, 2022 – The Master Plan Amendment petition (PLNPCM2022-00674) was accepted by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner. • July 29, 2022 – An updated notice regarding this request was sent to the chairs of the Fairpark and Rose Park Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. o The Community Councils did not provide formal comments. • September 14, 2022 – Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing mailed to all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment site. The public notice was also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning listserv. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On September 28, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/live/IMKKALoKXfA?feature=share&t=5529. • Parking and vehicle access for the future development from 1500 West was brought up by the commission. Staff noted that any development of the site would require a Planned Development petition, which would, at that time, allow additional scrutiny of the future project’s traffic impacts and provide an opportunity for the commission to place any necessary conditions on the project. Riverside Cottages Amendments Page 4 of 4 •The commission read a letter included with a petition (that is included with this transmittal) submitted by neighbors within the vicinity of the project site. The following concerns were listed within the letter: o On-street parking and speeding vehicles on 500 North, o Overcrowding of local schools, and o Opposition to changing the neighborhood’s character. The commission responded to these concerns, stating that the proposed project would not impact 500 North and that the proposed zoning district was designed to enable limited density without significantly affecting existing properties. •One individual spoke in support of the petition and asked about existing water rights on the property. The applicant was unaware of any existing rights with the property, and the commission determined that the issue was likely outside their purview. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of September 28, 2022 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of September 28, 2022 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of September 28, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1)Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Written Comments not Included in the PC Staff Report 4)Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R- 1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District, amending the zoning of property located at 552 North 1500 West from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North and 552 North 1500 West (the “Property”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District, for portions of the Property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North (the “Southern Portion”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01203; and amending the zoning map from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District for the portion of the Property located at 552 North 1500 West and the northerly portions of the properties located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North (the “Northern Portion”) as legally described in Exhibit A pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075; and amending the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential as to the Northern Portion pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 00674. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on September 28, 2022, on an application submitted by Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone the Southern Portion from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01203, to rezone the Northern Portion from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01075, and amend the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Northern Portion from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00674; and WHEREAS, at its September 28, 2022, 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 area identified as the Southern Portion in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to R- 1/5,000 Single Family Residential; and that the area identified as the Northern Portion in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. Amending the Northwest Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Northwest Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the area identified as “the Northern Portion” in Exhibit A attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant replacing any dwellings demolished on the Property by the Applicant and by obtaining approval of a Planned Development in accordance with City Code § 21A.55 or its successor. 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: ______________. Rezone 552 North 1500 West, and 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney March 14, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 552 North 1500 West Tax ID No. 08-34-230-026-0000 1500 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-023-0000 1516 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-025-0000 1520 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-004-0000 1522 West 500 North Tax ID No. 08-34-230-003-0000 Legal Description of “the Property” containing 1500, 1516, 1520, 1522 West 500 North, and 552 North 1500 West: Beginning at a point on North Right-of-Way Line of 500 North Street, said point being 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West from the Northeast corner of Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Meridian; thence along the said North Right-of-Way Line S89°59'51"W 198.88 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 425.21 feet; thence S63°20'00"E 36.63 feet; thence East 97.78 feet; thence N43°15'00"E 52.00 feet; thence N89°59'38"E 153.68 feet; thence S00°00'44"W 148.95 feet; thence S89°59'27"W 121.74 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 297.69 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 2.327 acres, more or less. Legal Description of “the Southern Portion” to be rezoned from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000: Beginning at a point on North Right-of-Way Line of 500 North Street, said point being 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West from the Northeast corner of Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Meridian; thence along the said North Right-of-Way Line S89°59'51"W 198.88 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 113.67 feet; thence N89°59'27"E 198.53 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 113.69 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 0.519 acres, more or less. Legal Description of “the Northern Portion” to be rezoned from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 and subject to the Northwest Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential: Beginning at a point 1359.7 feet South and 1103.91 feet West and N00°12'40"W 113.69 feet from the Northeast corner of Section 34, ; thence S89°59'27"W 198.53 feet; thence N00°02'12"W 311.55 feet; thence S63°20'00"E 36.63 feet; thence East 97.78 feet; thence N43°15'00"E 52.00 feet; thence N89°59'38"E 153.68 feet; thence S00°00'44"W 148.95 feet; thence S89°59'27"W 121.74 feet; thence S00°12'40"E 184.00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 1.808 acres, more or less. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3.COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PC STAFF REPORT 4.MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021-01203, & PLNPCM2022-00674 Dec. 16, 2021 Zoning Map Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2021-01075 & -01203) are assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner. Jan. 27, 2022 Planning Staff Requests Housing Loss Mitigation Plan Mar. 31, 2022 Zoning Amendment petitions are deemed complete after the applicant submits Housing Loss Mitigation Plan proposal. Apr. 25, 2022 Public notice regarding this request is sent to the chairs of the Fairpark and Rose Park Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website. May 23, 2022 Planning Staff determines that the proposed rezone to SR-3 does not align with the Northwest Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map. For consistency between the proposed zoning district and the master plan, a Master Plan Amendment petition would be necessary. July 12, 2022 The Master Plan Amendment petition (PLNPCM2022-00674) is accepted by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and assigned to Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner. July 29, 2022 An updated notice regarding this request is sent to the chairs of the Fairpark and Rose Park Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. The Open House page on the Division’s website is also updated. Sept. 14, 2022 Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing is mailed to all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map and Master Plan amendment site. The public notice is also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning listserv. Sept. 16, 2022 A public hearing notice sign is posted on the affected properties. Sept. 28, 2022 The petition is heard by the Planning Commission, and they vote unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. Sept. 28, 2022 Planning Staff requests an accurate legal description of the areas to be rezoned. The Planning Commission ratifies the minutes for their meeting on September 28, 2022. Applicant submits accurate legal descriptions of subject properties. City Survey Confirms submitted legal descriptions Oct. 12, 2022 Jan. 24, 2023 Feb. 3, 2023 Feb. 21, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office March 14, 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 PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021- 01203, and PLNPCM2022-00674 – Riverside Cottage Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments – Salt Lake City has received a request for multiple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment requests, specified below, from Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owners, w. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is located within Council District 1, represented by Victoria Petro-Eschler. A. Master Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-00674) – 552 N 1500 W and all portions of 500 N of 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 W 500 N ~110 feet from the street – Modify the Northwest Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2021-01075) – 552 N 1500 W and all portions of 500 N of 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 W 500 N ~110 feet from the street – rezone from R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential. C. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2021-01203) – the front ~110 feet of 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 W 500 N – rezone from R-1/7,000 to R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Aaron Barlow at 801-535-6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via 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 PLNPCM2021-01075, PLNPCM2021-01203, or PLNPCM2022-00674. 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. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 2016 MABLE RUTH LARSEN TRUST 1463 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 A. CRAIG THOMAS FAMILY TRUST 02/19/2021 1455 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 ALBERT REED 524 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE UT 84103 AMMON ORGILL 440 N J ST SALT LAKE UT 84103 AMY FIRTH LIVING TRUST 5/17/2021 520 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 ANDREW HENDRIX; SIMONA HENDRIX (JT) 472 N 1465 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 ANDREW WOLOCATIUK; ASHLEY WOLOCATIUK (JT) 1525 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 ARTURO R ARANDA 1501 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 AUDRE J MATHIS 1724 WILDCAT LN OGDEN UT 84403 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE UT 84111 BOSKO MAJSTOROVIC; NINOSLAV MAJSTOROVIC (TC) 525 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 BREANA NOELLE‐GRACE ALLEGRINI; MICHAEL ANTHONY ALLEGRINI (JT) 1441 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 BURCU BAKIOGLU‐CLIFT 1520 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CARDELL E THOMPSON; SHARON KAYE REYNOLDS (JT) 575 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CARLOS FRANCO; MARITINA R FRANCO (JT) 1550 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CATHERINE SLC, LLC 963 E 13400 S DRAPER UT 84020 CLAIRE ELIZABETH VITALE 534 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CLIFT/SONS LLC 799 E SANTA CLARA ST VENTURA CA 93001 CORDELL E THOMPSON; SHARON K REYNOLDS (JT) 575 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 DALIA ALVAREZ; MARIA ALVAREZ (JT) 1503 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 DANIELLE D POLK 1560 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 EDWARD CLIFT 799 E SANTA CLARA ST VENTURA CA 93001 EDWARD M CLIFT; BURCU BAKIOGLU‐CLIFT (JT) 1516 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 ELEANOR CLIFT 799 SANTA CLARA ST VENTURA CA 93001 ELIZABETH TRUJILLO; MICHAEL TRUJILLO (JT) 446 N CHAZ CT SALT LAKE UT 84116 ELIZABETH ZETTEL 538 N MACLAND LN SALT LAKE UT 84116 GILLIAN CURCIO 1450 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 HERITAGE BAPTIST CHURCH 590 N SIR MICHAEL DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 JANA L STRATTON 565 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 JANICE A DINIZ; CHRISTINE M DINIZ (JT) 542 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 JORGE E OLVERA; LUZ M OLVERA (JT) 1507 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 JUAN M MEDINA; SALVADOR O LOPEZ (TC) 1505 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 JULIE MOWER 579 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 KERESSA JENSON 14708 S SNOW BLOSSOM WY DRAPER UT 84020 KK PROPERTIES LLC 6971 S 2320 W WEST JORDUT 84084 LARRON FALKNER 1454 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 LARRON FALKNER 1454 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 LAWRENCE AJR RITTMILLER 1536 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 LUTHER R HARKEY; PATRICIA R HARKEY (JT) 1557 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 MANAMOUI BONAPARTE NONU; LIUAKI KOVI NONU (JT) 524 N MACLAND LN SALT LAKE UT 84116 MARIA ELISABETH AQUINO; ISAAC HELAMAN SOTO (JT) 466 N 1465 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 MATTHEW RUSSELL HENNEFER 510 N MACLAND LN SALT LAKE UT 84116 MAYRA A BROCKMANN; ELIZABETH SOCORRO SILVA 2245 LAS LUNAS ST PASADENA CA 91107 MAYRA LOPEZ MARTINEZ 516 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 MICHAEL D BROADHEAD; ROBYN C BROADHEAD 1427 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 MICHAEL MACKENZIE; LYNDA HARVEY (JT) 544 N MACLAND LN SALT LAKE UT 84116 MONICA CHRISTINE HERNANDEZ 574 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 ORCHID PROPERTIES LLC 832 S WEST TEMPLE ST #C SALT LAKE UT 84101 OSCAR FUENTES‐VASQUEZ 538 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 PAUL OSCAR CHAVEZ; LISA BOLTON CHAVEZ (JT) 1433 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 PEDRO SANCHEZ; MARIA C SANCHEZ (JT) 551 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 PHILLIP L GERTSCH; DEANN GERTSCH (JT) 1469 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 RICHARD LJR SERVICE 8084 S ALLEN ST MIDVALE UT 84047 ROBERT BENNETT; SARIAH M BENNETT (TC) 545 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 ROBIN B CRANDALL; ELAINE CRANDALL (JT) 13778 S SNAFFLE CIR DRAPER UT 84020 RONALD A ROSS; LINDA G ROSS (JT) 566 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 RONALD E ANDERSON; CAROL K ANDERSON (JT) 1899 S WASATCH DR SALT LAKE UT 84108 RUSSELL R COLLETT; MARCIA E COLLETT (JT) 1430 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE UT 84114 SARA OJEDA 558 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 SHAUNA M PECK; DAVID L PECK (JT) 1530 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 STEPHEN OTTERSTROM; ELIZABETH OTTERSTROM (JT) 1475 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 SUSAN D BOWLER; GARY S BOWLER (JT) 1477 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 TAMRA RILEY 559 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 TITO J DARDON 531 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 TORI LANE BANDLEY; JOHN MICHAEL FINNEGAN (JT) 1462 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 572 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 TYLER JORDAN ROELFSEMA; DIANA ALICIA LENART (JT) 532 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1548 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 601 N 1500 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 560 N 1500 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 585 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 573 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 597 N 1500 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1522 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 539 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 519 N CATHERINE ST SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1446 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1500 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 552 N 1500 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1458 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1456 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1503 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1553 W 500 N SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1510 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1508 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 485 N 1465 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 475 N 1465 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 463 N 1465 W SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1502 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 CURRENT OCCUPANT 1506 W WALNUT DR SALT LAKE UT 84116 Item C3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties at 1549, 1551, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West PLNPCM2022-00733 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties at 1549, 1551, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West PLNPCM2022-00733 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the July 11, 2023 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. BRIEFING UPDATE At the June 6, 2023 briefing, Council Members asked about the proposed homes, how the narrow lot at 1574 South 900 West will be used, and about the two homes slated for demolition. The petitioner said he plans to construct 28 four-bedroom, 2-1/2 bathroom for sale rowhouses. The new residential housing units will satisfy housing loss mitigation requirements. It is anticipated the lot fronting 900 West will be a fire department access point. The following information was provided for June 13, 2023 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1549 South, 1551 South, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from the current R-1/7,000 (single-family residential to RMF-30 (low density multi-family residential). The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct rowhouses on the subject properties, but if approved by the Council, any use allowed under RMF- 30 zoning could be built. Planning staff estimated a total of 35 rowhouses could be constructed on the parcels given the minimum 2,000 square foot lot size per unit. A maximum of 6 units per building is allowed for rowhouses. Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 Single-family dwellings are located on the parcels at 1549 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West. Both homes are proposed to be demolished as part of the townhome development. The 1551 South and 1565 South 1000 West parcels are vacant. 1551 South is very narrow and undevelopable, while 1565 South has no street frontage. The combined area of the subject parcels is approximately 1.65 acres. Area zoning is a mix of single- and two-family residential, multi-family residential, community business, and light manufacturing as shown in the zoning map below. The community business zoning directly to the south of the subject site includes small businesses, a gas station, restaurant, and vacant lots. Low-density residential areas on the block consist of single-family homes and some duplexes. Some parcels on the west side of 1000 West, south of the subject parcels, are zoned RMF-35 (multi-Family residential). Parcels on the east side of 900 West are zoned M-1 (Light manufacturing) and include uses consistent with that zoning. Because the proposed RMF-30 zoning allows some non-residential uses (e.g., daycare, community garden, park) a housing loss mitigation report is required and included on pages 18-20 of the Administration’s transmittal. The petitioner plans to address the housing loss by providing replacement housing. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its March 8, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people expressed opposition to the proposal. Commissioners voted 9-1 in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner who voted against the proposal stated she did not believe the proposed zoning is an appropriate transition zone for the area. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject parcels shaded in blue. (Note-the gray shaded parcels to the east of the subject parcels are zoned M-1 (Light manufacturing)). Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. In keeping with the Council’s interest in housing affordability, the Council may wish to ask for more information about what price point the developer / petitioner will list the properties (whether for sale or rent). The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about the anticipated size of the proposed homes and number of bedrooms in each. 2. The Council may wish to ask about the proximity of amenities and services for this immediate neighborhood. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Page | 4 Consideration 1-Westside Master Plan Guidance Among the primary growth locations identified in the Westside Master Plan are within single-family neighborhoods, and at significant intersections or “nodes.” The subject parcels are within a single-family neighborhood, and just outside the regional node at 900 West and 1700 South. Regional nodes are defined in the master plan as “…major magnets for large commercial uses, professional offices, and multifamily developments. Regional nodes are served by at least one arterial street (preferably two) so that they are easily accessible by automobiles and public transportation. A focus on public transit, bicycling, and walking to these nodes is important for the long-term health of the community. They are major attractions for employment and community activities and alternative travel options encourage physical activity and better air quality. The RMF-30 zone is intended to maintain established residential neighborhood character while providing opportunities for compatible small scale multi-family housing types. The Westside Master Plan calls for this type of development on vacant and underutilized lots. Planning staff stated the subject parcels are “…an ideal location for the multi-family infill development called for by the Westside Master Plan.” Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Area development is primarily one and two-story single-family homes, with some duplexes on the west side of 1000 West. Maximum building height in the R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 zoning districts is 28 feet, while the adjacent CB and proposed RMF-30 zones allow buildings up to 30 feet in height. Planning staff found the 2-foot maximum allowed height difference, and required landscape buffer when adjacent to single- or two-family residential limits impact the additional density would have. Planning staff included the following table comparing current R-1/7,000 with the proposed RMF-30 zoning in Attachment C (pages 15-16) of the Planning Commission staff report. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-1/7,000)Proposed Zoning (RMF-30) Lot Area/Width 7,000 SF/ 50 FT Lot Width Max – 110’ including the combination of newly created lots Single-, Two-, & Multi-family – 2000 SF per unit Row House – 2,000 SF per unit Cottage Development & Tiny House – 1,500 SF per unit Non-Residential Uses – 5,000 SF per building Units per Lot 1 Single-Family dwelling per lot Single-, Two, & Multi-family – 1 unit, 2 units, & 8 units per form respectively. Row House – 6 units per form Cottage Development – 8 units per development Tiny House – 1 per form Setbacks Front & Corner Side Yard –Front yard setback – 20 FT or the average of the block face Page | 5 Average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Min 20 FT when no buildings exist on the block face. Interior Side Yard – Corner lots 6 FT, Interior lots 6 FT & 10 FT on each side. Rear Yard – 25 FT *All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title Corner side yard setback – 10 FT Interior side yard setback – Single- & two-family – 4 FT & 10 FT Multi-family – 10 FT Row house – 4 FT Sideways row house – 6 FT & 10 FT Cottage development & tiny house – 4 FT Nonresidential – 10 FT Rear yard setback –10 FT for cottage developments & tiny houses, 25% of lot depth up to 25 FT for all other development types *All required front and corner side yards and landscape buffers shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title Parking Setback Surface parking and garages are required to be located behind the front line of the principal building. Surface parking is required to be located behind the front line of the principal building. Attached garages accessed from front/corner side yard must be setback at least 5 FT from the street facing building Building Height Building Height – Pitched roof – 28 FT Flat roof – 20 FT Single-, Two, & Multi-family – 30 FT Row House – 30 FT Cottage Development – Pitched roof – 23 FT Flat roof – 16 FT Tiny House – 16 FT Nonresidential Building – 30 FT Open Space No specific open space regulations No specific open space regulations. *A 10 FT wide landscape buffer is required when abutting property is in a single- or two-family zone. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 20-21) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, Complies Page | 6 and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 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; Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Not Applicable 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 petition the Housing Stability Division encouraged the developer to: •Review the City’s available fee waivers and low-interest loan products to support development and operations of affordable units. •Include 3- or 4-bedroom units to provide a wider range of housing options and support families with children looking to live in the city. •Include units with accommodations and amenities that align with the Americans with Disabilities Act. No other responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the project is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 21, 2022-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • August 11, 2022-Petition assigned to Kaitlynn Harris, Principal Planner. • September 21, 2022-Information about petition sent to Glendale Community Council, and surrounding neighbors and property owners. Project posted to City website for an online open house. • February 24, 2023-Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to City website. • March 8, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 9-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • March 14, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. Page | 7 • March 24, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • April 5, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-00733 Zoning Map Amendment at 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W STAFF CONTACT: Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner katilynn.harris@slcgov.com or (801) 535-6179 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Jordan Atkin, representing the property owner, to amend the Zoning Map for four separate parcels located at 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W. The proposed Zoning Map amendment would rezone the properties from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). The amendment is intended to allow the property owner to develop rowhouses on the subject properties; however, no development plans have been submitted at this time. If the amendment is approved, the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the newly adopted RMF-30 zoning standards. In the new standards, each unit must have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet. Based on the square footage of the properties, a maximum of 35 units could be constructed. Additionally, a maximum of 6 units per building are permitted for rowhouses The request did not require a master plan amendment. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:17 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 Two of the four parcels each contain a single-family dwelling while the other two are a currently undevelopable sliver lot and a vacant lot with no street access in the middle of the block. The proposed RMF-30 zoning district allows some non-residential uses, such as daycares and community gardens. Because this application is a “petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units,” a Housing Loss Mitigation Plan is required in accordance with chapter 18.97.020 of Salt Lake City code. The applicant is proposing replacement housing to mitigate the loss of two dwelling units. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on March 8, 2023. The Commission determined the RMF-30 zone promotes the implementation of key policies and goals outlined in the Westside Master Plan which identifies vacant or underutilized parcels in this area as preferred locations for multi-family infill development compatible in scale with the existing neighborhood fabric. The Commission voted (9-1) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map as requested. PUBLIC PROCESS: • September 21, 2022 – Early notification was sent to the Glendale Community Council. No official comments were received. 90 0 W 90 0 W 900 S 900 S 10 0 0 W 900 W 1700 S Subject properties. Block and zoning context. • September 21, 2022 – Early notification was sent to all residents and property owners within 300 FT of the subject properties. Staff received a voicemail questioning the appropriateness of tearing down two existing homes for a new development. • September 21, 2022 – February 3, 2023 – An online open house was held for the proposal. • March 8, 2023 – Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject properties from R-1/7,000 to RMF-30 to the City Council for their review and decision. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of MARCH 8, 2023: Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Housing Loss Mitigation Report 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential to RMF- 30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00733 (the “Petition”). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on March 8, 2023 on the Petition submitted by Jordan Atkin, on behalf of the property owner TAG SLC, LLC, to rezone four parcels located at 1549 South 1000 West (Tax ID No. 15-14-253-005), 1551 South 1000 West (Tax ID No. 15-14-253-006), 1565 South 1000 West (Tax ID No. 15-14-253-065), and 1574 South 900 West (Tax ID No. 15-14-253-035) (collectively the “Property”) from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District; WHEREAS, at its March 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the 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. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 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: ______________. Rezone 1549, 1551, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 to RMF-30 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney March 24, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 1549 South 1000 West Street Tax ID No. 15-14-253-005 COM 889.25 FT N & 264 FT E FR CEN SEC 14 T 1S R 1W SL MER N 124.5 FT E 281 FT S 124.5 FT W 281 FT TO BEG. 1551 South 1000 West Street Tax ID No. 15-14-253-006 COM 264 FT E & 878.79 FT N FR CEN SEC 14, T 1S, R 1W, SL MER, N 10.46 FT; E 281 FT; S 10.46 FT; W 281 FT TO BEG. 1565 South 1000 West Street Tax ID No. 15-14-253-065 BEG 723.77 FT N & 16 RDS E FR CEN SEC 14, T1S, R1W, SL MER; N 102.43 FT; E 150 FT; N 50 FT; E 130.5 FT; S 157.43 FT; W 120.5 FT; N 5 FT; W 160 FT TO BEG. LESS AND EXCEPTING, BEG 723.10 FT N & 16 RODS E FR SW COR OF NE 1/4 OF SAID SEC 14; E 150 FT; N 102.43 FT; W 150 FT; S 102.43 FT TO BEG. 0.47 AC M OR L. 1574 South 900 West Street Tax ID No. 15-14-253-035 BEG 30.63 RDS N & 50 RDS E & 198.935 FT N FR SW COR OF NE 1/4 SEC 14, T 1S, R 1W, S L M; N 50 FT; W 280.5 FT; S 50 FT; E 280.5 FT TO BEG. 1. CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W – PLNPCM2022-00733 July 21, 2022 August 11, 2022 September 21, 2022 February 24, 2023 March 8, 2023 March 24, 2023 Jordan Atkin on behalf of the property owner TAG SLC, LLC, filed the Zoning Map amendment application. The subject properties are located at 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W and encompass approximately 1.65 acres (71,721 square feet). Application assigned to Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner. Sent notifications to Glendale Community Council, and surrounding neighbors and property owners. Project posted to city website for an online Open House. Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and with a 9-1 vote, forwarded a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject property from R-1/7,000 to RMF-30 to the City Council for their review and decision. Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00733 – Jordan Atkin, representing the property owner, has submitted an application to amend the Zoning Map for four separate parcels located at 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W. The requested Zoning Map amendment would rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). The requested amendment would allow for expanded residential uses not permitted under the existing zoning district. The subject properties are located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff Contact: Katilynn Harris at 801-535-6179 or katilynn.harris@slcgov.com.) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Katilynn Harris at 801-535-6179 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at katilynn.harris@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00733. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION Project Description: R-1-7000 to RMF-30 Parcel for Zone Map Amendment: 1514253005, 1514253006, 1514253065, 1514253035 Date: February 14, 2023 Project Description: Sitting on underutilized parcels, the TAG 1000 W townhome project will bring multi-family development to the periphery of a “Regional Commercial Node” in the Westside Master Plan.1 Currently, the node and surrounding areas house several large vacant parcels that are underutilized. The project being contemplated is anticipated to be a tract of townhomes that provides a smooth transition from the node into the existing single-family neighborhood. The proposed site is in close proximity to several neighborhood amenities that will both enhance and be enhanced by the project. These include the Jordan River Trail (recreation node at 1700 S), the Jordan River Peace Labyrinth, the Sorenson Unity Center, and the former site of Raging Waters, which the city is contemplating how to redevelop. The project will provide much needed living space for the Glendale neighborhood. The Westside has limited opportunities to add density within existing neighborhoods, but locations like the proposed TAG 1000 W site on the periphery of the neighborhood offer chances to improve how land is utilized. The current R-1-7000 zoning codes directly contradict the density recommendations for the node by limiting 1 Salt Lake City, Documents, Accessed February 14,2023 http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning /MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf density to roughly 25 du/acre, less than half of the minimum 50 du/acre advised in the Master Plan. Allowing the rezone will bring the City’s actions into better alignment with its plans. Background: The Westside Master Plan composed in 2014 provides extensive background on the state of the neighborhood, which like the rest of the Salt Lake Valley has seen dramatic growth over the last 50 years. The Westside has traditionally grown faster than most parts of the city as the neighborhood has provided affordable single-family housing options. Overall, the population of Westside neighborhoods grew 42% between 1970 and 2014. The low-density single-family development patterns seen in the majority (89%) of residential areas in Westside neighborhoods is a barrier to sustainable growth. Young families are finding themselves consistently priced out of the area with limited options in terms of both for-sale and for-rent housing inventory. The proposed sites for rezone is located at the corner of two major arterials; one of which provides north-south access to the Westside and the other which forms an east-west gateway into the area. 900 W serves as an important transit corridor, offering frequent service that carries passengers to Salt Lake Central Station. Moreover, there are only a handful of east-west access roads (1700 S being one of them) connecting the Westside to Downtown. Since the composition of the Westside Master Plan, the Salt Lake region has continued to grow at a breakneck pace (15.1% increase in 2010-2020 population in Salt Lake County), but the same dynamics have not played out in the Census Tracts covered by the Westside Master Plan (1026, 1027.1, 1027.2, 1028.1 and 1028.2). The population of the Westside Census Tracts shrunk by 869 residents between 2010 and 2020, a roughly 3.5% decrease. This leaves questions about the extent to which the current land uses are serving the population at a time when prices for housing are rapidly increasing. Conversations with members of the Glendale community have revealed that housing young families of the community remains a major challenge. New residents coming into the area have pushed home costs and rents higher, leaving a dearth of options for those who have grown up in the area and desire to stay in the neighborhood. Some of these folks will inevitably leave the area for the affordability most people need when leaving home for the first time. Declines in population of Westside neighborhoods over the last decade have eroded the residential base that keeps local businesses alive. Growth and Housing Initiatives: Westside Master Plan:2 ●Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community ’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside's existing stable neighborhoods. 2 Salt Lake City, Documents, Accessed February 14, 2023 http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning /MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf ●Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential neighborhoods while providing attractive, compatible and high-density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired. ●Generally speaking, most of the redevelopment in the Westside will be around single-family neighborhoods ●If the neighborhoods are limited with regard to new residential and commercial development, the opportunities for that type of growth must be located elsewhere. In the Westside, those areas are at the edges of the neighborhoods and specific intersections within them. Both the size and scope of these opportunities vary significantly based on the site and situation. Growing SLC:3 ●Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city ●Secure and preserve long-term affordability ●Increase the number of units on particular parcels ●Implement life cycle housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city ●In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city ●Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations,with a focus along significant transportation routes. Plan Salt Lake:4 ●Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. ●Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities,such as transit and transportation corridors. ●Direct new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. ●Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land ●Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate ●Accommodate and promote an increase in the City ’s population ●Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails, recreation, and healthy food ●Support policies that provide housing choices, including affordability, accessibility and aging in place. The proposed development of a large and mostly vacant lot to create an attractive low-density multi-family development will bring activation to the area and spur further investment on the multiple underused parcels in the area. The project aligns with the goals, policies, and statements of the Westside Master Plan and other governing city documents. The development 4 Salt Lake City Documents, Accessed December 14, 2022 http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning /Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf 3 Salt Lake City Documents, Accessed December 19, 2022 http://www.slcdocs.com/hand/Growing_SLC_Final_No_Attachments.pdf possible under the proposed rezone would promote infill that more adequately utilizes the land by allowing for the development of additional density. The sites are close to a variety of resources that provide opportunities for a healthy lifestyle. This includes the Jordan River trail, the Jordan River Peace Labyrinth etc,. Additionally, the project provides a housing option that is low maintenance, making it more appealing to an aging population. We expect that this project, supported by the rezone, will breathe more life into the infrastructure and amenities already present, while also encouraging their ongoing improvement. Transportation and Mobility Initiatives: Westside Master Plan5 ●Clearly connected to the rest of Salt Lake City through a variety of reliable transportation modes that give residents convenient options for getting around ●Strengthen the connections both within and between the Westside and other parts of Salt Lake City by improving the community ’s gateways and corridors and strengthening the transportation network for all modes of travel Growing SLC:6 ●It is imperative that new housing be constructed in the right locations of the city ●Moderate increases in density should be encouraged along transit corridors Plan Salt Lake:7 ●Create a system of connections so that residents may easily access employment, goods and services, neighborhood amenities and housing ●Prioritize connecting nodes located throughout the City to each other with improved walking, biking and transit ●Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips ●Minimize impact of car emissions ●Increase mode-share for public transit, cycling, walking, and carpooling The projects will bring people into an area where they can be connected with the city and the abundance of amenities nearby will serve to reduce automobile use by new residents. We find reducing car use to be a necessary step in reducing pollution. Utah's air quality index sits at 51.2 (compared to Hawaii at 21.2), making it the #1 state for poor air quality.8 Unfortunately transportation is the leading cause of pollution and makes up a staggering 42% of wintertime pollution. In efforts to combat this problem here in Utah, the State has engaged in zoning changes to develop walkable/bikeable streets and neighborhood centers that complement use 8 World Population Review; Accessed November 14, 2022, https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/air-quality-by-state 7 Salt Lake City Documents, Accessed December 14, 2022 http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning /Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf 6 Salt Lake City Documents, Accessed December 19, 2022 http://www.slcdocs.com/hand/Growing_SLC_Final_No_Attachments.pdf 5 Salt Lake City, Documents, Accessed February 14,2023 http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning /MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf of transit.9 Placing a greater number of people within a ¼ mile radius of transit is broadly recognized as an important step toward reducing car related emissions. Purpose: The purpose of the amendment to the zone map is to work towards better fulfilling the city’s stated goals and vision as demonstrated by multiple Master Plans. The current zoning code applied to the property is outdated and prevents development in an area that is well suited for it. The project team is committed to making this a development that will work not only for future members of the community, but also current community members. We will work with appropriate community bodies to ensure that the project fits the needs of the neighborhood. Parcel for Zone Map Amendment: 15-14-253-005, 15-14-253-006, 15-14-253-065, 15-14-253-065, 15-14-253-035 Surrounding Zoning: CB (Community Business), CG (General Commercial), R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential-7000 SF Lots), R-MU-35 (Residential Multifamily-35 Feet), M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Closing Remarks: Though there are continual growing pains in a city that sees a heavily increasing population, there is also an exciting opportunity as we work together to create more housing in appropriate and viable ways. During a conference hosted by the Urban Land Institute on November 8th, 2022, Mayor Erin Mendenhall stated, "The window of opportunity is closing...the way we grow matters". Following her remarks, Andrew Gruber, Executive Director of Wasatch Front Regional Council, continues by saying,"If we don't do it right to start, we'll permanently impair the needed density for at least 50 years”. The current R-1-7000 zone does not advance the city plans outlined in the Westside Master Plan, Growing SLC or Plan Salt Lake. By allowing for the rezone to RMF-30 the city will modernize the zoning to agree with the goals stated in city documents. We know additional housing is necessary here in Salt Lake, and by allowing for density on underutilized lots living between commercial and residential areas will increase attainability of housing while still protecting single-family zoned neighborhoods from the impact of a growing city. The proposed parcels represent an infill opportunity in an area where it is appropriate and desired. With the support of the city and rezone approval from R-1-7000 to RMF-30, we hope to do our part in creating beautiful, safe, and more attainable housing here in Salt Lake City. 9 Salt Lake City Government; Accessed November 14, 2022 https://www.slc.gov/sustainability/air-quality 4. HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS 1549 S 1000 W, 1551 S 1000 W, 1565 S 1000 W, and 1574 S 900 W - Zoning Map Amendment Petition PLNPCM2022-00733 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Conditions Salt Lake City has received a request for a zoning map amendment from Jordan Atkin, TAG SLC, LLC, to rezone the following four properties: 1549 S 1000 W contains a detached single-family dwelling 1551 S 1000 W vacant 1565 S 1000 W vacant 1574 S 900 W contains a detached single family dwelling The zoning map amendment would rezone the properties as follows: Existing zoning R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential District) Proposed zoning RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) The applicant has indicated that he intends to demolish the two single family dwellings on the site and construct a townhome style development (Single-family Attached Residential) if the proposed map amendment is approved. Aformal development proposal has not been submitted at this time. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment The proposed RMF-30 (Low Density Multi- Family Residential Zone) allows some non- residential uses, such as daycares and community gardens. Because thisapplication isa Loss Mitigation Plan is required. Housing Loss Mitigation Plans are reviewed by the C Planning Director and the Director of Community & Neighborhoods. The plan includes a housing impact statement and a methodfor mitigating residential loss. Vicinity map. Subject properties highlighted in red. HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT Housing Mitigation Ordinance Compliance The Housing Mitigation Ordinance requires a housing impact statement which includes the following: 1. Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area subject of the petition; Staff does not anticipate adverse impacts on the residential character of this neighborhood with the approval of the proposed rezone. The site of the proposed zoning map amendment is located mid-block, in an area that is primarily low-density residential. The RMF-30 zoning district allows for similar scale development to the R-1/7,0000 zone that is keeping in character with the existing residential character of the area, while moderately increasing density potential due to smaller required lot areas and flexibility in allowed residential uses. 2. Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting of the petition; 1549 S 1000 W, which contains a single-family dwelling. 1574 S 900 W, which contains a single-family dwelling. 3. Separately for each dwelling unit targeted for demolition, state its current fair market value, if that unit were in a reasonable state of repair and met all applicable building, fire, and health codes; The applicant indicates that the properties are worth roughly $350,000 each. According to Salt Lake County Assessor Records, the building value of the single-family dwelling at 1549 S 1000 W is $90,200 and the building value of the single-family dwelling at 1574 S 900 W is $140,600. Those values do not include the market value of the land. 4. State the number of square feet of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned or conditionally permitted to be used for purposes sought in the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses; and The proposed rezone would see approximately 71,721 square feet of land converted from R-1/7,000 to RMF- 30. 5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residentially zoned land, residential units, or residential character. Section 18.97.130 outlines three options for the mitigation of housing loss. These options are: A. Construction of replacement housing, B. Payment of a fee based on difference between the existing housing market value and the cost of replacement, and C. Payment of a flat mitigation fee if demonstrated that the costs of calculating and analyzing the various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation). Discussion: Option A - The applicant has chosen option A, which addressed the change in zoning by providing replacement housing. While two single family dwellings will be demolished, the applicant intends to build 34 single family attached dwelling units. Option B - calculated as the difference between the market value of the home, as determined by the Salt Lake County welling unit of similar size and meeting all existing building, fire and other applicable law (excluding land value). combined market value of the two single-family dwellings as $230,800, which does not include the market value of the land. The replacement cost is calculated using the Building Valuation Data published by the International Code Council. The most recent data from the ICC was published in February 2023 and, indicates that the construction cost per square foot for R-3 (One- and Two-family Dwellings) Type VB is $167.37/SF of finished floor area and $31.50/SF of unfinished floor area. This rate takes into account only the costs of construction and does not include the land costs. Type VB is the typical construction type for residential buildings due to the use of the building and the occupant load. Market value of the properties (based on County assessment): 1549 S 1000 W = $90,200.00 1574 S 900 W = $140,600.00 Replacement cost 1549 S 1000 W (1278 finished + 0 unfinished) = $213,898.86 1574 S 900 W (1395 finished + 0 unfinished) = $233,481.15 Difference 1549 S 1000 W = -$123,698.86 1574 S 900 W = -$92,881.15 Because the replacement costsexceed the market value of the existing single-family homes, the difference is a negative number and no mitigation fee is required. FINDINGS The petition to rezone these properties to RMF- existing housing stock. While the applicant is proposing to demolish the houses at 1549 S 1000 West and 1574 S 900 West, they plan to add additional housing units to the properties. Since the replacement cost exceeds the market value of the two single-family dwellings, the applicant is not required to replace the housing units nor uired, the City council may choose to require a development agreement for the replacement of at least two dwelling units as a condition of approval. DETERMINATION OF MITIGATION Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods has determined the applicant will have complied in a satisfactory manner with the Housing Loss Mitigation standards outlined by Title 18.97 Orion Goff Deputy Director of Community and Neighborhoods Date: Single-family dwelling at 1549 S 1000 W Single-family dwelling at 1574 S 900 W 5. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS UNIT CITY STATE ZIP MAYA JOLLEY; TYLER JOHNSON (JT)1030 W WENCO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FJZ TR 334 7TH AVE W GOODING ID 83330 DIALMA RECINOS SAMAYOA 1387 W 2320 S WEST VALLEY UT 84119 D AND F BLUE PROPERTIES LLC 1037 W AMIGA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FRANCISCO SAMAYOA-CALMO 1545 S NATURA ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BRENT B AMSBURY; MARGIT M JANAT-AMSBURY (TC)1533 S NATURA ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ST ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH 1606 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 EQUITY HOMES & ASSOCIATES INC 1484 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CAROL HOVEY 1494 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CLAIRE CULLINANE; CHRISTINE NELSON (JT)1505 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 DANIEL J ROBERTSON; SARAH ROBERTSON (JT)942 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JORGE SALVADOR ZAMORA; MARIA ISABEL VAZQUEZ ALCOCER (JT)932 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RENE MIRA PIMENTEL; DANIELLE M PIMENTEL (JT)1502 S CANNON OAKS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS COMMUNITY CHURCH CORPORATION 7136 S 1700 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 GORDON R LYMAN; TAMRA R LYMAN (JT)1022 W WENCO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 DENI MALICEVIC 1014 W WENCO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SULIASI TUKUAFU 1006 W WENCO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MLH TRST 1550 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 EBELINA VALADEZ 945 S GALE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GIUP VAN DANG; TRUOC THI TRAN 1021 W CANNON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KIM QUACH 1013 W CANNON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ODALIS BERNTSEN 1007 W CANNON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JAMES W HEATH; DUSTIN HEATH (JT)1525 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CARRERA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC 6074 W 13360 S HERRIMAN UT 84096 NOELLE CAREY 1027 W WENCO DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KATHERINE KAWON BARK; ADAM CRAIG KITTELL (JT)1580 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MICHAEL G NIELSEN 1521 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JAMES W JR HEATH; DUSTIN HEATH (JT)1525 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 HECTOR TORRES; OTILIA TORRES (JT)1228 E TURQUOISE WY SANDY UT 84094 TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 RIES BUILDERS, LLC 1549 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RENE MARTINEZ 1561 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GEORGE RAUSCH LIVING TRUST 06/01/2017 1579 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MAFUA VAILOLO; TELESIA M OTUKOLO (JT)1585 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TAG SLC LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 FORTUNA LAND, LLC; ELITE LIFESTYLES, LLC 5882 S 900 E # 300 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 LUIS MUNOZ; MICHELE AILENE GERO (JT)1526 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RICARDO VAZQUEZ 13287 HERRIMAN ROSE BLVD HERRIMAN UT 84096 JS FM TRST 679 N DESOTO ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JUAN MUNOZ; DELIA MUNOZ (JT)3487 W BRISTOL WY WEST VALLEY UT 84119 HANH THI NGUYEN; TRIEU MINH PHAM (TC)1529 S RIVERSIDE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ARON CARDENAS 1515 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ALEJANDRA VACA; EDUARDO OCEGUERA (JT)119 HOLLAND ST EAST PALO ALTO CA 94303 JAIME A VEGA; R ISABEL VEGA (JT)941 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MARGARITA GERARDO; ASHLEY GABRIELA FRIAS GERARDO 931 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRANG TQ LE 921 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BHAGAWATI PAUDEL- GAUTAM; MANI GAUTAM (JT)911 W CANNON OAKS PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 DAVID C CAPSON 1567 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MATTHEW E SHAPIRO 1511 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MESERET DEMEKE 1512 S CANNON OAKS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ALELLUJAH ROMERO 7866 S SPRING STATION WY MIDVALE UT 84047 HARRY A PAYNE 299 S MAIN ST # 1300 PMB 92069 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 APOLLO, LLC 940 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PETE SUAZO BUSINESS CENTER 960 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 UTAH STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 UTAH STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG #4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 STATE OF UTAH, DIV FAC CONSTR & MGMT/DIV DEPT ADM SERVICES 450 N STATE ST # 4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 STATE OF UTAH DEPT OF ADM SERVICES DIV FAC CONSTR & MGMT 450 N STATE OFFICE BLDG SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Current Occupant 1027 W CANNON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1043 W AMIGA DR Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1020 W CANNON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1504 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1520 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1540 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1534 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1535 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1549 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1551 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1591 S 1000 W NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1581 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1587 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1532 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1536 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1540 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1544 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1550 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1560 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1568 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1574 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1590 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1591 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1565 S 1000 W NFF Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1580 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1613 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1619 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1593 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1625 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1610 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1620 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1575 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1595 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1601 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1675 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 QUATTUOR UT GLOBAL ENTERPRISES 5737 S SUNKIST DR KEARNS UT 84118 Item C4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Property at 510 South 200 West PLNPCM2022-01108 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Property at 510 South 200 West PLNPCM2022-01108 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the July 11, 2023 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. BRIEFING UPDATE Following Planning staff’s presentation there were no questions or comments from Council Members. The following information was provided for June 13, 2023 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the property at 510 South 200 West from its current D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The parcel is approximately 1.02 acres and includes an office building currently in use. The petitioner does not have a proposed use for the property but in discussions with them, Planning staff believes they are looking at potential additional height that could allow mixed-use that includes residences and commercial space. Area zoning is primarily D-2 on the west side of 200 West, and D-1 on the east side as shown in the zoning map below. Land uses on 500 South include several hotels and motels, multi-family apartment buildings, a fast-food restaurant, and commercial businesses. Properties fronting 2oo West include commercial Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 businesses and a motel. 500 South is a major one-way corridor connecting downtown to an Interstate-15 ramp. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its March 8, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. Commissioners voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. As noted above, no specific use for the property has been proposed. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject parcel shaded in blue. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may want to ask the petitioner if there are updates to their plans for the property should the proposed zoning map amendment be approved. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Adopted City Plan Considerations The Downtown Master Plan designates the areas around 500 South and 600 South as the “Grand Boulevard District.” These one-way streets are the primary connectors to and from downtown and Interstate-15. This district calls for mid-rise buildings, large street trees and distinctive lighting. The master plan identifies additional housing and increased economic work base for the downtown area. The plan also notes the scale of development and use intensity steps down to the south and west. Planning staff acknowledged downtown is expanding which will shift the pyramid shaped stepping down, continuing it into the D-2 zone. Plan Salt Lake identifies strategies for responsible growth in the city, emphasizing transit-oriented development, infill, and redeveloping underutilized properties, including downtown. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed rezone is consistent with applicable master plans. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Most buildings taller than 100 feet are north of 300 South, but building heights closer to the subject parcel are transitioning from two to four stories tall to six stories and taller. Planning noted development pressure for additional height in the area and the potential for that to continue. As stated above, most land uses in the area are for hotels/motels, mixed-use residential, office, and commercial retail. None of these uses would require buffering from the proposed D-1 zoning if the zoning map amendment is adopted. Consideration 3- D-2 Zoning vs D-1 Zoning Development Potential The current D-2 zoning district provides for urban neighborhood development that can accommodate office, residential, commercial, and other uses which support the more intense D-1 zoning. Under the recently adopted downtown building heights ordinance, buildings in the D-2 zone are allowed up to 65 feet by right, and up to 120 feet with conditions. There is no maximum building height in the D-1 zone, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to conditions and design review. A zoning comparison table is included in this report. Currently there are no buildings taller than 100 feet in the immediate area of the subject property, but the Little America and Grand America hotels are within two to three blocks, both more than 100 feet tall. ZONING COMPARISON The following table includes regulations in the zoning ordinance adopted by the Council on June 6, 2023. Page | 4 Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1) Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right Above 65 feet up to 120 feet subject to design review Minimum height-100 feet Maximum Height-no limit Buildings taller than 200 feet subject to design review and must include at least one of the following: •Midblock walkway •Affordable housing •Exceed minimum ground floor uses •Restrictive covenant on historic building to preserve for at least 50 years •Privately owned publicly accessible open space of at least 500 square feet Yard Requirements Front/corner side yard-no minimum. Ten feet maximum. Buildings with ground floor residential: Minimum eight-foot front yard setback, 16 foot maximum. Provided yard shall be landscaped and provide at least one of the following: •Minimum of one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space •Landscaping that includes increase of at least 25% of total number of required trees •Awning covering at least five feet width and length from all street-facing building entrances No minimum Eight feet maximum. If provided must include at least one of the following: •Minimum of one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space •Landscaping that includes increase of at least 25% of total number of required trees •Awning covering at least five feet width and length from all street-facing building entrances Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 29-31) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. 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; Complies Page | 5 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; Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Not Applicable 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. Some public facilities may need to be upgraded depending on use. City Department Review During City review of the petition no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated review and permits would be required if additional development occurs on the property. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 15, 2022-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • December 1, 2022-Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner. • December 12, 2022-Information about petition sent to the Downtown and Central 9th Community Councils, and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • February 23, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on subject property. • March 3, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on City and State websites and sent via Planning listserv for the March 8, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. • March 3, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • March 13, 2023-Ordinance review requested from Attorney’s Office. • April 3, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-01108 510 S. 200 W. – Zoning Map Amendment Request STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Principal Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the Zoning Map Amendment request. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jason Boel, representing the property owners, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the subject property from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The subject property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance as well as the goals of the adopted master plans. Planning Staff’s analysis shows that those standards and goals are met by creating an extension of the downtown central business area allowing for taller buildings and higher-density development in this area, which would not create detrimental impacts to abutting properties. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:41 MDT)04/27/2023 04/27/2023 PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on December 12, 2022. o Notification of the proposal was sent to Downtown Community Council and the Central 9th Community Council on December 12, 2023. No comment/letter was received from the Community Councils. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On March 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 10-0 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for decision. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report of March 8, 2023 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2022-01108 – approximately 510 S. 200 W. Zoning Map Amendment Request November 15, 2022 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. December 01, 2022 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. December 12, 2022 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chairs of the Downtown Community Council and the Central 9Th Community Council, to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. December 12, 2022 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. January 26, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. February 23, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. March 3, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. March 8, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing March 8, 2023. By a majority vote of 10-0 , the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01108 – Jason Boel, representing the property owners, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment for the property located at the above- stated address. The proposal would rezone the subject property from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The subject property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01108. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 510 South 200 West from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 510 South 200 West Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01108 (the “Petition”). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on March 8, 2023 on the Petition submitted by Jason Boal to rezone one parcel located at 510 South 200 West Street (Tax ID No. 15-01-452-023-0000) (the “Property”) from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District; WHEREAS, at its March 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the 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. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 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 510 S 200 W APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney April 3, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 510 South 200 West Tax ID No. 15-01-452-023-0000 BEG NE COR LOT 6, BLK 31, PLAT A, SLC SUR; S 0^08'47" W 251.15 FT; N 89^50'22" W 198.07 FT; N 0^08'47" E 86.05 FT; S89^50'22" E 33 FT; N 0^08'47" E 165.1 FT; S 89^50'21" E 165.07 FT TO BEG. 8498-1224 Item C5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Nonconforming Signs Ordinance Text Amendment PLNPCM2022-00984 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. OPTIONAL MOTION (adopt legislative action) I further move that the Council adopt a legislative action initiating a petition to review electronic sign standards to comply with changes to federal and state law, and provide recommendations to the Council on best practices for concerns such as brightness, dwell and twirl times, animation, etc. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Nonconforming Signs Ordinance Text Amendment PLNPCM2022-00984 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE No one spoke at the July 11, 2023 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. BRIEFING UPDATE In response to a Council Member’s question about what the proposed ordinance changes, Planning staff noted it would allow a business to keep an existing sign when use of the property changes or to modify a sign with, for example, energy efficient lighting. The proposal would allow these types of changes if they don’t make the sign more noncompliant. Being able to modify nonconforming signs can save businesses significant costs to replace these signs. It would also allow signs to remain in place rather than being torn down and disposed of. The current ordinance does not allow changes to nonconforming signs unless they are brought into complete compliance. Council Members also discussed requiring lights on signs to be dimmed at night, new sign display technology, and vintage signs, all of which are not included in the proposed ordinance but are in other sections of City Code. Some Council Members expressed support for a legislative action to review and potentially update the electronic signs ordinance. The following information was provided for June 13, 2023 Council briefing. It is included again for background purposes. Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by Mayor Mendenhall to amend the City ordinance related to nonconforming signs. The proposal would allow more flexibility in maintaining, reusing, modifying, and updating existing signs. It would also help align sign standards with federal and state statutes, City goals, and support businesses. Federal statute prevents municipalities from regulating sign content and State statute requires municipalities to permit reuse of noncomplying structures. The proposed text amendment allows changes to a sign’s text, and reuse of nonconforming signs if changes do not increase the degree of noncompliance. These proposed changes would bring City Code into compliance with State and Federal requirements. Nonconforming signs are those that were permitted under City code when they were constructed but do not conform to current standards. They may remain, but the current code limits changes that can be made to these signs and effectively prevents reusing nonconforming signs. The current section of Salt Lake City Code related to nonconforming signs includes the following: A nonconforming sign shall not be reconstructed, raised, moved, replaced, extended, altered, or enlarged unless the sign is changed so as to conform to all provisions of this chapter. A nonconforming sign may be temporarily removed for routine maintenance and reinstalled in the same location and manner. Alterations shall also mean the changing of the text or message of the sign as a result of a change in use of the property. If a property with a nonconforming sign was sold, under the current ordinance the buyer would not be able to change the sign’s text or upgrade to energy efficient lighting on the sign without making other changes to bring the sign fully into conformance with the ordinance. This could create a burden on the business owner requiring numerous updates to an existing sign or its removal and replacement with a new conforming sign. The proposed ordinance contains the following language related to nonconforming signs: A. Applicability: The regulations in this section shall apply to all nonconforming signs with the following exceptions: 1. Vintage signs shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter. 2. Billboards shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.160 of this chapter. B. Modifications: A sign permit may be issued for modifications to a nonconforming sign provided the modifications do not increase the level of nonconformity of such sign. This includes changes to dimensional standards, location, or the replacement of any part of the sign structure. This provision does not apply in the case of: 1. Any modification that is necessary due to a government action that results in the relocation or alteration of a sign, including signs that would become nonconforming due to the government action, are permitted. C. Maintenance: Nonconforming signs shall be maintained as defined in Section 21A.46.020, including the temporary removal of the sign for repairs and other routine maintenance. The sign shall be reinstalled in the same location and in the same manner or relocated to a location that increases the level of conformity. It is worth noting that vintage signs and billboards are under separate sections of City code and are not affected by the proposed nonconforming signs text amendment. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Commission reviewed the proposal during its March 29, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke in favor of the proposed text amendment. Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they know approximately how many nonconforming signs would be impacted by the proposed text amendment. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement the City goals and policies identified in Plan Salt Lake Planning staff noted a key principle in Plan Salt Lake is “…a balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to thrive.” Helping remove barriers to economic development may help achieve that goal. The current nonconforming sign ordinance includes text or message changes as alterations to signs. Planning found the inability to reuse an existing nonconforming sign is a barrier to economic development that can be removed. Consideration 2-Continued use of noncomplying structures Continued use of nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures is allowed under Salt Lake City Code. Changes to these structures are allowed provided they do not increase the degree of noncompliance. Modifications that increase the structures’ compliance with the ordinance are also allowed. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed nonconforming signs ordinance changes are consistent with the intent of the section of City code governing noncomplying structures in that changes to signs that do not increase nonconformity, or that increase the degree of conformity should be allowed. They believe that “alterations to the face, sign cabinet, type of illumination, or the design, and even the replacement to a more complying sign, will not create an adverse impact to the surrounding properties and the city in general and supports businesses because of an increase in flexibility regarding modifications and maintenance to existing signs.” ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment B (page 11) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Page | 4 Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies A proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not Applicable The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning staff received a letter from Scenic Utah sharing concerns about some aspects of the proposed text amendment. These concerns and Planning’s responses are summarized below. Scenic Utah’s letter was also sent to the Council and is included as an attachment to this report. •Scenic Utah asked why the definition of an ‘electronic changeable copy sign’ is proposed to be changed to mean a sign face type rather than a sign type. o Planning staff explained the change is intended to provide clarity in the zoning ordinance. A sign face is defined as the part of a sign that identifies, advertises, or communicates information. Electronic changeable copy is not a sign type, as any type of sign (e.g., pole, monument, flat, etc.) could contain this changeable copy as part of the sign face. •Scenic Utah asked for dwell times (time that elapses between text, images, or graphics on an electronic billboard or electronic sign), and twirl times (the time it takes for static text, images, and graphics on an electronic billboard or electronic sign to change to different, text, images, or graphics on a subsequent sign face), to be updated in the proposal. o Planning staff noted that these terms are only defined in the billboard section of the sign ordinance and beyond the scope of the proposed text amendment. A separate petition would need to be initiated to change those. •Scenic Utah agrees with additional flexibility in maintaining, reusing, modifying, and updating nonconforming signs, but expressed concern about a lack of standards or criteria for determining conditions under which these signs can or should be permitted to be altered. o Planning staff said nonconforming signs can be maintained or modified provided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased. During the sign permit process, proposed changes would be evaluated against the sign ordinance to ensure that no new or additional nonconformity is created. If not, a permit would be issued. This aligns with regulations for nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures found in City code. The Sugar House Community Council sent a letter to Planning staff expressing support for the proposed text amendment. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Page | 5 • October 11, 2022-Application received by Planning Division. • October 11, 2022-Petition assigned to Kaitlynn Harris, Principal Planner. • October 2022-February 2023-Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of the petition. • February 6, 2023-Notice mailed to all Community Councils. o Application posted for the open house. • Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. • March 29, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • April 5, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • April 7, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2022-00984 Nonconforming Signs STAFF CONTACT: Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner katilynn.harris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6179 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to nonconforming signs as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend portions of the zoning ordinance related to nonconforming signs. The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with city goals, like supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The current zoning regulations are very restrictive when it comes to sign alterations and changes in ownership of a property where a sign is located. The current language prevents any alteration of the sign text or message which effectively prevents the reuse of nonconforming signs. This regulation does not comply with state law which requires municipalities to permit the reuse of noncomplying structures. It also does not comply with federal law which prevents municipalities from regulating the content of signs. Additionally, the existing regulations do not permit updates like more energy efficient sign illumination systems while also not allowing for modifications that make the sign more conforming to zoning standards. The current standards combine to make it difficult for business owners intending to use existing sign infrastructure to advertise their business. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:40 MDT)04/27/2023 04/27/2023 The proposed ordinance changes allow more flexibility for maintaining, reusing, modifying, and updating existing nonconforming signs. It also clarifies when the removal of such signs is required. More specific information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission considered the request at a March 29, 2023 public hearing and voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance text. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations on February 6, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The Sugar House Community Council sent a letter of support for the amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on March 23, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 6, 2023, to March 23, 2023. Several comments from Scenic Utah were emailed to the Planning Division after the staff report was published. The Planning Commission considered the initial comments during their deliberations as they were sent prior to the public hearing. A follow up comment from Scenic Utah was sent after the public hearing. Staff responded to the questions raised in both comments. A comment in favor of the amendment from the Sugar House Community Council Chair was also submitted to Planning staff after the Planning Commission hearing. All comments sent after the publication of the staff report have been included as an exhibit. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 29, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of MARCH 29, 2023: Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Minutes (click on March 29, 2023) Planning Commission Staff report EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3.Original Petition 4. Public Comment Received after Publishing of Planning Commission Staff Report 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to Nonconforming Signs) 5 6 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 7 to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00984 pertaining to nonconforming signs. 8 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 9 public hearing on March 29, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall 10 (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2022-0984) to amend various sections of Chapter 21A.46 11 (Zoning: Signs) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to nonconforming 12 signs; and 13 WHEREAS, at its March 29, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 14 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 15 petition; and 16 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 17 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 19 20 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.020. That 21 Section 21A.46.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Definitions) shall be, and hereby 22 is amended as follows: 23 a. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to delete the definition of “ALTERATION, 24 SIGN”: 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ALTERATION, SIGN: “Sign alteration” means a change or rearrangement of the parts or 26 design of a sign, whether by extending on a side, by increasing in area or height, or the 27 moving from one location or position to another, or adding or deleting words from the copy, 28 or changing the size of the letters or figures comprising the copy. Alterations shall not be 29 interpreted to include changing the text or copy on outdoor advertising signs, theater signs, 30 outdoor bulletin or other similar signs which are designed to accommodate changeable copy. 31 b. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to modify the definition of “ANIMATED SIGN” 32 to read as follows: 33 ANIMATED SIGN: A sign, excluding an electronic changeable copy sign, which involves 34 motion or rotation of any part by mechanical or artificial means or which displays flashing or 35 intermittent lights. 36 37 c. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to modify the definition of “ELECTRONIC 38 CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN” to read as follows: 39 ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A The copy of a sign containing a computer 40 an electronically generated message such as a public service, time, temperature and date, or a 41 message center or reader board, where different copy changes of a public service or 42 commercial nature are shown on the same lamp bank or message facility. The term 43 “electronic changeable copy sign” shall not be defined as a type of “animated sign” if the 44 message displayed is fully readable within three (3) seconds. Electronic changeable copy 45 shall be considered, for the intents of this chapter, a sign face type rather than a sign type. 46 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.030.A. 47 That Subsection 21A.46.030.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Sign Permit 48 Requirements: Sign Permit Required) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 49 A. Sign Permit Required: Except where exempted by the provisions of this chapter, it is 50 unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, locate or modify alter any sign or 51 change the text of any on or off premises sign within the Ccity contrary to any provisions 52 of this chapter without first obtaining a sign permit from the building official. No sign 53 shall be erected, constructed, reconstructed, located or modified altered until the site plan 54 for such sign has been approved and a sign permit issued by the building official. Such 55 permits shall be issued only to State of Utah licensed contractors unless specifically 56 exempted by the State of Utah. 57 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.070. That 58 Section 21A.46.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Standards) shall be, and 59 hereby is amended to read as follows: 60 21A.46.070: GENERAL STANDARDS 61 A. Construction Standards: 62 1. Applicable Regulations: All signs erected in the Ccity after April 12, 1995, shall 63 comply with the current standards of the National Electrical Code, and adopted 64 Bbuilding Ccode, all provisions of this chapter and any other applicable provisions of 65 this title or other applicable regulations. 66 2. Engineering Required: All sign permit applications for freestanding signs shall be 67 engineered to conform with the applicable provisions of the adopted Bbuilding Ccode 68 and, where required by the building official, shall be accompanied by an engineering 69 drawing stamped and signed by a structural engineer licensed by the State attesting to 70 the adequacy of the proposed construction of the sign and its supports. 71 B. Ownership Shown Oon Signs: The name of the sign owner and sign erector of all signs 72 shall be in plain and public view. Signs not carrying such an imprint will be presumed to 73 be owned by the owner of the property on which the sign is located. 74 C. Clearance Between Sign Aand Ground: A minimum clearance of ten feet (10’) shall be 75 provided between the ground and the bottom of any pole, projecting sign or flag. 76 D. Signs Not Tto Constitute Aa Traffic Hazard: No sign shall be erected along any streets in 77 such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision; or at any location where by reason of 78 its position, shape, color or words, it may interfere with, obstruct the view of or be 79 confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device or block visibility for driveway 80 ingress or egress. (See also sSubsection 21A.46.060.B of this chapter.) 81 E. Repair Oof Building Facades: A building facade damaged as the result of the removal, 82 repair, replacement or installation of any signs shall be repaired by the property owner 83 within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the damage. 84 F. Maintenance Oof Signs: Every sign shall be kept in good maintenance and repair. The 85 ground space within a radius of ten feet (10’) from the base of any freestanding sign shall 86 be kept free and clear of all weeds, rubbish and flammable material. The building official 87 shall inspect and enforce this section pursuant to the provisions of sSection 21A.46.150 88 of this chapter. 89 G. Sign Removal: Signs The sign face identifying a discontinued use on the property shall 90 be removed from the property when the use is discontinued. within thirty (30) calendar 91 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT days of the time the use was discontinued. The removal of nonconforming signs shall be 92 regulated by Section 21A.46.140. 93 H. Moving To New Location: No sign erected before April 12, 1995, shall be moved or 94 enlarged or replaced unless it be made to comply with provisions of this chapter. 95 HI. Lights Aand Lighted Signs: No spotlight, floodlight or lighted sign shall be installed in 96 any way which will permit the rays of such sign’s light to penetrate beyond the property 97 on which such light or lighted sign is located in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance. 98 Signs alleged to be a nuisance, by reason of light, by the neighboring property owners or 99 tenants shall be subject to the zoning administrator’s review to consider the validity of the 100 nuisance complaint. If the sign is determined to be a nuisance, by reason of light, by the 101 zoning administrator, the owner of the sign shall be required by the zoning administrator 102 to take the appropriate corrective action. 103 IJ. Height Aand Elevation Oof Building Signs: The height and elevation of building signs 104 shall conform with the following provisions: 105 1. Awning Signs: Awning signs shall not be located above the second floor level of the 106 building. 107 2. Flat Signs: Flat signs may extend a maximum of two feet (2’) above the roofline or 108 parapet wall of the building on which they are located. 109 3. Marquee Aand Canopy Signs: Marquee and canopy signs shall not be located above 110 the main entry level of the premises. 111 4. Nameplates: Nameplates shall not be located above the first floor level of the 112 building. 113 5. Projecting Building Signs: A projecting building sign shall not exceed the top of the 114 vertical building wall on which it is located. 115 6. Projecting Business Storefront Signs: A projecting business storefront sign shall be 116 located at the main pedestrian entry level of the building. 117 7. Projecting Parking Entry Signs: A projecting parking entry sign shall be located at the 118 parking entry level of the building. 119 8. Roof Signs: The height of the sign face of roof signs shall not exceed twenty percent 120 (20%) of the height of the building or ten feet (10’), whichever is less. 121 9. Wall Signs: Wall signs may extend to the top of the vertical building wall. 122 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 10. Window Signs: In the RB, RO, R-MU, CN and CB districts only, window signs shall 123 not be located above the first floor. In other districts where window signs are allowed, 124 they may be located on all floors. 125 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the 126 building. 127 JK. Signs Oon Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to sSection 128 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside 129 street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency. 130 KL. Extension Oof Building Signs: The following building signs shall be allowed to extend 131 beyond the face of buildings or structures in conformance with the following provisions: 132 1. Flat Signs: A flat sign, with no copy visible from the sides, may extend a maximum 133 of two feet (2’) from the face of the building, even when the extension extends over 134 the public right of way, subject to the city’s right of way encroachment policy. 135 2. Projecting Building Signs: Projecting building signs may extend a maximum of six 136 feet (6’) from the face of the building but shall not extend over a public right of way, 137 except in the D-1 and D-4 zones as allowed in sSection 21A.46.110 of this chapter. 138 3. Awning/Canopy Aand Marquee Signs: As authorized in other sections of this chapter. 139 LM. Roof Signs: Roof signs shall conform to the following standards: 140 1. The height of the sign face of roof signs shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the 141 height of the building or ten feet (10’), whichever is less; 142 2. No guywires, braces or secondary supports visible from the ground shall be used; 143 3. Roof signs shall be designed to appear as extensions of the exterior building wall as 144 shown in fFigure 21A.46.020 of this chapter or be located on the elevator/mechanical 145 penthouse or, on buildings taller than one hundred feet (100’), may be located on 146 blank walls at the highest inhabitable level; and 147 4. Roof signs shall not exceed the maximum permitted height for the zoning district in 148 which it is located. 149 MN. Marquees: Marquees designed to project over public property shall: 150 1. Frontage Requirement: Extend across a major portion of the building entrance. 151 2. Height Limitation: Be located on the main entry level of the premises. 152 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3. Thickness: Have a vertical face height or cross section dimension not exceeding three 153 feet (3’). 154 4. Clearance: Have a clearance of at least ten feet (10’) above the sidewalk. 155 5. Projection: Extend a maximum of twelve feet (12’) from the face of the building but 156 must not project closer than two feet (2’) to the back of the curb. 157 6. Location: Be so located as not to interfere with the operation of any exterior standpipe 158 or to obstruct the clear passage of stairways or exits from the building. 159 7. Shelter: In order to provide pedestrian shelter, a marquee shall have its first six feet 160 (6’) of projection form a rectangle with the sides ninety degrees (90°) to the building 161 face and the plane at least six feet (6’) from the building parallel with the front 162 property line. The remaining projection of the marquee can assume a configuration 163 compatible with the architecture of the building. 164 NO. Marquee Signs: Signs attached to an approved marquee, as specified in sSubsection N 165 of this section, may extend over public property a maximum of twelve inches (12”) from 166 the face of the marquee. Copy is allowed on the sides of the marquee. Signs placed within 167 or below the ceiling of a marquee shall not extend beyond the marquee face and shall be 168 placed within the vertical plane of the marquee. Within a commercial or downtown 169 district, a permanent sign or letters may be attached to the top of, or fascia of, or within or 170 below the ceiling of an approved marquee, subject to the following standards: 171 1. Vertical Dimension: Overall vertical dimensions of the combined sign and marquee 172 shall not exceed five feet (5’). 173 2. Height Oof Sign: The height of the sign or letters shall not exceed two feet (2’). 174 3. No Side Copy: Signs attached to marquees shall have no copy on the side portion of 175 the sign. 176 4. Clearance: Signs attached to marquees shall maintain the minimum ten foot (10’) 177 clearance required for the marquee. 178 OP. New Development Sign: New development signs shall be permitted during construction 179 through initial occupancy of ninety five percent (95%) of floor space for a nonresidential 180 development and through ninety five percent (95%) initial unit occupancy for a 181 residential development. New development signs shall be removed upon two (2) years of 182 use, regardless of the level of occupancy. See sSections 21A.46.080 through 21A.46.120 183 of this chapter for zoning district limitations on size, height and location of new 184 development signs. 185 PQ. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs shall comply with the following standards: 186 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Required Setback: All temporary signs shall be set back five feet (5’) from all 187 property lines, except where displayed as building signs on buildings set back less 188 than five feet (5’) or where the sign setback is otherwise specified in this title. 189 2. Display Period Aand Removal: Temporary signs shall be permitted in accordance 190 with the standards set forth below for display period and removal, unless specified 191 otherwise in this title: 192 Sign Type1 Display Period Removal Required 3 Days After Construction impact area mitigation sign Per Ccity guidelines2 Per Ccity guidelines2 Construction sign Duration of construction Completion Garage/yard sale sign 2 sales per year (7days maximum per sale) End of sale Political sign No limit Election/voting day Public event banner (on public property) Per Ccity guidelines Per Ccity guidelines Real estate sign Duration of listing Closing/lease commencement date Special event Duration of event End of event Vacancy sign Duration of vacancy Date of lease or of purchase and sale contract Notes: 193 1. See sSections 21A.46.080 through 21A.46.120 of this chapter for zoning district 194 limitations on the size, height and location of temporary signs. 195 2. See sSection 21A.46.180, “Construction Impact Area Mitigation Signs”, of this 196 chapter. 197 QR. Flags Oof Fraternal, Religious Oor Civic Organizations: Flags of fraternal, religious and 198 civic organizations are permitted as on premises signs, but shall not exceed thirty (30) 199 square feet in area. 200 RS. Official Flags: Official flags shall not project over a property line, except within the D-1 201 and D-4 Zoning Districts, where official flags are allowed to project up to eight feet (8’) 202 across the property line, but not within two feet (2’) of the curb line. The pole support 203 must be attached directly to the building and located so that all portions of the flag clear 204 the pedestrian level of the building. Flags shall not interfere with street trees, light poles, 205 utility lines, etc., and shall maintain a ten foot (10’) clearance from the sidewalk. 206 ST. Freeway Height Exception: The height of on premises pole signs located on properties 207 adjacent to I-15, I-80, I-215 and the 2100 South Expressway (State Route 201) may be 208 increased to a height of twenty five feet (25’) above the pavement grade of the adjacent 209 freeway if the sign is freeway oriented and located within three hundred feet (300’) of the 210 freeway. 211 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT TU. Freeway Frontage: Freeways shall be considered street frontage for signage purposes, 212 except for monument signs. Pole signs approved on freeway frontage shall be limited to 213 seventy five percent (75%) of the maximum size allowed for the zone. Reduced size pole 214 signs shall be interchangeable with other pole signs on the same site. 215 UV. Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor 216 alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a 217 historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in 218 the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design 219 of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic 220 structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant 221 structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a 222 vintage sign as per sSection 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that 223 section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate 224 standards of sSection 21A.34.020 of this title. 225 VW. Sign Area Determination: Sign face area square footage shall be determined as follows: 226 1. Flat Signs (Excluding Letter Signs Aand Backlit Awnings) Aand Wall Signs: The 227 entire surface of the sign face shall be measured. 228 2. Backlit Awnings Aand Letter Signs: A polygon, not to exceed eight (8) sides, shall be 229 drawn around the copy area to enclose as nearly as possible the space covered by the 230 copy. 231 3. All Signs: Words, symbols, letters, images, logos and all other designs that are 232 intended to convey a message shall be included in calculating the sign face area. 233 Colors, stripes and other designs that are not intended to convey a message shall not 234 be included. 235 236 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.080.A.4. 237 That Subsection 21A.46.080.A.4 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations 238 for Residential Districts: Sign Regulations for Single-Family and Two-Family Residential 239 Districts: Supplementary Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 240 4. Supplementary Regulations: 241 a. Signs Ffor Nonconforming Business Uses: Signs for permitted nonconforming 242 business uses shall conform to sSubsection 21A.46.090.A.4 of this chapter, sign 243 regulations for the CN district, but shall not be internally illuminated. 244 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. Illumination: Signs for residential uses shall not be internally illuminated, except 245 for new development signs and development entry signs. 246 247 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.110.A.3.b. 248 That Subsection 21A.46.110.A.3.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations 249 for Downtown Districts: Sign Regulations for the D-1 and D-4 Downtown Districts: Sign Type, 250 Size and Height Standards: Sports Arena Located on the Block between South Temple and 100 251 South Between 300 and 400 West Streets) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 252 b. Sports Arena Located Oon Tthe Block Between South Temple Aand 100 South 253 Between 300 Aand 400 West Streets: 254 STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK 255 BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 256 WEST STREETS 257 Types Oof Signs Permitted7 Maximum Area Pper Sign Face Maximum Height Oof Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number Oof Signs Permitted Pper Sign Type Awning/canopy signs 5 square feet per linear foot of canopy length (sign area only) Shall not be located above the second floor level of the building for both awning and canopy signs May extend 6 feet from face of building but not within 2 feet from back of curb 1 per first floor window/door, may be combined with adjacent doors/ windows Flat sign (general building orientation) 5 square feet per linear foot of building face See note 1 n/a 1 per building face Flat sign (storefront orientation) Flat sign (storefront orientation) See note 1 n/a 3 per business storefront 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Flat sign display, electronic changeable copy3 No larger than 1,400 square feet per sign See note 1 n/a 5 per Ccity block Freestanding sign, electronic changeable copy sign4 Not more than 1,600 square feet per sign, which may be located in a continuous round display 45 feet n/a 2 per Ccity block Monument sign 3 square feet per linear foot of street frontage 20 feet None 5 per street frontage Private directional sign5 100 square feet 20 feet No setback No limit Roof surface sign 30,000 square feet6 n/a n/a 1 per roof surface Special event light pole sign 10 square feet 20 feet n/a 2 per light pole Special event sign Sign may cover up to 60% of total building face7 May not exceed the height of building n/a 1 per street frontage Window sign 90% of total frontage window area (interior or exterior) for sports arena events, not to exceed 6 months in duration for each calendar year unless otherwise allowed by the Zzoning Aadministrator. No Limit n/a No Limit Notes: 258 1. For height limits on building signs, see sSubsection 21A.46.070.J of this 259 chapter. 260 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 261 3. Flat sign, electronic changeable copy may display static or rotating messages 262 or operate as outdoor television monitors. 263 4. An advertising face on an freestanding sign with electronic changeable copy 264 sign that is not oriented to a public street may be operated to allow full motion 265 video display. Displays oriented to a public street must not allow animation, 266 may change no more frequently than every 8 seconds and must complete each 267 transition within 1 second. 268 5. Private directional sign may include an electronic changeable copy sign within 269 the sign area. 270 6. To be located on the horizontal plane of a roof surface, primarily viewable 271 from planes and surrounding buildings located above the arena. 272 7. Advertising and/or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of 273 sports arena events and sponsors only. 274 275 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.120.E.4.b. 276 That Subsection 21A.46.120.E.4.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations 277 for Special Purpose Districts: Sign Regulations for the UI, PL, PL-2, I, UI, OS and NOS 278 Districts: Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts: Standards for 279 the Ballpark Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple) shall be, and 280 hereby is amended to read as follows: 281 b. Standards Ffor Tthe Ballpark Located Oon Tthe Southeast Corner Oof 1300 282 South Aand West Temple: Flat signs, construction signs, political signs, real 283 estate signs, new development signs, window signs, public safety signs, and 284 nameplates shall comply with the table for standards for the PL, PL-2 and I 285 Districts. 286 Types of Signs Permitted Maximum Area Pper Sign Face Maximum Height Oof Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number Oof Signs Permitted Awning signs 1 square foot per linear foot of awning See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, 2 feet from back of curb face5 1 per first floor door/window and not to extend beyond 1 foot on each side of the 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT door or window width Monument signs3,4 60 square feet of total sign face area including a base. The base shall be 25% of the sign height 8 feet 10 feet 1 per building frontage Pole signs (triangle frame structure) 180 square feet per gross sign face. 540 square feet for the structure 30 feet No sign projection over the property line 1 pole sign which allows 4 sign panels per sign face, 1 of which may be an contain electronic changeable copy sign4 and 1 logo sign (12 total signs for the triangular pole sign) Private direction signs3 8 square feet of total sign face area including a base. The base shall be 25% of the sign height 4 feet 2 feet behind property lines 2 per driveway approach and as necessary for pedestrian direction Notes: 287 1. For limits on the height of building signs, see sSubsection 21A.46.070.J of 288 this chapter. 289 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 290 3. Modified from the standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts and required for 291 the Ballpark Overlay District. 292 4. Electronic changeable copy signs shall only be permitted on arterial street 293 frontages. Electronic changeable copy signs/panels shall not exceed 50 square 294 feet. 295 5. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 296 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.140. That 297 Section 21A.46.140 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Nonconforming Signs) shall be, 298 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 299 21A.46.140: NONCONFORMING SIGNS 300 A. Moving, Extensions Or Alterations: A nonconforming sign shall not be reconstructed, 301 raised, moved, replaced, extended, altered, or enlarged unless the sign is changed so as to 302 conform to all provisions of this chapter. A nonconforming sign may be temporarily 303 removed for routine maintenance and reinstalled in the same location and manner. 304 Alterations shall also mean the changing of the text or message of the sign as a result of a 305 change in use of the property. Alterations shall not be interpreted to include changing the 306 text or copy on outdoor advertising signs, theater signs, outdoor bulletins or other similar 307 signs which are designed to accommodate changeable copy. Specific modifications may 308 be permitted to nonconforming signs designated as vintage signs as per section 309 21A.46.125 of this chapter. 310 B. Unsafe Signs: See subsection 21A.46.150F of this chapter. 311 C. Restoration Conditions: Nonconforming signs which have been allowed to deteriorate or 312 which have been damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or act of a public enemy, or 313 damaged by any other cause, to the extent of more than sixty percent (60%) of their 314 replacement value shall, if repaired or rebuilt, be repaired or rebuilt in conformity with 315 the regulations of this chapter, or shall be removed. 316 A. Applicability: The regulations in this section shall apply to all nonconforming signs with 317 the following exceptions: 318 1. Vintage signs shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter. 319 2. Billboards shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.160 of this chapter. 320 B. Modifications: A sign permit may be issued for modifications to a nonconforming sign 321 provided the modifications do not increase the level of nonconformity of such sign. This 322 includes changes to dimensional standards, location, or the replacement of any part of the 323 sign structure. This provision does not apply in the case of: 324 1. Any modification that is necessary due to a government action that results in the 325 relocation or alteration of a sign, including signs that would become nonconforming 326 due to the government action, are permitted. 327 C. Maintenance: Nonconforming signs shall be maintained as defined in Section 328 21A.46.020, including the temporary removal of the sign for repairs and other routine 329 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT maintenance. The sign shall be reinstalled in the same location and in the same manner or 330 relocated to a location that increases the level of conformity. 331 D. Sign Removal: 332 1. The sign face identifying a discontinued use on the property shall be removed from 333 the property when the use is discontinued. 334 2. Nonconforming sign structures may remain on the property but shall be re-used to 335 advertise on-site goods or services within one year or will be considered abandoned. 336 An abandoned sign shall be removed in accordance with Subsection 21A.46.150.E 337 with the following exception: 338 a. The zoning administrator may extend the one-year period if the property owner 339 provides evidence that the property was marketed for occupancy at least once 340 every calendar year. 341 E. Restoration of Signs: 342 1. Voluntarily Removed Signs: Unless authorized by Subsections 21A.46.140.B or 343 21A.46.140.C above, a nonconforming sign voluntarily removed from the property by 344 the property owner or property owner’s representative shall not be restored unless it is 345 restored to conform with the regulations of this title. 346 2. Involuntarily Destroyed Signs: If a nonconforming sign is involuntarily destroyed in 347 whole or in part due to fire or other calamity, the sign may be restored to its original 348 condition with respect to size, setback, height, and other nonconforming dimensional 349 standards of the zoning district in which the sign is located, provided such work is 350 started within one year, unless a longer time frame is approved by the building 351 official, after such calamity. 352 353 SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.150. That 354 Section 21A.46.150 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Permits, Inspection and 355 Enforcement) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 356 21A.46.150: PERMITS, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT: 357 A. Enforcement Bby Building Official: The building official shall have the authority to 358 enforce these sign regulations. In the performance of that duty, the building official may: 359 1. Issue Permits: Issue permits to construct, modify alter or repair signs which conform 360 to the provisions of this chapter; 361 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Determine Conformance: Ascertain that all signs, construction, and all reconstruction 362 or modifications of existing signs are built or constructed or modified in conformance 363 with the provisions of these sign regulations and all other regulations incorporated 364 herein by reference; 365 3. Require Inspection Tags: Require that each sign located in the Ccity requiring a sign 366 permit have affixed to the sign or its supports a current inspection tag visible from the 367 sidewalk or nearest convenient location. This inspection tag shall be issued pursuant 368 to the procedures for sign inspections, set forth in sSubsection B of this section; 369 4. Issue Citations Aand Complaints: Issue citations and/or file complaints against 370 violators of these sign regulations; 371 5. Confiscate Signs: Confiscate signs located on public property in accordance with the 372 provisions of sSubsection H of this section. 373 B. Inspection Requirements: The building official shall have the authority to inspect signs as 374 follows: 375 1. Initial Inspection After Construction: The building official shall make an initial 376 inspection prior to footings being poured on a freestanding sign, and upon the 377 completion of construction, erection, re-erection or remodeling of any sign for which 378 a permit has been issued and an inspection request is made. 379 2. Issuance Oof Inspection Tag: Upon completion of the sign inspection, the building 380 official shall issue the appropriate inspection tag to the owner or sign contractor if the 381 sign is found to conform to the provisions of this chapter. The presence of a current 382 inspection tag shall serve as certification that the sign to which it is affixed conforms 383 to the provisions of this chapter at the time of its erection and tagging. 384 3. Tag Data: Each sign inspection tag shall include the permit number and shall be 385 recorded in the office of the building official as to the sign type, size, cost of 386 construction, date of sign permit, and owner’s and sign contractor’s name and 387 address. 388 4. Tag Installation: The inspection tag shall be installed by the sign owner, or sign 389 contractor taking out the permit. 390 5. Inspection: The building official shall conduct an inspection of signs. If the building 391 official finds any sign which has no visible inspection tag, has a visible inspection tag 392 but is in need of repair, or violates any provision of this chapter, the building official 393 may take the necessary legal action as specified in sSubsections D through I of this 394 section. 395 C. Legal Actions Authorized: The building official may take any appropriate action or 396 institute any proceeding in any case where any sign is erected, constructed, reconstructed, 397 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT modified altered, repaired, converted or maintained, or in any case where any sign is used 398 in violation of these sign regulations or any other city ordinance, in order to accomplish 399 the following purposes: 400 1. To prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, modification 401 alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance or use of a sign; and 402 2. To restrain, to correct, or to abate such violation. 403 D. Notice Oof Violation: The building official may provide written notice of violation by 404 registered mail to the owner of the property where the sign is located or person having 405 charge or control or benefit of any sign found by the building official to be unsafe or 406 dangerous, or in violation of these sign regulations or of any other city ordinance. 407 E. Nonmaintained Oor Abandoned Signs: The building official may require each 408 nonmaintained or abandoned sign to be removed from the building or premises when 409 such sign has not been repaired or put into use by the owner, person having control or 410 person receiving benefit of such structure within thirty (30) calendar days after notice of 411 nonmaintenance or abandonment is given to the owner, person having control or person 412 receiving the benefit of such structure. 413 F. Unsafe Oor Dangerous Signs: If an unsafe or dangerous sign is not repaired or made safe 414 within five (5) working days after the building official gives notice pursuant to 415 sSubsection D of this section, the building inspector may abate and remove the sign, and 416 the person having charge, control or benefit of any such sign shall pay to the city the 417 costs incurred in such removal within thirty (30) calendar days after written notice is 418 mailed to such person. 419 G. Illegal Signs: If an illegal sign is not brought into compliance with the provisions of these 420 sign regulations within thirty (30) working days after the building official gives notice 421 pursuant to sSubsection D of this section, the building inspector may abate and remove 422 the sign, and the owner, person having charge, control or benefit of any such sign shall 423 pay to the city the costs incurred in such removal within thirty (30) calendar days after 424 written notice is mailed to such person. 425 H. Confiscation Oof Signs: The building official shall immediately confiscate any sign 426 located on public property in violation of these sign regulations or any other city 427 ordinances. Confiscated signs shall be stored at a location determined by the building 428 official for a period of thirty (30) days, during which time the owner or person having 429 charge, control or benefit of the confiscated sign may redeem the sign after payment of 430 fifty dollars ($50.00) and any applicable civil fines established pursuant to cChapter 431 21A.20 of this title. The city shall not be liable for damages incurred to signs as a result 432 of their confiscation. In addition to civil penalties sign owners and persons having charge, 433 control or benefit of any sign erected in violation of this chapter shall be liable for any 434 damages caused to public property, public facilities or public utilities by reason of the 435 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT placement, attachment and/or removal of such unlawful signs. Signs not redeemed within 436 thirty (30) days shall be destroyed. 437 I. Violation/Penalty: Any person whether acting as owner or occupant of the premises 438 involved, or contractor, or otherwise, who violates or refuses to comply with any of the 439 provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be 440 punished as provided in sSection 1.12.050 of this code. A separate offense shall be 441 deemed to be committed on each day an offense occurs or continues. 442 443 SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That 444 Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) 445 shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 446 a. Section 21A.60.020 is amended to delete the term “Alteration, sign”: 447 Alteration, sign. See chapter 21A.46 of this title. 448 449 b. Section 21A.60.020 is amended to modify the term “Electronic changeable copy 450 sign” to read as follows: 451 Electronic changeable copy sign. See cChapter 21A.46 of this title. 452 453 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 454 first publication. 455 456 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. 457 ______________________________ 458 CHAIRPERSON 459 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 460 461 ______________________________ 462 CITY RECORDER 463 464 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 465 466 467 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 468 469 ______________________________ 470 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT MAYOR 471 ______________________________ 472 CITY RECORDER 473 (SEAL) 474 475 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 476 Published: ______________. 477 Ordinance regulating nonconforming signs 478 479 480 481 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Nonconforming Signs) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00984 pertaining to nonconforming signs. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on March 29, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2022-0984) to amend various sections of Chapter 21A.46 (Zoning: Signs) of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to nonconforming signs; and WHEREAS, at its March 29, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.020. That Section 21A.46.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: a. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to delete the definition of “ALTERATION, SIGN”. 2 b. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to modify the definition of “ANIMATED SIGN” to read as follows: ANIMATED SIGN: A sign, excluding electronic changeable copy, which involves motion or rotation of any part by mechanical or artificial means or which displays flashing or intermittent lights. c. Section 21A.46.020 is amended to modify the definition of “ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN” to read as follows: ELECTRONIC CHANGEABLE COPY: The copy of a sign containing an electronically generated message such as a public service, time, temperature and date, or a message center or reader board, where different copy changes of a public service or commercial nature are shown on the same lamp bank or message facility. The term “electronic changeable copy” shall not be defined as a type of “animated sign” if the message displayed is fully readable within three (3) seconds. Electronic changeable copy shall be considered, for the intents of this chapter, a sign face type rather than a sign type. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.030.A. That Subsection 21A.46.030.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Sign Permit Requirements: Sign Permit Required) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: A. Sign Permit Required: Except where exempted by the provisions of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, locate or modify any on or off premises sign within the city contrary to any provisions of this chapter without first obtaining a sign permit from the building official. No sign shall be erected, constructed, reconstructed, located or modified until the site plan for such sign has been approved and a sign permit issued by the building official. Such permits shall be issued only to State of Utah licensed contractors unless specifically exempted by the State of Utah. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.070. That Section 21A.46.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: General Standards) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.46.070: GENERAL STANDARDS A. Construction Standards: 3 1. Applicable Regulations: All signs erected in the city after April 12, 1995, shall comply with the current standards of the National Electrical Code, and adopted building code, all provisions of this chapter and any other applicable provisions of this title or other applicable regulations. 2. Engineering Required: All sign permit applications for freestanding signs shall be engineered to conform with the applicable provisions of the adopted building code and, where required by the building official, shall be accompanied by an engineering drawing stamped and signed by a structural engineer licensed by the State attesting to the adequacy of the proposed construction of the sign and its supports. B. Ownership Shown on Signs: The name of the sign owner and sign erector of all signs shall be in plain and public view. Signs not carrying such an imprint will be presumed to be owned by the owner of the property on which the sign is located. C. Clearance Between Sign and Ground: A minimum clearance of ten feet (10’) shall be provided between the ground and the bottom of any pole, projecting sign or flag. D. Signs Not to Constitute a Traffic Hazard: No sign shall be erected along any streets in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision; or at any location where by reason of its position, shape, color or words, it may interfere with, obstruct the view of or be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device or block visibility for driveway ingress or egress. (See also Subsection 21A.46.060.B of this chapter.) E. Repair of Building Facades: A building facade damaged as the result of the removal, repair, replacement or installation of any signs shall be repaired by the property owner within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the damage. F. Maintenance of Signs: Every sign shall be kept in good maintenance and repair. The ground space within a radius of ten feet (10’) from the base of any freestanding sign shall be kept free and clear of all weeds, rubbish and flammable material. The building official shall inspect and enforce this section pursuant to the provisions of Section 21A.46.150 of this chapter. G. Sign Removal: The sign face identifying a discontinued use on the property shall be removed from the property when the use is discontinued. The removal of nonconforming signs shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.140. H. Lights and Lighted Signs: No spotlight, floodlight or lighted sign shall be installed in any way which will permit the rays of such sign’s light to penetrate beyond the property on which such light or lighted sign is located in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance. Signs alleged to be a nuisance, by reason of light, by the neighboring property owners or tenants shall be subject to the zoning administrator’s review to consider the validity of the nuisance complaint. If the sign is determined to be a nuisance, by reason of light, by the zoning administrator, the owner of the sign shall be required by the zoning administrator to take the appropriate corrective action. 4 I. Height and Elevation of Building Signs: The height and elevation of building signs shall conform with the following provisions: 1. Awning Signs: Awning signs shall not be located above the second floor level of the building. 2. Flat Signs: Flat signs may extend a maximum of two feet (2’) above the roofline or parapet wall of the building on which they are located. 3. Marquee and Canopy Signs: Marquee and canopy signs shall not be located above the main entry level of the premises. 4. Nameplates: Nameplates shall not be located above the first floor level of the building. 5. Projecting Building Signs: A projecting building sign shall not exceed the top of the vertical building wall on which it is located. 6. Projecting Business Storefront Signs: A projecting business storefront sign shall be located at the main pedestrian entry level of the building. 7. Projecting Parking Entry Signs: A projecting parking entry sign shall be located at the parking entry level of the building. 8. Roof Signs: The height of the sign face of roof signs shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the height of the building or ten feet (10’), whichever is less. 9. Wall Signs: Wall signs may extend to the top of the vertical building wall. 10. Window Signs: In the RB, RO, R-MU, CN and CB districts only, window signs shall not be located above the first floor. In other districts where window signs are allowed, they may be located on all floors. 11. Outdoor Television Monitor: Shall not be located above the second floor of the building. J. Signs on Public Property: Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to Section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency. K. Extension of Building Signs: The following building signs shall be allowed to extend beyond the face of buildings or structures in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Flat Signs: A flat sign, with no copy visible from the sides, may extend a maximum of two feet (2’) from the face of the building, even when the extension extends over the public right of way, subject to the city’s right of way encroachment policy. 5 2. Projecting Building Signs: Projecting building signs may extend a maximum of six feet (6’) from the face of the building but shall not extend over a public right of way, except in the D-1 and D-4 zones as allowed in Section 21A.46.110 of this chapter. 3. Awning/Canopy Aand Marquee Signs: As authorized in other sections of this chapter. L. Roof Signs: Roof signs shall conform to the following standards: 1. The height of the sign face of roof signs shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the height of the building or ten feet (10’), whichever is less; 2. No guywires, braces or secondary supports visible from the ground shall be used; 3. Roof signs shall be designed to appear as extensions of the exterior building wall as shown in Figure 21A.46.020 of this chapter or be located on the elevator/mechanical penthouse or, on buildings taller than one hundred feet (100’), may be located on blank walls at the highest inhabitable level; and 4. Roof signs shall not exceed the maximum permitted height for the zoning district in which it is located. M. Marquees: Marquees designed to project over public property shall: 1. Frontage Requirement: Extend across a major portion of the building entrance. 2. Height Limitation: Be located on the main entry level of the premises. 3. Thickness: Have a vertical face height or cross section dimension not exceeding three feet (3’). 4. Clearance: Have a clearance of at least ten feet (10’) above the sidewalk. 5. Projection: Extend a maximum of twelve feet (12’) from the face of the building but must not project closer than two feet (2’) to the back of the curb. 6. Location: Be so located as not to interfere with the operation of any exterior standpipe or to obstruct the clear passage of stairways or exits from the building. 7. Shelter: In order to provide pedestrian shelter, a marquee shall have its first six feet (6’) of projection form a rectangle with the sides ninety degrees (90°) to the building face and the plane at least six feet (6’) from the building parallel with the front property line. The remaining projection of the marquee can assume a configuration compatible with the architecture of the building. N. Marquee Signs: Signs attached to an approved marquee, as specified in Subsection N of this section, may extend over public property a maximum of twelve inches (12”) from the 6 face of the marquee. Copy is allowed on the sides of the marquee. Signs placed within or below the ceiling of a marquee shall not extend beyond the marquee face and shall be placed within the vertical plane of the marquee. Within a commercial or downtown district, a permanent sign or letters may be attached to the top of, or fascia of, or within or below the ceiling of an approved marquee, subject to the following standards: 1. Vertical Dimension: Overall vertical dimensions of the combined sign and marquee shall not exceed five feet (5’). 2. Height of Sign: The height of the sign or letters shall not exceed two feet (2’). 3. No Side Copy: Signs attached to marquees shall have no copy on the side portion of the sign. 4. Clearance: Signs attached to marquees shall maintain the minimum ten foot (10’) clearance required for the marquee. O. New Development Sign: New development signs shall be permitted during construction through initial occupancy of ninety five percent (95%) of floor space for a nonresidential development and through ninety five percent (95%) initial unit occupancy for a residential development. New development signs shall be removed upon two (2) years of use, regardless of the level of occupancy. See Sections 21A.46.080 through 21A.46.120 of this chapter for zoning district limitations on size, height and location of new development signs. P. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs shall comply with the following standards: 1. Required Setback: All temporary signs shall be set back five feet (5’) from all property lines, except where displayed as building signs on buildings set back less than five feet (5’) or where the sign setback is otherwise specified in this title. 2. Display Period and Removal: Temporary signs shall be permitted in accordance with the standards set forth below for display period and removal, unless specified otherwise in this title: Sign Type1 Display Period Removal Required 3 Days After Construction impact area mitigation sign Per city guidelines2 Per city guidelines2 Construction sign Duration of construction Completion Garage/yard sale sign 2 sales per year (7days maximum per sale) End of sale Political sign No limit Election/voting day Public event banner (on public property) Per city guidelines Per city guidelines 7 Real estate sign Duration of listing Closing/lease commencement date Special event Duration of event End of event Vacancy sign Duration of vacancy Date of lease or of purchase and sale contract Notes: 1. See Sections 21A.46.080 through 21A.46.120 of this chapter for zoning district limitations on the size, height and location of temporary signs. 2. See Section 21A.46.180, “Construction Impact Area Mitigation Signs”, of this chapter. Q. Flags of Fraternal, Religious or Civic Organizations: Flags of fraternal, religious and civic organizations are permitted as on premises signs, but shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet in area. R. Official Flags: Official flags shall not project over a property line, except within the D-1 and D-4 Zoning Districts, where official flags are allowed to project up to eight feet (8’) across the property line, but not within two feet (2’) of the curb line. The pole support must be attached directly to the building and located so that all portions of the flag clear the pedestrian level of the building. Flags shall not interfere with street trees, light poles, utility lines, etc., and shall maintain a ten foot (10’) clearance from the sidewalk. S. Freeway Height Exception: The height of on premises pole signs located on properties adjacent to I-15, I-80, I-215 and the 2100 South Expressway (State Route 201) may be increased to a height of twenty five feet (25’) above the pavement grade of the adjacent freeway if the sign is freeway oriented and located within three hundred feet (300’) of the freeway. T. Freeway Frontage: Freeways shall be considered street frontage for signage purposes, except for monument signs. Pole signs approved on freeway frontage shall be limited to seventy five percent (75%) of the maximum size allowed for the zone. Reduced size pole signs shall be interchangeable with other pole signs on the same site. U. Historic District Signs: The historic landmark commission may authorize, as a minor alteration modification to an existing sign or the size or placement of a new sign in a historic district or on a landmark site, including placement of a sign type not allowed in the underlying zone, if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure. If a sign in a local historic district or on a landmark site has been designated a vintage sign as per Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter, the modifications allowed in that section may be authorized by the historic landmark commission subject to the appropriate standards of Section 21A.34.020 of this title. V. Sign Area Determination: Sign face area square footage shall be determined as follows: 8 1. Flat Signs (Excluding Letter Signs and Backlit Awnings) and Wall Signs: The entire surface of the sign face shall be measured. 2. Backlit Awnings and Letter Signs: A polygon, not to exceed eight (8) sides, shall be drawn around the copy area to enclose as nearly as possible the space covered by the copy. 3. All Signs: Words, symbols, letters, images, logos and all other designs that are intended to convey a message shall be included in calculating the sign face area. Colors, stripes and other designs that are not intended to convey a message shall not be included. SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.080.A.4. That Subsection 21A.46.080.A.4 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Residential Districts: Sign Regulations for Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Districts: Supplementary Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 4. Supplementary Regulations: a. Signs for Nonconforming Business Uses: Signs for permitted nonconforming business uses shall conform to Subsection 21A.46.090.A.4 of this chapter, sign regulations for the CN district, but shall not be internally illuminated. b. Illumination: Signs for residential uses shall not be internally illuminated, except for new development signs and development entry signs. SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.110.A.3.b. That Subsection 21A.46.110.A.3.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Downtown Districts: Sign Regulations for the D-1 and D-4 Downtown Districts: Sign Type, Size and Height Standards: Sports Arena Located on the Block between South Temple and 100 South Between 300 and 400 West Streets) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: b. Sports Arena Located on the Block Between South Temple and 100 South Between 300 and 400 West Streets: 9 STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS ARENA LOCATED ON THE BLOCK BETWEEN SOUTH TEMPLE AND 100 SOUTH BETWEEN 300 AND 400 WEST STREETS Types of Signs Permitted7 Maximum Area per Sign Face Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number of Signs Permitted per Sign Type Awning/canopy signs 5 square feet per linear foot of canopy length (sign area only) Shall not be located above the second floor level of the building for both awning and canopy signs May extend 6 feet from face of building but not within 2 feet from back of curb 1 per first floor window/door, may be combined with adjacent doors/ windows Flat sign (general building orientation) 5 square feet per linear foot of building face See note 1 n/a 1 per building face Flat sign (storefront orientation) Flat sign (storefront orientation) See note 1 n/a 3 per business storefront Flat sign display, electronic changeable copy3 No larger than 1,400 square feet per sign See note 1 n/a 5 per city block Freestanding sign, electronic changeable copy4 Not more than 1,600 square feet per sign, which may be located in a continuous round display 45 feet n/a 2 per city block Monument sign 3 square feet per linear foot of street frontage 20 feet None 5 per street frontage 10 Private directional sign5 100 square feet 20 feet No setback No limit Roof surface sign 30,000 square feet6 n/a n/a 1 per roof surface Special event light pole sign 10 square feet 20 feet n/a 2 per light pole Special event sign Sign may cover up to 60% of total building face7 May not exceed the height of building n/a 1 per street frontage Window sign 90% of total frontage window area (interior or exterior) for sports arena events, not to exceed 6 months in duration for each calendar year unless otherwise allowed by the zoning administrator. No Limit n/a No Limit Notes: 1. For height limits on building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter. 2. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. 3. Flat sign, electronic changeable copy may display static or rotating messages or operate as outdoor television monitors. 4. An advertising face on a freestanding sign with electronic changeable copy that is not oriented to a public street may be operated to allow full motion video display. Displays oriented to a public street must not allow animation, may change no more frequently than every 8 seconds and must complete each transition within 1 second. 5. Private directional sign may include electronic changeable copy within the sign area. 6. To be located on the horizontal plane of a roof surface, primarily viewable from planes and surrounding buildings located above the arena. 7. Advertising or corporate logos are limited to on premises advertising of sports arena events and sponsors only. 11 SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.120.E.4.b. That Subsection 21A.46.120.E.4.b of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Special Purpose Districts: Sign Regulations for the UI, PL, PL-2, I, UI, OS and NOS Districts: Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts: Standards for the Ballpark Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: b. Standards for the Ballpark Located on the Southeast Corner of 1300 South and West Temple: Flat signs, construction signs, political signs, real estate signs, new development signs, window signs, public safety signs, and nameplates shall comply with the table for standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts. Types of Signs Permitted Maximum Area per Sign Face Maximum Height of Freestanding Signs1 Minimum Setback2 Number of Signs Permitted Awning signs 1 square foot per linear foot of awning See note 1 May extend 6 feet from face of building, 2 feet from back of curb face5 1 per first floor door/window and not to extend beyond 1 foot on each side of the door or window width Monument signs3,4 60 square feet of total sign face area including a base. The base shall be 25% of the sign height 8 feet 10 feet 1 per building frontage Pole signs (triangle frame structure) 180 square feet per gross sign face. 540 square feet for the structure 30 feet No sign projection over the property line 1 pole sign which allows 4 sign panels per sign face, 1 of which may contain electronic 12 changeable copy4 and 1 logo sign (12 total signs for the triangular pole sign) Private direction signs3 8 square feet of total sign face area including a base. The base shall be 25% of the sign height 4 feet 2 feet behind property lines 2 per driveway approach and as necessary for pedestrian direction Notes: 1. For limits on the height of building signs, see Subsection 21A.46.070.J of this chapter. 2. Not applicable to temporary signs mounted as flat signs. 3. Modified from the standards for the PL, PL-2 and I Districts and required for the Ballpark Overlay District. 4. Electronic changeable copy shall only be permitted on arterial street frontages. Electronic changeable copy panels shall not exceed 50 square feet. 5. Public property lease and insurance required for projection over property line. SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.140. That Section 21A.46.140 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Nonconforming Signs) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.46.140: NONCONFORMING SIGNS A. Applicability: The regulations in this section shall apply to all nonconforming signs with the following exceptions: 1. Vintage signs shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.125 of this chapter. 2. Billboards shall be regulated by Section 21A.46.160 of this chapter. B. Modifications: A sign permit may be issued for modifications to a nonconforming sign provided the modifications do not increase the level of nonconformity of such sign. This includes changes to dimensional standards, location, or the replacement of any part of the sign structure. This provision does not apply in the case of: 13 1. Any modification that is necessary due to a government action that results in the relocation or alteration of a sign, including signs that would become nonconforming due to the government action, are permitted. C. Maintenance: Nonconforming signs shall be maintained as defined in Section 21A.46.020, including the temporary removal of the sign for repairs and other routine maintenance. The sign shall be reinstalled in the same location and in the same manner or relocated to a location that increases the level of conformity. D. Sign Removal: 1. The sign face identifying a discontinued use on the property shall be removed from the property when the use is discontinued. 2. Nonconforming sign structures may remain on the property but shall be re-used to advertise on-site goods or services within one year or will be considered abandoned. An abandoned sign shall be removed in accordance with Subsection 21A.46.150.E with the following exception: a. The zoning administrator may extend the one-year period if the property owner provides evidence that the property was marketed for occupancy at least once every calendar year. E. Restoration of Signs: 1. Voluntarily Removed Signs: Unless authorized by Subsections 21A.46.140.B or 21A.46.140.C above, a nonconforming sign voluntarily removed from the property by the property owner or property owner’s representative shall not be restored unless it is restored to conform with the regulations of this title. 2. Involuntarily Destroyed Signs: If a nonconforming sign is involuntarily destroyed in whole or in part due to fire or other calamity, the sign may be restored to its original condition with respect to size, setback, height, and other nonconforming dimensional standards of the zoning district in which the sign is located, provided such work is started within one year, unless a longer time frame is approved by the building official, after such calamity. SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.46.150. That Section 21A.46.150 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Permits, Inspection and Enforcement) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.46.150: PERMITS, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT: 14 A. Enforcement by Building Official: The building official shall have the authority to enforce these sign regulations. In the performance of that duty, the building official may: 1. Issue Permits: Issue permits to construct, modify or repair signs which conform to the provisions of this chapter; 2. Determine Conformance: Ascertain that all signs, construction, and all reconstruction or modifications of existing signs are built or constructed or modified in conformance with the provisions of these sign regulations and all other regulations incorporated herein by reference; 3. Require Inspection Tags: Require that each sign located in the city requiring a sign permit have affixed to the sign or its supports a current inspection tag visible from the sidewalk or nearest convenient location. This inspection tag shall be issued pursuant to the procedures for sign inspections, set forth in Subsection B of this section; 4. Issue Citations and Complaints: Issue citations and/or file complaints against violators of these sign regulations; 5. Confiscate Signs: Confiscate signs located on public property in accordance with the provisions of Subsection H of this section. B. Inspection Requirements: The building official shall have the authority to inspect signs as follows: 1. Initial Inspection After Construction: The building official shall make an initial inspection prior to footings being poured on a freestanding sign, and upon the completion of construction, erection, re-erection or remodeling of any sign for which a permit has been issued and an inspection request is made. 2. Issuance of Inspection Tag: Upon completion of the sign inspection, the building official shall issue the appropriate inspection tag to the owner or sign contractor if the sign is found to conform to the provisions of this chapter. The presence of a current inspection tag shall serve as certification that the sign to which it is affixed conforms to the provisions of this chapter at the time of its erection and tagging. 3. Tag Data: Each sign inspection tag shall include the permit number and shall be recorded in the office of the building official as to the sign type, size, cost of construction, date of sign permit, and owner’s and sign contractor’s name and address. 4. Tag Installation: The inspection tag shall be installed by the sign owner, or sign contractor taking out the permit. 5. Inspection: The building official shall conduct an inspection of signs. If the building official finds any sign which has no visible inspection tag, has a visible inspection tag 15 but is in need of repair, or violates any provision of this chapter, the building official may take the necessary legal action as specified in Subsections D through I of this section. C. Legal Actions Authorized: The building official may take any appropriate action or institute any proceeding in any case where any sign is erected, constructed, reconstructed, modified, repaired, converted or maintained, or in any case where any sign is used in violation of these sign regulations or any other city ordinance, in order to accomplish the following purposes: 1. To prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, modification, repair, conversion, maintenance or use of a sign; and 2. To restrain, to correct, or to abate such violation. D. Notice of Violation: The building official may provide written notice of violation by registered mail to the owner of the property where the sign is located or person having charge or control or benefit of any sign found by the building official to be unsafe or dangerous, or in violation of these sign regulations or of any other city ordinance. E. Nonmaintained or Abandoned Signs: The building official may require each nonmaintained or abandoned sign to be removed from the building or premises when such sign has not been repaired or put into use by the owner, person having control or person receiving benefit of such structure within thirty (30) calendar days after notice of nonmaintenance or abandonment is given to the owner, person having control or person receiving the benefit of such structure. F. Unsafe or Dangerous Signs: If an unsafe or dangerous sign is not repaired or made safe within five (5) working days after the building official gives notice pursuant to Subsection D of this section, the building inspector may abate and remove the sign, and the person having charge, control or benefit of any such sign shall pay to the city the costs incurred in such removal within thirty (30) calendar days after written notice is mailed to such person. G. Illegal Signs: If an illegal sign is not brought into compliance with the provisions of these sign regulations within thirty (30) working days after the building official gives notice pursuant to Subsection D of this section, the building inspector may abate and remove the sign, and the owner, person having charge, control or benefit of any such sign shall pay to the city the costs incurred in such removal within thirty (30) calendar days after written notice is mailed to such person. H. Confiscation of Signs: The building official shall immediately confiscate any sign located on public property in violation of these sign regulations or any other city ordinances. Confiscated signs shall be stored at a location determined by the building official for a period of thirty (30) days, during which time the owner or person having charge, control or benefit of the confiscated sign may redeem the sign after payment of fifty dollars 16 ($50.00) and any applicable civil fines established pursuant to Chapter 21A.20 of this title. The city shall not be liable for damages incurred to signs as a result of their confiscation. In addition to civil penalties sign owners and persons having charge, control or benefit of any sign erected in violation of this chapter shall be liable for any damages caused to public property, public facilities or public utilities by reason of the placement, attachment and/or removal of such unlawful signs. Signs not redeemed within thirty (30) days shall be destroyed. I. Violation/Penalty: Any person whether acting as owner or occupant of the premises involved, or contractor, or otherwise, who violates or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in Section 1.12.050 of this code. A separate offense shall be deemed to be committed on each day an offense occurs or continues. SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: a. Section 21A.60.020 is amended to delete the term “Alteration, sign”. b. Section 21A.60.020 is amended to modify the term “Electronic changeable copy sign” to read as follows: Electronic changeable copy. See Chapter 21A.46 of this title. 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 _______________________. 17 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance regulating nonconforming signs (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney April 7, 2023 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2022-00984 October 11, 2022 October 11, 2022 October 2022 – February 2023 February 6, 2023 February 6, 2023 March 16, 2023 March 23, 2023 March 29, 2023 April 7, 2023 Application accepted. Petition assigned to Katilynn Harris, Principal Planner. Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of the petition. Notice mailed to all Community Councils. Application posted for the online open house. Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. Staff report posted to Planning’s webpage. Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00984 – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance related to nonconforming signs. This proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with city goals, supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The proposed changes would allow for more flexibility for the maintenance, reuse, modification, and updating of existing signs. The proposed changes also clarify when the removal of such signs is required. (Staff Contact: Katilynn Harris at 801-535-6179 or katilynn.harris@slcgov.com.) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Katilynn Harris at 801-535-6179 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at katilynn.harris@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00984. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS www.scenicutah.org 5 South 500 West #102 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-554-5263 Comments on Salt Lake City’s proposal to amend the Nonconforming Signs Zoning Ordinance to permitted modifications to and maintenance of signs that do not conform with the zoning code March 23, 2023 Scenic Utah is a 501c3 non-profit organization working to protect and enhance the scenic qualities of our communities, countryside, and roadways. Our focus areas include sign and billboard control, and we advocate for fair and practical policies aimed at reducing the negative impacts of outdoor advertising. Our team of volunteers with deep experience in sign and billboard control has worked hard to understand the full rationale for the proposed text amendments. While we agree the City’s nonconforming signs zoning ordinance should be updated to reflect current standards and technologies, we find key aspects of the proposed text amendments to be ambiguous and lacking in specificity. This ambiguity, we believe, has a high potential for unintended consequences. Below is a summary of the following three principal concerns we have with the proposed text amendments: 1) Changing the definition from ‘electronic changeable copy sign’ to “a sign face type” 2) Failing to include language that updates ‘twirl times’ and ‘dwell times’ for electronic signs 3) Failing to include specific standards or criteria for determining the conditions under which a sign could be moved or modified – as well as a process for public notice and involvement in decisions about upgrades or modifications to nonconforming signs 1) It is unclear why the City seeks to change the definition of an ‘electronic changeable copy sign’ to mean a “a sign face type” (rather than a sign type). An electronic sign is a "type" of sign, as are back-lit signs, painted signs, pole signs, neon signs, etc. A sign "face" typically means the entire surface area of a sign intended for the display of copy and can include additional areas extending from the sign. Many businesses have single sign faces comprised of multiple sign types. For example, some gas stations have signs with both static copy (displaying the name of the business) and electronic changeable copy (displaying fluctuating gasoline prices). Movie theaters’ sign faces often include static copy displaying the name of the theater together with changeable electronic copy displaying movie titles and showtimes. Thus, in the current ordinance, a simple on-premises sign face can be comprised of multiple sign types; as long as it meets size and other criteria, it is considered to be one sign face. If an electronic sign is defined as a sign face type, and only one sign face is allowed on a building or property, is the City intending, under the new definition, that if a business uses electronic copy on its sign face, that is the only type of copy allowed (since ‘electronic changeable copy’ would become a face type that excludes other face types)? This is a confusing text amendment that implies everything on a sign face must either be electronic or static, but not both. The City should provide a clearer rationale for why this change is being proposed. www.scenicutah.org 5 South 500 West #102 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-554-5263 2) If the City is intending to better regulate electronic signage and allow for updates to existing nonconforming signs, twirl times and dwell times should be updated / specified and included in the proposed amendment. The current ordinance’s lack of a specified dwell time, and its outdated 3-second twirl time, allows businesses to twirl digital messaging 20 times per minute – effectively projecting movies to sign audiences. Current electronic sign technology allows for a twirl time of less than one second. The City’s ordinance should reflect this and should specify sensible dwell times similar to or longer than that imposed by state law – which requires a minimum 8-second dwell time. (Certain zones in many cities, including some in Provo and elsewhere, require dwell times on on-premises signs of up to a minute or longer for safety and aesthetic purposes.) 3) The City states that the proposed amendments would allow more flexibility for maintaining, reusing, modifying, and updating existing nonconforming signs. We agree this is an important step for the reasons the Planning Department has articulated. However, the proposed amendment includes no standards or criteria for determining the specific conditions under which these signs can or should be maintained, updated, reused or modified. For example, will signs with historical or cultural significance be considered differently from signs with no such history? Will aesthetics or zoning changes be a factor in determining how or whether a sign can be updated? Will ‘upgrades’ to electronic signage be permitted everywhere, or only in certain zones? Failing to establish clear standards and criteria could also expose planning staff to difficult, even subjective, decision making. We envision a scenario where an iconic ice-cream cone sign is permitted to upgrade or be reused, simply because it is iconic and beloved, while a less favored sign depicting a large bucket of chicken is refused the same upgrade or reuse. Finally, an updated nonconforming sign ordinance should describe the decision-making process the City will follow when permitting sign upgrades or modifications; its process for notifying and involving impacted communities about proposed sign modifications; and the process it will require for appealing a decision about sign modifications. If these sections are already articulated in the ordinance, the proposed text amendment should reference them. The Scenic Utah team is available to meet with the appropriate Planning staff at their convenience to discuss our concerns and suggestions in further detail. Respectfully, Ralph Becker (Chair) Kate Kopischke (Executive Director) Scenic Utah www.scenicutah.org From:Harris, Katilynn To: Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) RE: Comments on SLC"s Proposed Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:56:00 AM Attachments:image001.png Good morning Kate, I apologize for my delay in getting back to you. Your follow up email got automatically sorted into a folder I didn’t check until today. I will be sure to include both your initial comment and the follow up email in the transmittal package sent to city council. Your initial comments were considered by the Planning Commission during their discussion of the text amendment as one of the commissioners specifically wanted clarification on some of the issues raised by your comments. As you’ve pointed out, the standards regulating electronic copy are quite old and do not reflect modern advancements; however, amendments to those regulations are beyond the scope of this specific text amendment which is limited to standards related to nonconforming signs. Changes to electronic copy standards would require a separate petition. As you know, an attempt to address this aspect of the sign ordinance was initiated a few years ago and did not get taken up by the city council. The proposed amendments to the electronic changeable copy sign term and definition are related to nonconforming signs which is why they are included in this proposed amendment. The current term created some interpretation issues because the definition indicates that electronic changeable copy is a component of a sign but the inclusion of “sign” in the defined term indicates that it is a type of sign akin to monument or flat signs. Because of how “sign” is defined in the ordinance, this created a situation where it wasn’t clear if permitted signs that had electronic changeable copy on them were considered nonconforming because electronic changeable copy sign isn’t included in the sign tables. The amendments to the defined term is simply to clarify that electronic changeable copy is not a sign as defined by the code and therefore is subject to the same regulations as any other sign face. Sign face is used in the definition because “sign face” is a defined term in the ordinance. Thank you for your comments and please let me know if you have any additional questions. KATILYNN HARRIS | (She/Her/Hers) Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Phone: (801) 535-6179 Email: katilynn.harris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given prior to petition or permit approval are not intended to approve, and cannot approve, construction in violation of the State Construction and Fire Codes or the Salt Lake City ordinances. Relying on preliminary written or verbal feedback is not binding and does not substitute for an approved Planning Petition or Building Permit. From: Kate Kopischke Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 3:27 PM To: Harris, Katilynn <katilynn.harris@slcgov.com> Cc: Ralph Becker ; Petro, Victoria <victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com>; Puy, Alejandro <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; Wharton, Chris <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Valdemoros, Ana <ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com>; Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Dugan, Dan <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>; amyfowler@slcgov.com; Mendenhall, Erin <erin.mendenhall@slcgov.com>; Otto, Rachel <rachel.otto@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) RE: Comments on SLC's Proposed Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment Dear Katilynn, We appreciated your March 28 reply to our initial comments (attached) regarding SLC’s proposed nonconforming signs text amendment. We’re unsure whether they were considered by the Planning Commission before it forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council, but we wanted to provide additional detail on your note responding to our comments and questions. We remain convinced that the proposed amended text is unclear and confusing and will create additional problems for the City – especially for permitting staff who are likely to be challenged on vague or missing definitions and standards regarding on-premises signs. For example, the amendment does not address today’s basic issues / challenges of electronic signage – including dwell time. We understand dwell-time standards are currently applied to billboards, not to on- premises signs. However, SLC’s ‘electronic changeable copy’ sign standards were adopted many decades ago, long before the advent of today’s digital sign technology. If the City does not require specific dwell times for the growing number of Electronic Message Centers (or EMCs, as electronic changeable copy signs are commonly called), sign owners will remain free to change content every THREE seconds. Surely the EMC at Lifetime Store on Warm Springs Road, which projects to I-15 drivers the equivalent of a movie featuring its many sports and outdoor equipment products, is not what the City intends to allow? Nor does the proposed text amendment address brightness ordinances or curfew times for sign operations – two standards that are increasingly being demanded by residents and applied in cities around the world. We would encourage the City to initiate an additional petition to update its 70s-era electronic changeable copy definitions and standards to reflect current technology and terminology. An additional confusion with the proposed text amendment is changing the definition of an electronic sign from a ‘type’ to a ‘face.’ The City maintains that an EMC is not a "type" of sign, like pole signs or monument signs. But neither is an EMC a "face", defined as a viewable area that may contain various modes of copy other than electronic (i.e., neon, backlit, painted, etc.). An idea for avoiding this confusion – and any potential unintended consequences of calling EMCs a ‘face’ – is to remove the words ‘face’ and ‘type’ from the definition, and simply say ‘a sign or portion of a sign.’ Updates to the sign ordinance that would have addressed some of these issues were proposed many years ago by the Planning Department and forwarded to the then-City Council, which never took up the sign ordinance changes. We would be happy to work with you on this important – and certainly needed – sign ordinance update. If the City would find it useful, our team could provide more detailed comments and suggest amendments to a red- lined text version of the full ordinance that could clarify and address these concerns. We would also be happy to schedule a face-to-face meeting to discuss these issues. Thank you for considering our comments, and for the work you do. We look forward to hearing from you. Ralph Becker (Chair) Kate Kopischke (Director) Scenic Utah SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF ACTIONS March 29, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. 4. Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend section 21A.46.140 of the zoning ordinance related to nonconforming signs. This proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning sign standards with city goals, supporting businesses, and addressing any applicable state law. The proposed changes would allow for more flexibility for maintaining, reusing, modifying, and updating of existing signs. The proposed changes also clarify when the removal of such signs is required. The planning commission may consider modifications to other related sections of title 21A Zoning as part of this proposal. Staff Contact: Katilynn Harris at 801-535-6179 or katilynn harris@slcgov.com Case Number: PLNPCM2022-00984 Action: A positive recommendation was forwarded to City Council 5. Updates to Policies & Procedure Action: Adopted From: Harris, Katilynn <Katilynn.Harris@slcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 1:07 PM To: Kate Kopischke Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Comments on SLC's Proposed Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment Good afternoon, Again, thank you for your comments. As stated earlier, your comments have been shared with the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting this Wednesday. I also want to take a minute to try to address a few of the comments and questions raised. 1. Updating the definition of electronic changeable copy sign: The purpose for this change is to provide clarity in the zoning ordinance. In Chapter 21A.46, a sign is defined as the sign face and all portions of the structure itself. Additionally, a sign face is defined the part of a sign that is used to identify, advertise or communicate information. Electronic changeable copy is not considered a “sign type” as defined by the zoning code because any type of sign (pole, monument, flat, etc.) could contain electronic changeable copy as part of the sign face. Additionally, with exception to the sports arena area and the ballpark area, electronic changeable copy is not included in the sign type tables – the regulations (height, setbacks, size, etc.) are determined by the type of sign – whether it be a pole sign, flat sign, monument sign. The update to the definition of electronic changeable copy is to clarify that it is not considered a sign type that is regulated by specific zoning districts like a pole sign or monument sign would be but rather is a face type that could be included as part of any sign type. Your comments reference electronic sign - The zoning ordinance also differentiates between electronic changeable copy and electronic sign. Electronic changeable copy is defined in the general definitions section (21A.46.020) and is the definition we are proposing to make some changes to. Electronic sign is only defined in the billboard section (21A.46.160). This text amendment does not change or impact any regulations or definitions related to billboards. 2. Twirl times and dwell times of electronic signs: As mentioned above, electronic signs are only defined in the billboard section of the sign chapter (21A.46.160) and the only portions of sign ordinance that reference dwell time and twirl time are also in the billboard section. Billboards are regulated separately by section 21A.46.160 and the proposed text amendment is not making any changes to that chapter. The definition of electronic changeable copy does have a reference to “the message being readable within 3 seconds” – we can further research to make sure this existing language is consistent with state code and best practices. 3. Specific standards for sign modifications:. Any nonconforming sign may be maintained and modified as defined by 21A.46.020 so long as the maintenance or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity. A sign can be nonconforming for a number of reasons including setback, height, size, or location. Nonconforming sign modifications do not require a public planning process and therefore only require a sign permit to make the modification. During the sign permit review process, the proposed changes will be evaluated against the sign ordinance and provided the modifications do not increase the degree of nonconformity, or create a new nonconformity, the modifications are permitted. This is in keeping with regulations for nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures found in 21A.40 of the zoning code. Vintage signs are signs that have unique characteristics that contribute to the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. These are designated through a process identified in 21A.46.125 and are regulated differently than other nonconforming signs – the proposed text amendment does not impact designated vintage signs. Additionally, any sign within a local historic district may be modified in accordance with 21A.46.070.V – the proposed text amendment does not impact modifications to signs in local historic districts. KATILYNN HARRIS | (She/Her/Hers) Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Phone: (801) 535-6179 Email: katilynn.harris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given prior to petition or permit approval are not intended to approve, and cannot approve, construction in violation of the State Construction and Fire Codes or the Salt Lake City ordinances. Relying on preliminary written or verbal feedback is not binding and does not substitute for an approved Planning Petition or Building Permit. From: Harris, Katilynn Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 12:38 PM To: Kate Kopischke Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Comments on SLC's Proposed Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment Thank you for your comments. I will forward them to the Planning Commission. KATILYNN HARRIS | (She/Her/Hers) Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Phone: (801) 535-6179 Email: katilynn.harris@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given prior to petition or permit approval are not intended to approve, and cannot approve, construction in violation of the State Construction and Fire Codes or the Salt Lake City ordinances. Relying on preliminary written or verbal feedback is not binding and does not substitute for an approved Planning Petition or Building Permit. From: Kate Kopischke Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 12:25 AM To: Harris, Katilynn <katilynn.harris@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comments on SLC's Proposed Nonconforming Signs Text Amendment Dear Katilynn, Please see Scenic Utah’s comments, attached. We welcome an opportunity to discuss these in greater detail, or to answer any questions as you develop your recommendations. Best regards, Kate Kopischke Scenic Utah From: To:Harris, Katilynn Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: comments on changes to the sign ordinance Date:Thursday, March 30, 2023 10:47:08 AM Katilynn-Good to finally say "hello" to you. Here are the comments about the sign ordinance. I did a little ad-libbing but my remarks at the hearing were pretty close to the text below. Sincerely, cindy c. From: cindy cromer Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:37 PM To: cindy cromer Subject: comments on changes to the sign ordinance First some history of the City's sign ordinance: 1 Doug Dansie, who retired in 2019, was the sign guru. I never attempted to figure out the complexities of the ordinance. I just called Doug who could answer off the top of his head. 2 The long-time Planning Director Vern Jorgensen was committed to the removal of overhanging signs and awnings on Main Street. The result was a more sterile streetscape and greater difficulty locating businesses. One of the many insults to Main Street. I think an additional consideration in the proposal should be Sustainability. No one is talking about how much building material is going to the dump. Repurposing an existing sign is likely to be labor intensive relative to the manufacture of a new sign (good) and simultaneously conserve materials (good). The mantra is "Don't make something already nonconforming, more so." It is a good rule unless you are talking about in-line additions. So stick with that recommendation from staff: Don't make something nonconforming more nonconforming." Here are some notorious examples: -Jimmie John's at 600 E/400 S where the existing black ice cream cones were made more nonconforming by additional signage, lots of it (as if black ice cream cones didn't attract enough attention Scenic Motel on Foothill where the developers attempted to exploit the historic sign radically altering it Salt Lake Regional's inappropriate monument signs in the South Temple Historic District Young Electric Sign should have known better, but obviously the City employee who approved the signs did not. Which leads me to the conclusion that it is essential to have training for all City employees involved in permitting signs once the new ordinance is adopted. Essential. Item F1 TO:City Council Members MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET: Resolution: Funding Our Future: Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority Addendum No. 7 MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing Addendum Number 7 to the Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority. Staff note: this motion would continue frequent transit network level of service (at least every 15 minutes) on routes 200 South, 900 South and 2100 South and 1000 North / South Temple to the University of Utah. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item. 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 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT:Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Addendum No. 7 – Continuation of FTN Routes 1, 2, 9, and 21 STAFF CONTACT:Julianne Sabula, Deputy Director of Transportation, julianne.sabula@slcogov.com, 801-535-6678 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve a resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizing the Mayor to enter into the proposed addendum 7 (Exhibit 3) to the Interlocal Agreement with UTA (Exhibit 2) to implement 2023-24 Frequent Transit Network (FTN) service. BUDGET IMPACT:The budget impact of Addendum No. 7 is $6,462,409.34 for the FTN service to be provided during FY 23-24 along Routes 1, 2, 9, and 21, which is currently funded to run until August Change Day 2023. The funds associated with this addendum are included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, and cost details appear in Exhibit 4. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Transit Master Plan Implementation ILA with UTA is a twenty-year agreement that has a goal of full implementation of the FTN as described in Salt Lake City’s Transit Master Plan. Council adopted the Plan in 2017 with the intent that six corridors would be included in Phase one of implementation. These corridors are 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South, 1000 North, 600 North, and 400 South. Council has since approved Addendum No. 1, along with a corresponding budget appropriation, to mobilize (referring to the recruitment, hiring, and training of operators, mechanics, and Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:41 MDT)06/21/2023 06/21/2023 supervisors, as well as the initial vehicle lease payments for training and testing along the new routes) for service on Routes 2, 9, and 21, which began operations in August 2019. Addendum No. 2 and the corresponding budget sponsored continuation of the increased frequency and hours of operation (span) on these routes. UTA conducts periodic “true-ups” to determine whether actual costs came in at, above, or below projections, for instance, due to fuel costs. This yielded an amendment to Addendum No. 2, which was approved in January 2021 and resulted in a credit to Salt Lake City. Addenda Nos. 3 and 4 have continued operation of additional span and frequency on these routes for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 service years until Council approved and funded Addendum 5 to mobilize for Route 1. Addendum No. 6 was approved in 2022 for the launch of service on Route 1, in addition to continued service on the 2, 9, and 21. Council also approved an amendment to Addendum No. 3 in 2022 for a credit to the City as a result of Covid- related service reductions. This Addendum No. 7 mimics Addendum No. 6 for continuation of the sponsored routes, with adjustments made according to the terms of the main agreement. These include inflation, fuel costs, and UTA’s “baseline” which refers to the level of service UTA would provide absent City sponsorship based on the service guidelines articulated in the Five-Year Service Plan. It should be noted that the City and UTA decided to use an annual inflation rate of 2.2% in the cost calculator with the idea that over the course of the 20-year agreement, fluctuations year-to-year would balance out. In addition, despite volatility in fuel prices over the past year, the variation was not significant enough to warrant the true-up that was foreshadowed in last year’s transmittal for Transit Master Plan implementation. Implementation of the FTN has been a highly collaborative effort between the City and UTA over the past five years. Many of the corridors in the Transit Master Plan are included and budgeted for in UTA’s Five-Year Service Plan. Some have already been implemented at UTA’s expense, such as the 900 East and Upper Avenues corridors (Route 209), State Street (Route 200), 600 North (extension of route 205, proposed for restoration of frequent service as labor supply rebounds), and Redwood Road (Route 217). PUBLIC PROCESS: The Transit Master Plan public process was very robust and included 16 stakeholder interviews, 18 mobile events, and over 2000 unique online comments. The Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee provided guidance on both the Master Plan and the guiding principles for the ILA. Specific to the ILA, addenda, and corresponding City budget appropriations, the process included City-hosted public hearings on the ILA and prior addenda. This year’s budget process, including public hearings, will provide for additional public comment on the transit service line item. In addition, UTA conducts public hearing processes for the Five-Year Service Plan, as well as for each Change Day. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution 2) Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement 3) Addendum No. 7 a) Description of the 2023-24 FTN b) 2023-24 Baseline Services 4) 2023 Cost Calculator a) 2021 National Transit Database (NTD) Profile b) Cost Per Mile c) Paratransit d) Cost Worksheet 5 EXHIBIT 1 Resolution RESOLUTION ________ OF 2023 Authorizing approval of Addendum No. 7 to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 13 allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, Salt Lake City Council authorized that the City enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority providing for transfer of City funds for implementation of the Transit Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement contemplated that the parties would enter into an annual addendum to provide funding for the frequent transit network routes and other transit improvements; and WHEREAS, a draft addendum has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: ADDENDUM NO. 7 TO THE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSMIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (2023-2024 FTN ROUTES). 2. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. PASSED by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________ June 16, 2023 5 EXHIBIT 2 Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement with UTA 5 EXHIBIT 3 Addendum No. 7 1 ADDENDUM NO. 7 TO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (2023-2024 FTN Routes) This Addendum No. 7 (“Addendum”) to that certain Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement (“ILA”) is made this ____ day of _____, 2023, by and between Utah TransitAuthority,a public transit district organized under the laws of the State of Utah (“UTA”), and Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation (“City”). UTA and City are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Parties” and each may be referred to individually as “Party,” all as governed by the context in which such words are used. RECITALS A. On the 6th day of March, 2019, the Parties entered into the ILA, whereby the parties agreed to participate jointly in planning and funding for public transportation improvements in and around the City; and B. Pursuant to the terms of the ILA, the Parties desire to specifically identify certain components of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan to be governed by this Addendum. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 3 of the ILA, the City, in cooperation with UTA, identified as the City-sponsored frequent transit network routes for 2023-24 (“FTN Routes”) to be provided by UTA for a one-year period from the August 2023 change day until the next succeeding August change day. 2. The description of those 2023-24 FTN Routes is set forth in Attachment 1. 3. The description of the 2023-24 Baseline Services is set forth in Attachment 2. 4. The calculation of the Annual Service Mile Charge for the City-sponsored 2023- 24 FTN Routes is set forth in in Attachment 3. 5. The final routing and implementation of the FTN Routes shall be determined in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies regarding transit service planning (including, without limitation, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) and operational considerations shall be addressed in consultation with the City. 6. Invoicing for implementation of the FTN Routes will be according to Section 7 of the ILA. 7. This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument. 8. This Addendum is limited to the terms expressly provided herein and except as set forth herein, the ILA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is a conflict between this Addendum and the ILA, the terms of this Addendum shall prevail and control. 9. Any capitalized terms that are not specifically defined in this Addendum shall have the meanings set forth in the ILA. 2 10. This Addendum will become effective upon Salt Lake City Council’s adoption of a resolution authorizing the Mayor or her designee to enter into this Addendum; and appropriation of funding to meet the City’s financial obligations under this Addendum (the “Effective Date”). [THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Addendum as of the Effective Date. [Signature pages to Addendum No. 7 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY By______________________________________ Russell Fox Director of Planning By______________________________________ Nichol Bourdeaux Chief Planning and Engagement Officer By______________________________________ Jay Fox Executive Director Approved as to Form ____________________________________ Michael Bell UTA Legal Counsel 4 [Signature pages to Addendum No. 7 to Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority Transit Master Plan Implementation Interlocal Agreement] SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By______________________________________ Its______________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ____________________________ Senior City Attorney Date: ___________________________ ATTEST & COUNTERSIGN: Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office By: ____________________________ City Recorder [Attach Salt Lake City Council Resolution Approving Addendum] 5 ATTACHMENT A Description of the 2023-24 FTN Routes For This Addendum No. 7 6 ATTACHMENT B 2023-24 Baseline Services For This Addendum No. 7 Dr a f t f o r S p r i n g 2 0 2 3 A p p r o v a l Ad d e n d u m 7 : 2 0 2 3 B a s e l i n e S e r v i c e Pl e a s e r e f e r t o t h e U T A 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 2 7 S e r v i c e P l a n a d o p t e d o n 3 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 f o r U T A ' s b a s e l i n e s e r v i c e . ww w . r i d e u t a . c o m / s e r v i c e p l a n Su m m a r y : • Th e F i v e - Y e a r S e r v i c e P l a n i n c l u d e s F T N l e v e l s e r v i c e o n R o u t e 2 o n w e e k d a y s a s p a r t o f U T A ' s b a s e l i n e s e r v i c e l e v e l . • U T A m a d e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e s p a n o f s e r v i c e o n R o u t e s 2 , 9 , a n d 2 1 i n A u g u s t 2 0 2 0 , w h i c h a r e n o w i n c l u d e d i n t h e b a s e l i n e a t n o • P l e a s e v i s i t t h i s l i n k t o a c c e s s r o u t e p e r f o r m a n c e d a t a o n U T A ' s O p e n D a t a P o r t a l . An n u a l M i l e s Au g u s t 2 0 2 3 To t a l M i l e s 20 2 3 - 2 0 2 7 5Y S P B a s e l i n e Mi l e s 20 2 3 Sp o n s o r e d Mi l e s 2 2 1 0 , 2 1 8 1 7 3 , 7 0 4 3 6 , 5 1 4 9 47 2 , 9 2 6 12 0 , 7 0 4 35 2 , 2 2 2 21 35 9 , 4 9 4 27 8 , 2 9 0 81 , 2 0 4 1 50 9 , 0 6 8 36 4 , 8 7 7 14 4 , 1 9 1 To t a l 1, 5 5 1 , 7 0 6 93 7 , 5 7 4 61 4 , 1 3 2 An n u a l Ho u r s Au g u s t 2 0 2 3 To t a l H o u r s 20 2 3 - 2 0 2 7 5Y S P B a s e l i n e Ho u r s 20 2 3 Sp o n s o r e d Ho u r s 2 25 , 9 5 4 . 0 0 18 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 7, 9 5 4 . 0 0 9 49 , 8 4 0 . 0 0 38 , 0 0 8 . 0 0 11 , 8 3 2 . 0 0 21 39 , 4 0 2 . 0 0 28 , 7 1 9 . 0 0 10 , 6 8 3 . 0 0 1 51 , 8 2 0 . 0 0 39 , 9 2 2 . 0 0 11 , 8 9 8 . 0 0 To t a l 1 6 7 , 0 1 6 . 0 0 1 2 4 , 6 4 9 . 0 0 42 , 3 6 7 . 0 0 5 EXHIBIT 4 2023 Cost Calculator ht t p s : / / w w w . r i d e u t a . c o m / Ut a h T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y 66 9 W 2 0 0 S 20 2 1 A n n u a l A g e n c y P r o f i l e Mr . J a y F o x Sa l t L a k e C i t y , U t 8 4 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 4 (8 0 1 ) 2 6 2 - 5 6 2 6 Ge n e r a l I n f o r m a t i o n Fi n a n c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e M e a s u r e T a r g e t s - 2 0 2 2 Ur b a n i z e d A r e a S t a t i s t i c s - 2 0 1 0 C e n s u s Se r v i c e C o n s u m p t i o n Da t a b a s e I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s o f O p e r a t i n g F u n d s E x p e n d e d Op e r a t i n g F u n d i n g S o u r c e s Pe r f o r m a n c e M e a s u r e - A s s e t T y p e - T a r g e t % n o t i n S t a t e o f G o o d R e p a i r Sa l t L a k e C i t y - W e s t V a l l e y C i t y , U T 17 6 , 6 4 6 , 3 3 7 An n u a l P a s s e n g e r M i l e s ( P M T ) N T D I D : 80 0 0 1 F a r e s a n d D i r e c t l y G e n e r a t e d $ 3 1 , 4 8 1 , 1 9 4 7 . 3 % E q u i p m e n t - A u t o m o b i l e s - 9 7 % 27 8 Sq u a r e M i l e s 23 , 9 7 2 , 2 9 4 An n u a l U n l i n k e d T r i p s ( U P T ) R e p o r t e r T y p e : Fu l l R e p o r t e r L o c a l F u n d s $ 2 7 1 , 8 4 5 , 1 1 1 6 2 . 9 % E q u i p m e n t - S t e e l W h e e l V e h i c l e s - 0 % 1, 0 2 1 , 2 4 3 Po p u l a t i o n 79 , 9 1 6 Av e r a g e W e e k d a y U n l i n k e d T r i p s A s s e t T y p e : Ti e r I ( R a i l ) S t a t e F u n d s $ 0 0 . 0 % E q u i p m e n t - T r u c k s a n d o t h e r R u b b e r T i r e V e h i c l e s - 3 0 % 42 Po p . R a n k o u t o f 4 9 8 U Z A s 48 , 9 7 4 Av e r a g e S a t u r d a y U n l i n k e d T r i p s S p o n s o r N T D I D : Fe d e r a l A s s i s t a n c e $ 1 2 8 , 6 6 7 , 3 8 4 2 9 . 8 % F a c i l i t y - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / M a i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t i e s - 0 % Ot h e r U Z A s S e r v e d 20 , 1 1 4 Av e r a g e S u n d a y U n l i n k e d T r i p s Fa c i l i t y - P a s s e n g e r / P a r k i n g F a c i l i t i e s - 2 % 77 O g d e n - L a y t o n , U T , 8 2 P r o v o - O r e m , U T , 0 U t a h N o n - U Z A To t a l O p e r a t i n g F u n d s E x p e n d e d $ 4 3 1 , 9 9 3 , 6 8 9 10 0 . 0 % I n f r a s t r u c t u r e - C R - C o m m u t e r R a i l - 2 % As s e t s In f r a s t r u c t u r e - L R - L i g h t R a i l - 4 % Se r v i c e A r e a S t a t i s t i c s Se r v i c e S u p p l i e d Re v e n u e V e h i c l e s 1, 4 7 4 So u r c e s o f C a p i t a l F u n d s E x p e n d e d Ro l l i n g S t o c k - A B - A r t i c u l a t e d B u s - 0 % 60 7 Sq u a r e M i l e s 35 , 8 8 7 , 4 3 7 An n u a l V e h i c l e R e v e n u e M i l e s ( V R M ) S e r v i c e V e h i c l e s 69 7 F a r e s a n d D i r e c t l y G e n e r a t e d $ 0 0 . 0 % R o l l i n g S t o c k - B R - O v e r - t h e - r o a d B u s - 3 2 % 2, 2 1 8 , 4 8 2 Po p u l a t i o n 2, 0 9 3 , 0 7 2 An n u a l V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s ( V R H ) F a c i l i t i e s 24 3 L o c a l F u n d s $ 8 6 , 2 4 0 , 3 7 2 6 2 . 0 % R o l l i n g S t o c k - B U - B u s - 1 3 % 1, 0 1 6 Ve h i c l e s O p e r a t e d i n M a x i m u m S e r v i c e ( V O M S ) T r a c k M i l e s 23 3 . 4 7 S t a t e F u n d s $ 2 , 1 6 3 , 7 0 0 1 . 6 % R o l l i n g S t o c k - C U - C u t a w a y - 0 % 1, 4 8 9 Ve h i c l e s A v a i l a b l e f o r M a x i m u m S e r v i c e ( V A M S ) L a n e M i l e s 2. 1 0 F e d e r a l A s s i s t a n c e $ 5 0 , 6 1 2 , 9 3 5 3 6 . 4 % R o l l i n g S t o c k - L R - L i g h t R a i l V e h i c l e - 0 % Ca p i t a l F u n d i n g S o u r c e s Ro l l i n g S t o c k - M V - M i n i v a n - 1 2 % Mo d a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s To t a l C a p i t a l F u n d s E x p e n d e d $ 1 3 9 , 0 1 7 , 0 0 7 10 0 . 0 % Ro l l i n g S t o c k - R L - C o m m u t e r R a i l L o c o m o t i v e - 0 % Mo d a l O v e r v i e w Su m m a r y o f O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s ( O E ) Ro l l i n g S t o c k - R P - C o m m u t e r R a i l P a s s e n g e r C o a c h - 4 0 % Mo d e Di r e c t l y Op e r a t e d Pu r c h a s e d Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Re v e n u e Ve h i c l e s Sy s t e m s a n d Gu i d e w a y s Fa c i l i t i e s a n d St a t i o n s Ot h e r T o t a l La b o r $ 2 2 1 , 6 3 6 , 3 2 0 6 5 . 4 % R o l l i n g S t o c k - V N - V a n - 1 2 % Co m m u t e r B u s 58 - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 M a t e r i a l s a n d S u p p l i e s $ 7 0 , 2 0 9 , 7 1 9 2 0 . 7 % Co m m u t e r R a i l 45 - $ 7 6 5 , 3 5 9 $ 2 8 , 2 8 0 , 3 6 6 $ 2 , 3 8 2 , 2 0 6 $ 1 5 , 9 5 2 $ 3 1 , 4 4 3 , 8 8 3 P u r c h a s e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n $ 8 , 2 7 6 , 9 1 0 2 . 4 % De m a n d R e s p o n s e 52 ¹ 6 3 ¹ $ 3 , 4 5 7 , 2 8 2 $ 2 2 5 , 9 5 4 $ 0 $ 5 0 , 3 2 3 $ 3 , 7 3 3 , 5 5 9 O t h e r O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s $ 3 8 , 7 1 0 , 5 4 3 1 1 . 4 % Li g h t R a i l 81 - $ 6 4 , 6 8 1 $ 1 0 , 3 1 4 , 5 3 6 $ 8 , 7 3 4 , 1 5 6 $ 7 3 , 8 6 8 $ 1 9 , 1 8 7 , 2 4 1 To t a l O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s $ 3 3 8 , 8 3 3 , 4 9 2 10 0 . 0 % Bu s 33 8 ¹ 7 ¹ $ 1 6 , 9 3 7 , 0 9 3 $ 3 3 , 8 4 3 , 0 2 7 $ 3 3 , 7 2 6 , 6 4 7 $ 1 4 4 , 1 3 7 $ 8 4 , 6 5 0 , 9 0 4 R e c o n c i l i n g O E C a s h E x p e n d i t u r e s $ 9 3 , 1 6 0 , 1 9 7 Va n p o o l 37 2 - $ 1 , 4 2 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 , 4 2 0 P u r c h a s e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n To t a l 9 4 6 7 0 $ 2 1 , 2 2 5 , 8 3 5 $ 7 2 , 6 6 3 , 8 8 3 $ 4 4 , 8 4 3 , 0 0 9 $ 2 8 4 , 2 8 0 $1 3 9 , 0 1 7 , 0 0 7 (R e p o r t e d S e p a r a t e l y ) $ 0 Fa r e R e v e n u e s Lo c a l F u n d s : 6 2 . % St a t e F u n d s : 1 . 6 % Fe d e r a l A s s i s t a n c e : 3 6 . 4 % Op e r a t i o n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Mo d e Op e r a t i n g Ex p e n s e s Fa r e R e v e n u e s Us e s o f Ca p i t a l F u n d s An n u a l Pa s s e n g e r M i l e s An n u a l V e h i c l e Re v e n u e M i l e s An n u a l V e h i c l e Re v e n u e H o u r s Co m m u t e r B u s $1 1 , 0 0 3 , 6 1 2 $ 4 0 4 , 4 0 5 $ 0 6 , 4 4 0 , 4 7 2 4 2 9 , 2 5 0 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 0 8 4 8 , 6 9 3 0. 0 9 9 5 8 7 0 . 7 % 1 1 . 9 Co m m u t e r R a i l $4 9 , 4 2 8 , 2 8 2 $ 2 , 8 5 6 , 6 4 0 $ 3 1 , 4 4 3 , 8 8 3 5 4 , 4 6 2 , 0 9 8 2 , 0 6 2 , 3 3 4 4 , 5 6 9 , 4 0 4 1 4 8 , 8 2 2 1 7 4 . 5 6 9 4 5 5 3 . 3 % 2 0 . 0 De m a n d R e s p o n s e $2 1 , 6 5 4 , 8 5 8 ¹ $ 3 0 0 , 4 4 5 ¹ $ 3 , 7 3 3 , 5 5 9 2 , 8 2 6 , 9 7 9 3 0 1 , 5 0 5 2 , 3 8 5 , 4 7 6 1 5 5 , 2 7 6 0. 0 1 8 3 1 1 5 ¹ 5 9 . 1 % 3 . 9 Li g h t R a i l $7 9 , 9 2 4 , 8 8 9 $ 8 , 1 9 5 , 6 8 0 $ 1 9 , 1 8 7 , 2 4 1 3 7 , 9 0 0 , 6 1 3 8 , 4 0 3 , 8 6 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 6 9 8 3 6 3 , 1 5 3 9 3 . 9 1 1 4 8 1 4 0 . 7 % 1 4 . 4 Bu s $1 5 9 , 1 9 5 , 6 9 7 ¹ $ 1 1 , 3 6 5 , 5 5 7 ¹ $ 8 4 , 6 5 0 , 9 0 4 4 9 , 6 1 2 , 6 6 3 1 2 , 1 8 7 , 6 2 2 1 5 , 8 4 2 , 5 8 7 1 , 2 5 0 , 4 5 2 9. 4 4 9 8 3 4 5 ¹ 4 4 . 4 % 8 . 2 Va n p o o l $1 7 , 6 2 6 , 1 5 4 $ 2 , 8 3 5 , 0 6 4 $ 1 , 4 2 0 2 5 , 4 0 3 , 5 1 2 5 8 7 , 7 2 1 5 , 6 3 3 , 1 6 4 1 2 6 , 6 7 6 0 . 0 5 2 6 3 7 2 4 1 . 4 % 5 . 9 To t a l $ 3 3 8 , 8 3 3 , 4 9 2 $ 2 5 , 9 5 7 , 7 9 1 $ 1 3 9 , 0 1 7 , 0 0 7 1 7 6 , 6 4 6 , 3 3 7 2 3 , 9 7 2 , 2 9 4 3 5 , 8 8 7 , 4 3 7 2 , 0 9 3 , 0 7 2 2 7 7 . 8 1 , 4 8 9 1 , 0 1 6 3 1 . 8 % Pe r f o r m a n c e M e a s u r e s Mo d e Mo d e Co m m u t e r B u s $9 . 8 1 $ 2 2 5 . 9 8 C o m m u t e r B u s $ 1 . 7 1 $ 2 5 . 6 3 0 . 4 8 . 8 Co m m u t e r R a i l $1 0 . 8 2 $ 3 3 2 . 1 3 C o m m u t e r R a i l $ 0 . 9 1 $ 2 3 . 9 7 0 . 5 1 3 . 9 De m a n d R e s p o n s e $9 . 0 8 $ 1 3 9 . 4 6 D e m a n d R e s p o n s e $ 7 . 6 6 $ 7 1 . 8 2 0 . 1 1 . 9 Li g h t R a i l $1 2 . 6 2 $ 2 2 0 . 0 9 L i g h t R a i l $ 2 . 1 1 $ 9 . 5 1 1 . 3 2 3 . 1 Bu s $1 0 . 0 5 $ 1 2 7 . 3 1 B u s $ 3 . 2 1 $ 1 3 . 0 6 0 . 8 9 . 7 Va n p o o l $3 . 1 3 $ 1 3 9 . 1 4 V a n p o o l $ 0 . 6 9 $ 2 9 . 9 9 0 . 1 4 . 6 To t a l $ 9 . 4 4 $ 1 6 1 . 8 8 T o t a l $ 1 . 9 2 $ 1 4 . 1 3 0 . 7 1 1 . 5 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 B u s OE / V R M $ 7 . 6 8 $ 7 . 2 8 # $ 7 . 6 3 # $ 7 . 8 8 # $ 8 . 7 5 # $ 1 0 . 0 5 L i g h t R a i l 2 0 0 6 : 7 . 6 8 20 0 7 : 7 . 2 8 20 0 8 : 7 . 3 7 20 0 9 : 7 . 6 3 20 1 0 : 8 . 2 1 20 1 1 : 7 . 8 8 20 1 2 : 8 . 3 1 20 1 3 : 8 . 7 5 20 1 4 : 1 0 . 2 9 20 1 5 : 1 0 . 0 5 OE / P M T $ 1 . 9 8 $ 1 . 4 4 # $ 1 . 1 9 # $ 1 . 5 0 # $ 1 . 7 8 # $ 3 . 2 1 20 0 6 : 1 . 9 8 20 0 7 : 1 . 4 4 20 0 8 : 1 . 2 20 0 9 : 1 . 1 9 20 1 0 : 1 . 4 5 20 1 1 : 1 . 5 20 1 2 : 1 . 7 6 20 1 3 : 1 . 7 8 20 1 4 : 2 . 8 8 20 1 5 : 3 . 2 1 UP T / V R M 1 . 4 5 1 . 2 8 # 1 . 4 0 # 1 . 1 7 # 1 . 1 7 # 0 . 7 7 20 0 6 : 1 . 4 5 20 0 7 : 1 . 2 8 20 0 8 : 1 . 3 3 20 0 9 : 1 . 4 20 1 0 : 1 . 2 4 20 1 1 : 1 . 1 7 20 1 2 : 1 . 1 3 20 1 3 : 1 . 1 7 20 1 4 : . 8 2 20 1 5 : . 7 7 OE / V R M $ 7 . 1 1 $ 6 . 8 7 # $ 8 . 2 2 # $ 9 . 6 1 # $ 1 0 . 8 3 # $ 1 2 . 6 2 20 0 6 : 7 . 1 1 20 0 7 : 6 . 8 7 20 0 8 : 8 . 0 3 20 0 9 : 8 . 2 2 20 1 0 : 1 0 . 0 8 20 1 1 : 9 . 6 1 20 1 2 : 1 0 . 7 3 20 1 3 : 1 0 . 8 3 20 1 4 : 1 3 . 4 5 20 1 5 : 1 2 . 6 2 OE / P M T $ 0 . 5 3 $ 0 . 5 3 # $ 0 . 5 5 # $ 0 . 7 0 # $ 0 . 8 6 # $ 2 . 1 1 20 0 6 : . 5 3 20 0 7 : . 5 3 20 0 8 : . 5 4 20 0 9 : . 5 5 20 1 0 : . 7 2 20 1 1 : . 7 20 1 2 : . 8 20 1 3 : . 8 6 20 1 4 : 2 . 1 20 1 5 : 2 . 1 1 UP T / V R M 2 . 9 3 2 . 8 7 # 2 . 9 8 # 2 . 8 0 # 2 . 6 1 # 1 . 3 3 20 0 6 : 2 . 9 3 20 0 7 : 2 . 8 7 20 0 8 : 3 . 0 9 20 0 9 : 2 . 9 8 20 1 0 : 2 . 8 8 20 1 1 : 2 . 8 20 1 2 : 2 . 6 9 20 1 3 : 2 . 6 1 20 1 4 : 1 . 3 5 20 1 5 : 1 . 3 3 No t e s : ªD e m a n d R e s p o n s e - T a x i ( D R / T X ) a n d n o n - d e d i c a t e d f l e e t s d o n o t r e p o r t f l e e t a g e d a t a . ¹I n c l u d e s d a t a f o r a c o n t r a c t w i t h a n o t h e r r e p o r t e r . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m U T A H V A L L E Y P A R A T R A N S I T ( N T D I D : E n t i t y th a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e D R / P T . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m T O O E L E C O U N T Y A G I N G & A D U L T S E R V I C E S ( N TD I D : E n t i t y t h a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e D R / P T . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m M V P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T A T I O N ( N T D I D : E n t i t y t h a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e D R / P T . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m V I A ( N T D I D : E n t i t y t h a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e D R / P T . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m T O O E L E C O U N T Y A G I N G & A D U L T S E R V I C E S ( N TD I D : E n t i t y t h a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e M B / P T . *T h i s a g e n c y h a s a p u r c h a s e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p i n w h i c h t h e y b u y s e r v i c e f r o m M V P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T A T I O N ( N T D I D : E n t i t y t h a t D o e s N o t R e p o r t t o N T D ) , a n d i n w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e c a p t u r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t f o r m o d e M B / P T . Av e r a g e Fl e e t A g e i n Ye a r s ª An n u a l Un l i n k e d T r i p s Pe r c e n t Sp a r e V e h i c l e s Ve h i c l e s O p e r a t e d in M a x i m u m S e r v i c e Us e s o f C a p i t a l F u n d s Fi x e d G u i d e w a y Di r e c t i o n a l Ro u t e M i l e s Ve h i c l e s A v a i l a b l e fo r M a x i m u m Se r v i c e Ve h i c l e s O p e r a t e d i n Ma x i m u m S e r v i c e Se r v i c e E f f i c i e n c y Se r v i c e E f f e c t i v e n e s s Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s p e r Ve h i c l e R e v e n u e M i l e Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s p e r Ve h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s p e r Pa s s e n g e r M i l e Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s p e r Un l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r T r i p Un l i n k e d T r i p s p e r Ve h i c l e R e v e n u e M i l e Un l i n k e d T r i p s p e r Ve h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r Op e r a t i n g F u n d i n g S o u r c e s 7. 3 % 62 . 9 % 29 . 8 % g 62 . 0 % 1. 6 % 36 . 4 % $0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $1 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e p e r V e h i c l e R e v e n u e Mi l e : B u s 8 ###### $0 . 0 0 $1 . 0 0 $2 . 0 0 $3 . 0 0 $4 . 0 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e p e r P a s s e n g e r M i l e : Bu s 8 # g ##### 0. 0 0 0. 5 0 1. 0 0 1. 5 0 2. 0 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Un l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r T r i p p e r V e h i c l e Re v e n u e M i l e : B u s g $0 . 0 0 $5 . 0 0 $1 0 . 0 0 $1 5 . 0 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e p e r V e h i c l e R e v e n u e Mi l e : L i g h t R a i l 6: 7 . 6 8 20 0 7 : 7 . 2 8 20 0 8 : 7 . 3 7 20 0 9 : 7 . 6 3 20 1 0 : 8 . 2 1 20 1 1 : 7 . 8 8 20 1 2 : 8 6: 1 . 9 8 20 0 7 : 1 . 4 4 20 0 8 : 1 . 2 20 0 9 : 1 . 1 9 20 1 0 : 1 . 4 5 20 1 1 : 1 . 5 20 1 2 : 1 . 7 6 6: 1 . 4 5 20 0 7 : 1 . 2 8 20 0 8 : 1 . 3 3 20 0 9 : 1 . 4 20 1 0 : 1 . 2 4 20 1 1 : 1 . 1 7 20 1 2 : 1 . 1 6: 7 . 1 1 20 0 7 : 6 . 8 7 20 0 8 : 8 . 0 3 20 0 9 : 8 . 2 2 20 1 0 : 1 0 . 0 8 20 1 1 : 9 . 6 1 20 1 2 : 6: . 5 3 20 0 7 : . 5 3 20 0 8 : . 5 4 20 0 9 : . 5 5 20 1 0 : . 7 2 20 1 1 : . 7 20 1 2 : . 8 20 1 3 : . 8 6: 2 . 9 3 20 0 7 : 2 . 8 7 20 0 8 : 3 . 0 9 20 0 9 : 2 . 9 8 20 1 0 : 2 . 8 8 20 1 1 : 2 . 8 20 1 2 : 2 . 6 $0 . 0 0 $0 . 5 0 $1 . 0 0 $1 . 5 0 $2 . 0 0 $2 . 5 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 Op e r a t i n g E x p e n s e p e r P a s s e n g e r M i l e : Li g h t R a i l .6 1 1 6 60. 0 0 1. 0 0 2. 0 0 3. 0 0 4. 0 0 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 Un l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r T r i p p e r V e h i c l e Re v e n u e M i l e : L i g h t R a i l 20 2 1 N T D Op e r a t i n g Ex p e n s e s b y Mo d e Le s s F u e l C o s t s (D i e s e l , C N G an d G a s o l i n e ) D e p r e c i a t i o n To t a l C o s t s An n u a l V e h i c l e Re v e n u e M i l e s Co s t P e r V e h i c l e Re v e n u e M i l e Wi t h o u t F u e l ex c l u d i n g V e h i c l e De p r e c i a t i o n Bu s S e r v i c e 15 9 , 1 9 5 , 6 9 7 $ (9 , 2 0 2 , 6 3 9 ) $ 18 , 9 8 6 , 2 0 3 $ 16 8 , 9 7 9 , 2 6 1 $ 15 , 8 4 2 , 5 8 7 9. 4 7 $ Co m m u t e r B u s 11 , 0 0 3 , 6 1 2 $ (6 3 1 , 4 4 2 ) $ 10 , 3 7 2 , 1 7 0 $ 66 0 , 6 7 2 15 . 7 0 $ Co m m u t e r R a i l 49 , 4 2 8 , 2 8 2 $ (5 , 5 7 0 , 4 7 8 ) $ 52 , 9 0 1 , 3 4 7 $ 96 , 7 5 9 , 1 5 1 $ 4, 0 3 9 , 5 8 1 10 . 8 6 $ Li g h t R a i l 79 , 9 2 4 , 8 8 9 $ 52 , 9 0 1 , 3 4 7 $ 13 2 , 8 2 6 , 2 3 6 $ 6, 1 1 4 , 1 0 8 13 . 0 7 $ Pa r a t r a n s i t S e r v i c e 21 , 6 5 4 , 8 5 8 $ (5 8 5 , 9 5 2 ) $ 4, 6 4 4 , 9 0 5 $ 25 , 7 1 3 , 8 1 1 $ 1, 7 0 9 , 3 9 6 12 . 3 3 $ Ot h e r S e r v i c e 17 , 6 7 7 , 1 0 0 $ (9 1 3 , 4 2 4 ) $ 4, 6 1 5 , 0 8 6 $ 21 , 3 7 8 , 7 6 2 $ 5, 7 0 5 , 1 7 0 2. 9 4 $ NT D T o t a l s 33 8 , 8 8 4 , 4 3 8 $ (1 6 , 9 0 3 , 9 3 5 ) $ 13 4 , 0 4 8 , 8 8 7 $ 45 6 , 0 2 9 , 3 9 0 $ 34 , 0 7 1 , 5 1 4 9. 4 5 $ Fu e l C o s t s 16 , 9 0 3 , 9 3 5 $ NT D P l u s F u e l 47 2 , 9 3 3 , 3 2 5 $ CA F R e x p e n s e s 47 2 , 9 3 3 , 3 2 5 $ Di f f e r e n c e - $ Ut a h T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y 20 2 1 N T D O p e r a t i n g C o s t p e r M i l e b y M o d e So u r c e s : 20 2 1 F e d e r a l T r a n s i t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s N a t i o n a l T r a n s i t D a t a b a s e ( N T D ) , Ag e n c y Pr o f i l e , ht t p s : / / w w w . t r a n s i t . d o t . g o v / n t d / t r a n s i t - a g e n c y - p r o f i l e s 20 2 2 U t a h T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y C o m p r e h e n s i v e A n n u a l F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t ( C A F R ) , h t t p : / / w w w . r i d e u t a . c o m / A b o u t - UT A / U T A - R e p o r t s - a n d - D o c u m e n t s 20 2 1 C O S T P E R M I L E DR A F T f o r S p r i n g 2 0 2 3 A p p r o v a l Ad d e n d u m 7 : P a r a t r a n s i t C o s t s 20 2 3 - 2 0 2 4 S p o n s o r e d S e r v i c e : 2 0 0 S o u t h , 9 0 0 S o u t h , 2 1 0 0 S o u t h , 1 0 0 0 N 48 , 6 9 3 Co m m u t e r B u s V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s ( 2 0 2 1 N T D ) 36 3 , 1 5 3 Li g h t R a i l V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s ( 2 0 2 1 N T D ) 1, 2 5 0 , 4 5 2 Bu s V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s ( 2 0 2 1 N T D ) 1, 6 6 2 , 2 9 8 To t a l V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s f o r B u s , C o m m u t e r B u s , a n d L R T 15 5 , 2 7 6 To t a l D e m a n d R e s p o n s e V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s ( 2 0 2 1 N T D ) 9% <- p l u g i n t o c o s t c a l c u l a t o r , c e l l B 1 6 De m a n d R e s p o n s e P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l V e h i c l e R e v e n u e H o u r s f o r B u s , C o m m u t e r B u s , a n d L i g h t R a i l Dr a f t f o r S p r i n g 2 0 2 3 A p p r o v a l Ad d e n d u m 7 20 2 3 - 2 0 2 4 S p o n s o r e d S e r v i c e : 1 0 0 0 N , 2 0 0 S o u t h , 9 0 0 S o u t h , a n d 2 1 0 0 S o u t h VA R I A B L E V A L U E S SP O N S O R E D S E R V I C E C O S T 9. 4 7 $ Mo s t r e c e n t N T D C o s t p e r R e v e n u e M i l e , B u s S e r v i c e ( 1 ) 9. 4 7 $ Mo s t r e c e n t N T D C o s t P e r M i l e - B u s S e r v i c e 2. 2 % An n u a l e s c a l a t o r r a t e ( 2 ) 2 Nu m b e r o f Y e a r s s i n c e N T D r e p o r t 9. 8 9 $ ND T r a t e A d j u s t e d t o S e r v i c e Y e a r C o s t s 20 % Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e D i s c o u n t o f f t h e 3 5 % b u i l t i n t o N T D ( 3 ) 7. 9 1 $ Di s c o u n t e d N T D A d j u s t e d t o S e r v i c e Y e a r C o s t s 61 4 , 1 3 2 Sp o n s o r e d R e v e n u e M i l e s : 1 0 0 0 N , 2 0 0 S w e e k e n d s , 9 0 0 S , a n d 2 1 0 0 S 61 4 , 1 3 2 Sp o n s o r e d R e v e n u e M i l e s 4, 8 5 7 , 7 8 4 . 1 2 $ To t a l M i l e a g e C o s t , W i t h o u t F u e l , A n n u a l 9% Sp o n s o r e d P a r a t r a n s i t S e r v i c e r a t e ( 4 ) 43 7 , 2 0 0 . 5 7 $ Ad d P a r a t r a n s i t S e r v i c e 5, 2 9 4 , 9 8 4 . 6 9 $ To t a l A n n u a l O p e r a t i n g C o s t s w i t h o u t f u e l 3. 9 0 $ Fu e l C o s t p e r G a l l o n ( S e r v i c e Y e a r B u d g e t e d C o s t ) 3. 9 0 $ Fu e l C o s t p e r G a l l o n 4. 8 Fu e l E f f i c i e n c y , M i l e s p e r G a l l o n ( a d j u s t p e r v e h i c l e t y p e ) 4. 8 0 Bu s M i l e s p e r G a l l o n 61 4 , 1 3 2 Sp o n s o r e d R e v e n u e M i l e s 49 8 , 9 8 2 . 2 5 $ To t a l F u e l C o s t 49 3 , 0 6 1 $ 20 1 9 A n n u a l S p o n s o r e d V e h i c l e L e a s e C o s t s 49 , 3 0 6 . 1 4 $ Pe r V e h i c l e P r i n c i p a l + I n t e r e s t R a t e 10 Sp o n s o r e d V e h i c l e s 10 Ve h i c l e s n e e d e d f o r s p o n s o r e d s e r v i c e 49 3 , 0 6 1 . 4 0 $ To t a l A n n u a l V e h i c l e C o s t f o r S p o n s o r e d S e r v i c e 17 5 , 3 8 1 $ 20 2 2 A n n u a l S p o n s o r e d V e h i c l e L e a s e C o s t s 43 , 8 4 5 . 2 5 $ Pe r V e h i c l e P r i n c i p a l + I n t e r e s t R a t e 4 Sp o n s o r e d V e h i c l e s 4 Ve h i c l e s n e e d e d f o r s p o n s o r e d s e r v i c e 17 5 , 3 8 1 . 0 0 $ To t a l A n n u a l V e h i c l e C o s t f o r S p o n s o r e d S e r v i c e 66 8 , 4 4 2 . 4 0 $ 6, 4 6 2 , 4 0 9 . 3 4 $ T O T A L (1 ) N T D C o s t p e r R e v e n u e M i l e h a s b e e n a d j u s t e d t o e x c l u d e f u e l e x p e n s e b u t d o e s in c l u d e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 % f o r c a p i t a l m a i n t e n a n c e ( e . g . e n g i n e r e p l a c e m e n t , e t c ) . (2 ) T h e a n n u a l e s c a l a t o r i s a c a l c u l a t e d a v e r a g e o f t h e P C E C P I o v e r a t w e n t y y e a r pe r i o d . (3 ) U T A w i l l d i s c o u n t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r g e s i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e s c a l e o f t h e se r v i c e i n c r e a s e i n r e v e n u e m i l e s . (4 ) P a r a t r a n s i t S e r v i c e r a t e i s e q u a l t o t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e m o s t r e c e n t N T D r e p o r t e d to t a l d e m a n d r e s p o n s e v e h i c l e r e v e n u e h o u r s a s c o m p a r e d t o t o t a l v e h i c l e r e v e n u e ho u r s f o r B u s , C o m m u t e r B u s a n d L i g h t R a i l . Item F2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE:Resolution Supporting Salt Lake City’s Participation in the Community Renewable Energy Program MOTION 1 I move the Council adopt the resolution. MOTION 2 I move the Council not adopt the resolution. ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 06/27/2023 Date Received: ______________________________Lisa Shaffer (Jun 27, 2023 15:04 MDT) Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer 06/27/2023Date Sent to Council: TO:Salt Lake City Council Darin Mano, Chair DATE: June 27, 2023 FROM:Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Director SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting Salt Lake City’s Participation in the Community Renewable Energy Program STAFF CONTACTS:Sophia Nicholas Sustainability Deputy Director Sophia.Nicholas@slcgov.com | 801-535-7755 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution endorsing the City’s ongoing participation in developing a community renewable energy program. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In order to protect the public health and safety of Salt Lake City’s residents, ensure access to clean air and water, and secure the livability of our environment, Salt Lake City is committed to reducing climate-harming emissions and supporting greater uses of renewable energy in the community and for municipal operations. In 2016, the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Jackie Biskupski adopted a joint resolution establishing, among other targets, a goal to achieve 100% renewable energy for its community electricity supply by 2032. As part of that effort, Salt Lake City began collaborating with Rocky Mountain Power and other Utah communities on a pathway to achieve a “net-100%” renewable electricity supply for the entire community. (The term “net” denotes matching the amount of electricity a participating community P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor uses annually with the amount of new renewable energy delivered to the grid through new energy developments.) In March 2019, the Utah Legislature passed the Community Renewable Energy Act, Utah Code ⸹⸹54-17-901 to -909 (the “Act”), and Governor Herbert signed this legislation into law. The legislation authorizes a filing to the Utah Public Service Commission (“PSC”) to create rules, rates and expectations for communities desiring to be served by a net-100% renewable electricity portfolio by 2030. Rocky Mountain Power is the facilitator of the program for participating communities in their service territory. In August 2019, as required by the Act, the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Biskupski passed a new joint resolution updating the Salt Lake City community electricity goal date to 2030, including the 2030 target date for achieving net-100% renewable electricity. Since that time, Salt Lake City has worked with Rocky Mountain Power and 17 other communities in developing a community renewable energy program application that meets the requirements of the Act. Please see attached resolution and visual graphic for more details. In 2023, the Administration expects Rocky Mountain Power to submit this application to the PSC. The application must include, among other items, information about the customers within the boundaries of the participating communities, projected rates under the proposed program, an agreement between each participating community and the qualified electric utility (a “Utility Agreement”), a low-income plan, a proposed solicitation plan for the acquisition of renewable energy resources, and a draft ordinance that establishes a participating community’s participation in the program, which can only be considered for adoption by each community following approval of the application by the PSC (the “Ordinance”). The Ordinance has been developed with input from Salt Lake City staff and Salt Lake City Council Member Dan Dugan, who also serves as the Community Renewable Energy Agency (“CREA”) Board Chair. The draft Ordinance was shared with the City Council in November 2022. After PSC approval of the program application, the Ordinance will be sent to the City Council for approval or1 disapproval of Salt Lake City’s participation in the approved program. City Council has the ultimate authority to choose whether the City will participate in the Community Renewable Energy Program when considering the Ordinance. The remaining elements of the program application have been developed jointly between the communities, CREA, and RMP. Completion of the final outstanding item, the Utility Agreement, will allow RMP to finalize the program application for PSC submission. The participating communities, RMP, and the CREA Board anticipate finalizing the Utility Agreement in the coming weeks. 1 After RMP submits the program application, the PSC will undertake its review process. It is important to note that the PSC may or may not make modifications to the program from what is submitted in the program application as part of the review and approval process. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor At this critical juncture, the Administration requests the City Council signal its continued support for the City’s ongoing participation in developing the Community Renewable Energy Program application, in conjunction with the other participating communities, the CREA, and Rocky Mountain Power. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor Exhibit A- Resolution P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 RESOLUTION NO. ___ OF 2023 (A Resolution of the City Council endorsing the City’s ongoing participation in development of a community renewable energy program) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), as a municipal government, is responsible for promoting the public health and safety of its residents, including access to clean air, clean water, and a livable environment; and WHEREAS, energy resources utilized as a municipal government and community significantly impact public health and safety, including the economic and social well-being of current and future residents; and WHEREAS, there is scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change and the connection between human activity, especially the combustion of fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, and warming of the planet; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is already feeling the effects of climate change locally through increased temperatures, changes in water systems, extreme weather events, and other disruptions that threaten our economy, residents, and overall quality of life; and WHEREAS, the transition to a low-carbon community reliant on the efficient use of renewable energy resources will provide a range of benefits including improved air quality, enhanced public health, increased national and energy security, local green jobs, reduced reliance on finite resources and myriad other positive outcomes; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is committed to helping facilitate this transition alongside other national and international communities that have prioritized addressing climate change by investing in clean energy to enhance the well-being of current and future generations; and WHEREAS, electricity generation has contributed the largest share of Salt Lake City’s calculated municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the on November 1, 2016, the City Council and Mayor adopted a Joint Resolution stating certain energy commitments, including its goal of ensuring the transition to 100% renewable energy for its community electricity supply by 2032; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the Utah Legislature adopted the Community Renewable Energy Act, Utah Code §§ 54-17-901 to -909 (the “Act”) to enable development of a community renewable energy program; and WHEREAS, the Act contemplates that a qualified electric utility will file an application with the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) for approval of a community renewable energy program to serve any municipality and county that chooses to become a participating community (each, a “Community”); and WHEREAS, the program application must include, among other items, information about the customers within the boundaries of the Communities, projected rates under the proposed program, an agreement between each Community and the qualified electric utility (a “Utility Agreement”), a low-income plan, a proposed solicitation plan for the acquisition of renewable energy resources, and a draft ordinance that establishes a Community’s participation in the program, which would only be considered for adoption by each Community following approval of the application by the PSC (the “Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, as directed by the Act, the PSC adopted Utah Administrative Rule R746- 314 (the “Rules”) to facilitate implementation of the Act; WHEREAS, the Rules require that the Communities enter into an agreement that “establishes a decision-making process for program design, resource solicitation, resource acquisition, and other program issues and provides a means of ensuring that [the Communities] will be able to reach a single joint decision on any necessary program issues”; and WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2021, the City and the Communities entered into the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Public Entities Regarding the Community Renewable Energy Program, outlining a means of ensuring such single joint decisions can be made through the Community Renewable Energy Agency (“CREA”); and WHEREAS, Councilmember Dan Dugan represents the City by serving as a Board Member on the CREA Board and has been appointed by the CREA Board to serve as Chair; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, to participate in a community renewable energy program application, Communities must first adopt a resolution setting forth a 100% renewable electricity goal by 2030 and subsequently enter into a Utility Agreement with the qualified electric utility; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, on August 27, 2019, the City Council and Mayor formally adopted a Joint Resolution establishing a “community goal of achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric energy supply for participating customers from renewable energy resources by 2030”; and WHEREAS, the City, CREA, the Communities, and the qualified electric utility, Rocky Mountain Power (“RMP”), have negotiated a Utility Agreement in compliance with the Act; and WHEREAS, the Mayor, as Chief Executive of the City will sign the Utility Agreement on behalf of the City, and the City Council supports Councilmember Dan Dugan’s role and authority to sign on behalf of CREA as the CREA Board Chair; and WHEREAS, the City, CREA and the Communities have assisted RMP with developing a community renewable energy program application that meets the requirements of the Act, and RMP is preparing to finalize the application to the PSC; and 2 WHEREAS, at this critical juncture in the process of developing and submitting for approval a proposed community renewable energy program application, the City Council wishes to signal its ongoing support for the proposed community renewable energy program application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby ratifies the City’s ongoing participation in developing the community renewable energy program application, in conjunction with the Communities, CREA, and RMP. 2. 3. The City Council hereby demonstrates support of Councilmember Dan Dugan in executing the Utility Agreement in his role as Chair of the CREA Board. The City Council reserves its rights to separately consider adoption of the Ordinance. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ___________________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________________ Darin Mano, Chair, Salt Lake City Council Attest: ___________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form: ________ Date: _J_u_ne__2_7_, _20_2_3____________ 3 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor Exhibit B- Community Renewable Energy Program Timeline P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 03/29/2022Lisa Shaffer _______________Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __0_4_/0__1_/2_0_2__2______ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 25, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 385-226-7227 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning text amendment for the reconstruction of historic carriage houses for the purposes of creating an additional dwelling unit. Since the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation on this proposed text amendment, an ordinance has not been provided for this transmittal. If the City Council wishes to approve the proposal, the applicant will be required to draft adoptable language so that an ordinance can be drafted for City Council approval. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is unknown because the applicant has yet to identity an application process for a carriage house reconstruction. It is unknown if a future identified application would off-set staff time associated with a review of a carriage house reconstruction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, in order to reconstruct or restore the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. Through working with Planning on potential options to create an additional dwelling unit in a reconstructed version of the historic carriage house, several zoning barriers were identified. The barriers are described in detail within the staff report. In order to address the goals and desires of reconstructing a historic carriage house at 222 E. 4th Ave, the applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Aerial of Subject Property Photograph of Subject Carriage House, 2017 The submitted text amendment language specifies the eligibility criteria for a potential carriage house reconstruction as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site, also located in the following zoning districts: • SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) •RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) • RO (Residential Office) • I (Institutional) This specific criteria language limits the applicability to 5 properties citywide, which include the following: 222 E. 4th Avenue, 259 E. 7th Avenue, 529 E. South Temple, 603 E. South Temple and 1206 W. 200 S. The applicant didn’t specify a clear process for review or an application. The language does allude to a review by the Historic Landmark Commission but isn’t clear on the process. The standards and criteria provided by the applicant require evidence of the carriage house, parking requirements, prohibition of any future subdivision of the property, no requirement for an owner occupancy, and flexibility of zoning regulations of accessory structures and density limitations in the applicable base zoning restrictions. The provided text amendment language is missing key sections that lack clarification on authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application. Staff attempted to address the concerns with the proposed language with the applicant several times. Staff ultimately forwarded the language to the Historic Landmark Commission for input and direction. The Historic Landmark Commission discussed the proposal during a hearing on July 16, 2020, and unanimously decided to forward a negative recommendation to Planning Commission. After the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant did not address the identified issues identified by staff or the items discussed during the Historic Landmark Commission hearing. The applicant requested to continue the text amendment to Planning Commission. Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on February 23, 2022. The Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation on the proposal. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further historic preservation goals. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents. However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The application was submitted on February 6, 2020. • The application assigned to Kelsey Lindquist on February 7, 2020. • An Online Open House was held during April 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020. • Staff received public comments via email and comments provided direction to the applicant. Staff included these comments within the staff report for both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission. • On July 16, 2020, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. • On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records a) HLC Agenda of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access) b) HLC Minutes of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access) c) HLC Staff Report of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access Report) Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020 a) Mailed and Posted Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda/Minutes 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – July 16, 2020 a) Staff Report b) Agenda/Minutes 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 6) MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING a) MAILED NOTICE b) STAFF REPORT c) AGENDA/MINUTES 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING a) STAFF REPORT b) AGENDA/MINUTES 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 6) MAILING LIST 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00106 February 6, 2020 February 7, 2020 Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text amendment application. Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff analysis and processing. March 9, 2020 April 8, 2020 April 1, 2020 May 15, 2020 July 2, 2020 Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant. Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties Application posted for online open house. End of online open house. Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve recipients. July 9, 2020 Staff report posted to Planning’s website. July 16, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing. February 11, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve recipients. February 11, 2022 February 23, 2022 Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties. Planning Commission Public Hearing. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00106 Carriage House Reconstruction – On behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue, is requesting a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and list as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE:Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday, or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM200-00106. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) PLANNING COMMISSION a) Mailing Notice February 11, 2022 3) PLANNING COMMISSION b) Staff Report February 23, 2022 Staf f Repor t PLANNING DIVISIO DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To:Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Date: Re: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930 February 17, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide MASTER PLAN: Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and The Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35, RO, I, SR-1A REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Stephen Pace, to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning text amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant’s Proposed Code C. Applicant’s Narrative D. Eligible Properties E. City Plan Considerations F. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards G. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLNPCM2020-00106 1 February 16, 2022 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING Staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on July 16, 2020 to gain feedback and direction on the proposed language. To watch the full discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission meeting can be viewed via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg7TG8fSOc&t=11s. Ultimately, the briefing resulted in the HLC forwarding a negative recommendation to the Planning Commissionwith the following motion (language pulled from HLC minutes): Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the property and making the property more economically sensible. 2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on properties like this. 3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35 4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances. In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to the City more broadly as a whole. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENT: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 E. 4th Avenue and 181 N. B Street, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Planning on a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 E. 4th Avenue. This historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard Kletting. Additional information on the specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in Attachment C. PLNPCM2020-00106 2 February 16, 2022 Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue Photo of Subject Carriage House, 2018 PLNPCM2020-00106 3 February 16, 2022 The applicant has approached the City with the intent of rebuilding the remains of a carriage house on the property located at 222 E. 4th Avenue, in order to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, minimum lot width and minimum lot areas for the applicable zoning district. The Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations would also prohibit the applicant’s proposal to reconstruct a carriage house as a dwelling unit on the property. The following provides a summary of these barriers: 1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the proposed location would not be allowed because: a. All principal structures required to have frontage on a public street (21A.36.010.B) must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing principal structure on the property. b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet per single-family dwelling (21A.24.130.C), so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet which does not meet the minimum size requirement. c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations (21A.24.130) due to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines. 2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflictswith the reconstructed carriage house as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephen Pace owns the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house. Staff acknowledges that the barriers to achieving the goals of restoring the carriage house prohibit the applicant from introducing an additional dwelling unit on the property. The proposed text amendment is essentially site specific in order to permit the construction of an additional single-family dwelling on the property. The proposed language will not offer or introduce an overall solution to other contributing structures within a local or national historic district. PROPOSED LANGUAGE: The applicant provided a list of “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, if they addressed staff’s recommendations, could be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s proposal is in Attachment B. To better organize and summarize the proposal, Staff attempted to categorize the provided language into the standard ordinance format (see below). Purpose Statement: No purpose statement provided by the applicant. Definitions •CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. Applicability For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places. • PLNPCM2020-00106 4 February 16, 2022 • • The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential Office) and the I (Institutional). There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property. The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence through at least two of the following methods: o o o o Historic photographs Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Planning, zoning or building permit records. Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc. Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. •A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Standards/Criteria •A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family residence. • • Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit. The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure. •If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a neighboring property, additional buffers may be required. • • • • The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally The two residences could not be subdivided in the future. The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property. Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. City Goals Regarding Historic Preservation Staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing housing stock in alreadydeveloped sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. With that said, Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and introducing additional housing stock. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents (see Attachment E). However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. Additionally, the language is essentially site-specific. 2. Rational for Negative Recommendation Planning Staff has identified the following specific issues regarding the proposed language: PLNPCM2020-00106 5 February 16, 2022 1. As proposed, the language would affect only one property by providing some allowance for the applicant to construct a second single-family dwelling on the site. However, as an amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Staff takes into consideration the limiting impact the proposal would have on incentivizing historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Staff acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Even though the applicant indicates that there are 5 properties that could potentially qualify for the allowance, many of those properties already have secondary dwelling units or are owned by entities uninterested in pursuing this allowance. 2. As is, the language is unenforceable. This means that without clear language and a framework to review proposals for a reconstruction of a historic carriage house, there could be very few limitations. While the applicant provides a suggestion to have the Historic Landmark Commission review the proposed reconstruction, it doesn’t provide clear framework for such review. 3. The proposed language doesn’t provide a way to administer the allowance of how an applicant would apply to reconstruct a historic carriage house. 4. The language does not account for how any potential impacts to abutting and adjacent properties would be mitigated. 5. Overall, the proposed amendment is missing crucial language for Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to take the proposal under consideration. NEXT STEPS: The Historic Landmark Commission provided a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, due to the noted negative recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission and the issues noted with the proposed language. Once a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, the recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a final decision; thus, it is not appealable by the applicant. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment. PLNPCM2020-00106 6 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties. PLNPCM2020-00106 7 February 16, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 98 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE PLNPCM2020-00106 190 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 PLNPCM2020-00106 110 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 PLNPCM2020-00106 121 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment April 9, 2020 The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. PLNPCM2020-00106 132 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. PLNPCM2020-00106 143 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for Historic Carriage House Structures UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE April 3, 2020 TO: FROM: CC: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this application without further additions by the city. We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 154 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 2 are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one public commission. In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020, reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter 21A.34.020. 2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically- detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 165 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 176 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 4 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. 3) Meeting off-site parking standards. Submitted on February 4, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 187 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 5 replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable application and review process that would only involve review before one commission and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process change. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 198 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 6 neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2109 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 7 “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 210 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 8 from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 221 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 9 Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 232 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 10 The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 243 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 11 Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 254 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE Links included in applicant's narrative: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/HLC/2020/07%20July%202020/00106StaffReport.pdf http:// utahcfa.org/architect/richard_karl_kletting PLNPCM2020-00106 265 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE April 9, 2020 TO: FROM: CC: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner NOTE Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi- family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. PLNPCM2020-00106 276 FebruaJruyly1 69, 20220 Page 2 As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. APPLICABILITY The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district). The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites may increase in the future. TEXT AMENDMENT The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse- drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 287 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. PLNPCM2020-00106 298 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 4 The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single- family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some PLNPCM2020-00106 3209 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 5 original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) PLNPCM2020-00106 310 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 6 Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. PLNPCM2020-00106 321 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 7 The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 332 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 8 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 343 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 9 Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. PLNPCM2020-00106 354 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 10 On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. PLNPCM2020-00106 365 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 Page 11 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. PLNPCM2020-00106 376 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 387 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 398 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 4309 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 410 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 421 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 432 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 443 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 454 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 465 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 476 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 487 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 498 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 5409 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 510 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 521 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 532 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 543 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 554 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 565 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 576 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 587 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 598 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 6509 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 610 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 621 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 632 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 643 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 654 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 665 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 676 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 687 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 698 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 7609 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 710 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 721 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 732 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 743 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 754 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 765 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties: 1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.) 2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple) 3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple) 4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue) 5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue) The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs. PLNPCM2020-00106 776 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 787 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 798 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 8709 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 810 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 821 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 832 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 843 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 854 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 865 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 876 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 887 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 898 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 9809 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 910 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 921 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 932 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 943 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 954 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 965 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 976 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 987 FebruaJruyly196, 20220 PLNPCM2020-00106 998 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 19090 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1010 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1021 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1032 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1043 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1054 FebruaJruyly196, 20220 PLNPCM2020-00106 1065 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1076 FebruaJruyly196, 20220 PLNPCM2020-00106 1087 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1098 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 11009 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1110 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1121 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1132 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1143 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1154 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1165 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1176 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1187 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1198 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 12109 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1210 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1221 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1232 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1243 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1254 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1265 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1276 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1287 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1298 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 13209 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1310 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1321 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1332 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1343 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1354 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1365 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1376 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1387 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1398 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 14309 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1410 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1421 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1432 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1443 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1454 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1465 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1476 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1487 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1498 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 15409 February 16, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 1510 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1521 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1532 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1543 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1554 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1565 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1576 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1587 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1598 Februaryly196, 2022 PLFNePbCruMa1 2r65y0 09l y21096-,020012026 PLNPCM2020-00106 1610 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPCMF2e0b12r60u21-a0r0yl 1y10966, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 1632 Februaryly196, 2022 PLNPFCeMb2r1u06a2J 43ru0yl-y010961, 0260 2 02 ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance There are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: •Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. •Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o o o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. •Avenues Master Plan The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. o The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: •Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. •Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o Community Preservation Plan The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of important historic features on historic properties. Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts. Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted City plans. Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City. PLNPCM2020-00106 164 February 16, 2022 Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource. Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan. Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in which historic or character preservation is proposed. Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties. Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City. Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the general public. Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. Initiatives: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation. Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. PLNPCM2020-00106 165 February 16, 2022 1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. 8. Support homeless services. Avenues Master Plan Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Staff Discussion: The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and creating additional housing stock. Staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. It is impossible to support a text amendment proposal that does not include actual text to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of projects under the proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered. The applicant could remedy this by drafting actual code language, productively working with staff of the Planning Division to put the proposal into an ordinance format, in recognition that the Planning Commission cannot forward a recommendation to the City Council that is not in an adoptable format. PLNPCM2020-00106 166 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF ZONING AMENDMENT STANDARDS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council considers the following factors. Although the proposed ordinance is not complete, Staff drafted responses to the factors based on the concepts of the proposed ordinance. FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. ordinance; 3. Whether a proposed The specific proposal is not in While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. text amendment is consistent with the purposes and ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may imposed additional standards; 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment The specific proposal is not in ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. PLNPCM2020-00106 167 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on February 11, 2022, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached. PLNPCM2020-00106 168 February 16, 2022 May 8, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Dear Mr. Lindquist, I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a quarter of a block from the subject property. The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city. I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic integrity. I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request. Respectfully, Jim Bradley Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 PLNPCM2020-00106 17649 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 From: To: Barbara Hounsell Stephen C Pace Cc: Subject: Date: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM Hello Stephen, Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House reconstruction project. Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape materials, vegetation, or water and water retention. Sincerely, Barbara Hounsell Alex Cross Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC Cc: Scott Cruze Kelsey Lindquist PLNPCM2020-00106 1750 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 From: To: Carol Foster Lindquist, Kelsey Cc:Paul Foster Subject: Date: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM To whom it may concern: We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at 163 B St. We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan. Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood, promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term housing for families or individuals. Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed that, living here since 2002. Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and Stephen explained there weren’t any. Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. Many thanks, Carol and Paul Foster PLNPCM2020-00106 1761 FebruaJruyly196, 20202 PLNPCM2020-00106 172 February 16, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 173 February 16, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 174 February 16, 2022 PLNPCM2020-00106 175 February 16, 2022 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018. A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that under the circumstances I would not bother him again. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 176 February 16, 2022 3) PLANNING COMMISSION c) Agenda/Minutes February 23, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the following determination by the Planning Commission Chair: I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases, that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would be present. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: •https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273 2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903 3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) 4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) 6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226- 7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION a) Staff Report July 16, 2020 BACKGROUND: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 4th Avenue and 181 N B Street, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in an effort to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Salt Lake City on a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 4th Avenue. This historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard Kletting. Additional information on the site specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in Attachment C. Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue The applicant has approached the City on numerous occasions with the intent of rebuilding the carriage house to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations currently do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, as well as lot minimums for the applicable zoning district. Additionally, the applicant’s plan does not conform to the regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units. The following provides a summary of these barriers: 1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered to be a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the proposed location would not be allowed because: a. All principal structures must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing principal structure on the property. b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet per single-family dwelling so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet so it does not meet the minimum size requirement. PLNPCM2020-00106 2 July 9, 2020 c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations due to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines. 2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephan Pace owns the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house. The proposed text amendment, while it is fairly site specific, proposes solutions to the listed conflicts within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED LANGUAGE: The applicant provided a list of proposed “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language. The applicant’s proposal is in AttachmentB. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, when drafted, will be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and will be structured in the following way: 1. Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve) 2. Definition of Terms 3. Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply) 4. Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process) 5. Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application) Staff organized the applicant’s list of conditions into these categories in an effort to better summarize the proposal for the Historic Landmark Commission and to begin to organize the language into a standard ordinance format (see below). Staff commentary and requested direction from the Historic Landmark Commission are at the end of the ordinance summary. Purpose The applicant did not provide a specific purpose statement, but Staff believes the following should be considered when developing the legal purpose statement: o To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. o o Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site. Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale of single-family residential neighborhoods. o o Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an existing structure. Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic preservation goals. Definitions CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 3 July 9, 2020 Applicability For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places. The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential Office) and the I (Institutional). There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property. The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence through at least two of the following methods: o o o o Historic photographs Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Planning, zoning or building permit records. Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc. Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Standards/Criteria A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family residence. Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit. The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure. If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a neighboring property, additional buffers may be required. The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally The two residences could not be subdivided in the future. The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property. Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified. STAFF COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC LANDMARKCOMMISSION Staff is presenting the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain feedback and direction prior to finalizing draft ordinance language. This section is organized to relate each question or comment to the applicable section within the proposed language above. The following sections provides Staff’s concerns and opinions on what the language is missing, potential impacts, as well as needed clarification. Purpose The applicant did not provide a purpose statement for the proposed ordinance. Staff developed some ideas to incorporate into the purpose statement. The ideas and potential language were pulled from the applicant’s narrative, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and applicable master plans. Point to Discuss Does the Commission agree with the statements and/or have anything to add? Definitions The applicant provided the definition of Carriage House to Staff. Staff believes that there are additional definitions that will be needed to provide direction and clarity for the proposed language. PLNPCM2020-00106 4 July 9, 2020 Points to Discuss Should Historic Footprint be defined as part of this proposal? Are there other needed terms that the Commission can identify? Other terms may be included in the definition section as the ordinance is developed. Applicability The Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority to review alterations to properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposal encompasses properties listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and properties listed as Salt Lake City Landmarks. Points to Discuss Should the proposal be modified to strictly include properties that are Salt Lake City Landmarks and listed in the applicable zoning districts? This change would clarify the review authority but would not significantly modify the number of properties eligible for the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house, due to the limiting zoning districts. The applicant provided a list of 4 items that could be used to determine the existence of a carriage house, which include; historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, zoning and building permit history and identifiable structural elements. The applicant proposes that only 2 of the 4 would be required to satisfy the burden of proof. Points to Discuss Staff is concerned that the proposed criteria is too loose. o This concern is directly connected to the potential impact that a reconstructed historic carriage house could have on abutting properties, due to height and setbacks. Pictorialevidence or information should be required tounderstand the design, materials and height of the historic structure. o o If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural. Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status of the landmark site? o o o o Without pictorial evidence, the proposed language would essentially permit the building of a new single-family structure, which is not the purpose or intent of this language. Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and determined? If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns? What would be the review process for a historic carriage house that does not have any pictorial evidence? The suggested zoning and building permit history would be difficult to satisfy, since the full records are not available or encompass all of the permit history. Does the Commission have any additional concerns or recommendations with other provisions in the proposed applicability section? Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. Points to discuss The Landmark Commission does not have the authority to approve projects that increase density beyond what is allowed by ordinance. Staff proposes to draft the ordinance so that an extra dwelling unit would be permitted by right within a restored or reconstructed carriage house. The Landmark Commission would then review the restoration or reconstruction. Construction in the H Historic Overlay is reviewed in a number of ways. o Minor Alteration Applications are the most commonly submitted applications for the alteration of a site. These applicationsare alsoapplicable for the construction of a detached garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit. PLNPCM2020-00106 5 July 9, 2020 .Since minor alterations are applicable for the ADUs and detached accessory structures, Staff initially considered this the most appropriate application for the proposal.However, this type of reconstruction has potentiallymore impacts to the abutting and adjacent properties. The potentialimpactsinclude the location, setbacks, height and footprint. o Major Alteration or New Construction Application requires the review and approval of the Historic Landmark Commission. . . . Due to the potential for impacts, would the process for new construction or a major alteration be more appropriate? A new construction or major alteration application would require Historic Landmark Commission review and approval. Depending upon the recommendation regarding the pictorial evidence, the new construction process may provide clearer guidelines and standards for the design of the structure. Does the Commission have a recommendation on the process? Standards/Criteria Points to Discuss Applicant proposes that it could only be used as a single-family residence. Are their pitfalls with simply allowing it to be reconstructed for typical accessory uses? Currently, proposed construction in the Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not conform to dimensional zoning standards, such as setbacks and building coverage requires Special Exception approval by the HLC. The applicant proposes that the HLC should be able to approve dimensional zoning exceptions through the Certificate of Appropriateness. o o Staff supports this idea, due to the need for zoning flexibility for reconstructed historic carriage houses. o Staff does have a concern with coupling the review process and any needed special exceptions, due to the potential for impacts to the adjacent and abutting properties. .There should likely be a notification process to provide notice to effected property owners and tenants. The applicant suggests that the reconstructed carriage house be limited to the historic footprint. o The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps are fairly accurate for the historic footprint determination. .Is the Landmark Commission comfortable with the utilization of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for this purpose, if the historic foundation or walls are no longer visible? The applicant suggests that additional buffers may be required if an impact is determined. How will the size of an additional buffer be determined? Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration? o KEY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Limitations of the Proposed Language: Staff acknowledges that the applicantwishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Through limiting the language, as proposed, the proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance would potentially impact 5 properties. While the proposed language is narrow in focus and addresses rather specific issues, the overall goal of the proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines. The proposed language incentivizes the preservation or reconstruction of historic features on historic properties. STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION: Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: PLNPCM2020-00106 6 July 9, 2020 Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outlined in this master plan. o o o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Avenues Master Plan The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. o The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to creating incentives for historic preservation, as well as zoning flexibility to create additional housing units. All of the applicable policies and guidelines are discussed in Attachment E and F. As discussed in those attachments, the proposed zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies. NEXT STEPS: One of the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission is to make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments that involve historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites. After the Historic Landmark Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the concepts of the proposed ordinance, Planning Staff will work with the applicant to develop the actual ordinance language, which will be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will consider the proposed ordinance in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment. PLNPCM2020-00106 7 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties. PLNPCM2020-00106 8 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 9 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 11 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 12 July 9, 2020 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment April 9, 2020 The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for Historic Carriage House Structures UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE April 3, 2020 TO: FROM: CC: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this application without further additions by the city. We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 2 are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one public commission. In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020, reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter 21A.34.020. 2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically- detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 4 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. 3) Meeting off-site parking standards. Submitted on February 4, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 5 replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable application and review process that would only involve review before one commission and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process change. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 6 neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 7 “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 8 from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 9 Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 10 The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 11 Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE April 9, 2020 TO: FROM: CC: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner NOTE Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi- family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020 Page 2 As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. APPLICABILITY The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district). The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites may increase in the future. TEXT AMENDMENT The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse- drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020 Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020 Page 4 The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single- family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020 Page 5 original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020 Page 6 Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020 Page 7 The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020 Page 8 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020 Page 9 Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020 Page 10 On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020 Page 11 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 38 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 39 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 40 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 41 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 42 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 43 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 44 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 45 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 46 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 47 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 48 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 49 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 50 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 51 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 52 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 53 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 54 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 55 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 56 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 57 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 58 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 59 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 60 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 61 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 62 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 63 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 64 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 65 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 66 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 67 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 68 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 69 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 70 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 71 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 72 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 73 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 74 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 75 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 76 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties: 1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.) 2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple) 3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple) 4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue) 5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue) The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs. PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 78 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 79 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 80 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 81 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 82 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 83 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 84 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 85 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 86 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 87 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 88 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 89 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 90 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 91 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 92 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 93 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 94 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 95 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 96 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 97 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 98 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 99 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 100 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 101 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 102 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 103 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 104 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 105 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 106 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 107 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 108 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 109 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 110 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 111 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 112 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 113 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 114 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 115 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 116 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 117 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 118 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 119 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 120 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 121 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 122 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 123 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 124 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 125 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 126 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 127 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 128 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 129 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 130 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 131 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 132 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 133 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 134 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 135 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 136 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 137 020 CM2020 00106 138 020 CM2020 00106 139 020 CM2020 00106 140 020 CM2020 00106 141 020 CM2020 00106 142 020 CM2020 00106 143 020 CM2020 00106 144 020 CM2020 00106 145 020 CM2020 00106 146 020 CM2020 00106 147 020 CM2020 00106 148 020 CM2020 00106 149 020 CM2020 00106 150 020 CM2020 00106 151 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 152 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 153 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 154 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 155 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 156 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 157 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 158 ly 9, NPCM2020-00106 159 ly 9, NPCM12600ly209-,00106 NPCM2020-00106 161 ly 9, NPCM2012602-00l1y 096, NPCM2020-00106 163 ly 9, N P C M 21062J4u0l-y0 091, 026020 ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation and housing. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o o o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Avenues Master Plan The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. o The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o Community Preservation Plan The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of important historic features on historic properties. Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts. Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted City plans. Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City. Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource. Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan. PLNPCM2020-00106 165 July 9, 2020 Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in which historic or character preservation is proposed. Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties. Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City. Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the general public. Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. Initiatives: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation. Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. PLNPCM2020-00106 166 July 9, 2020 5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. 8. Support homeless services. Avenues Master Plan Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Staff Discussion: The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language also promotes the sustainability through the restoration or recreation of a historic carriage house. PLNPCM2020-00106 167 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 168 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 169 July 9, 2020 PLNPCM2020-00106 170 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on April 6, 2020, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached. PLNPCM2020-00106 171 July 9, 2020 May 8, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Dear Mr. Lindquist, I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a quarter of a block from the subject property. The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city. I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic integrity. I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request. Respectfully, Jim Bradley Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020 From: To: Barbara Hounsell Stephen C Pace Cc: Subject: Date: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM Hello Stephen, Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House reconstruction project. Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape materials, vegetation, or water and water retention. Sincerely, Barbara Hounsell Alex Cross Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC Cc: Scott Cruze Kelsey Lindquist PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020 From: To: Carol Foster Lindquist, Kelsey Cc:Paul Foster Subject: Date: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM To whom it may concern: We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at 163 B St. We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan. Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood, promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term housing for families or individuals. Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed that, living here since 2002. Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and Stephen explained there weren’t any. Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. Many thanks, Carol and Paul Foster PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018. A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that under the circumstances I would not bother him again. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION b) Agenda/Minutes July 16, 2020 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: •YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at: http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-07-16-2020 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning. It is recommended to login 10 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM Approval of Minutes for June 4, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Director’s Report PUBLIC COMMENTS The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date. For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). APPEAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Thursday, July 16, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:00 PM . Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters, Commissioners Rocio Torres Mora, Victoria Petro- Eschler, Michael Vela and Paul Svendsen. Vice Chairperson Robert Hyde and David Richardson were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner and Rosie Jimenez, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Peters provided participation options and instructions to the public. APPROVAL OF THE June 4, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. MOTION Commissioner Petro- Eschler moved to approve the June 4, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Svendsen seconded the motion. Commissioners Vela, Maw, Petro-Eschler, Svendsen, and Torres Mora, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chairperson Peters reported, Commissioner Esther Stowell has stepped down from the Historic Landmark Commission. We appreciate her service and wish her well on her next steps. We are working on filling her seat. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Commissioner Adams will not be reappointed he has chosen to step down. There are now two vacancies. There have been several people who have applied. We will update as we find out new information. 5:30:36 PM Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434- 7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission review the proposed regulations and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • • Reasoning behind approving demolishing and reconstructing versus creating and ADU Clarification on owner occupancy on an ADU Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 1 • • • Clarification on Staff Report in reviewing alterations Questions on zoning codes Restoration or Reconstruction of the existing structure Kirk Huffaker and Stephen Pace were available for questions. The Commission and Applicant discussed the following: • • • • • • • • How does the Proposal benefit the City as a whole Total of Carriage Houses and explanation Clarification of proposed qualifying zones Clarification of the request and building renovation More clarification on the existing structure Preservation clarification Definition of Carriage House Lot line adjustment or consolidation PUBLIC HEARING 6:30:46 PM Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – In support of proposal and asks city and commissioner to approve Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 6:54:18 PM Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the property and making the property more economically sensible. 2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on properties like this. 3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35 4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances. In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to the City more broadly as a whole. Commissioner Torres-Mora seconded the motion Commissioners Vela, Svendsen, Petro- Eschler. Maw, Torres-Mora, voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:07:58 PM Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically Wednesday, February 23, 2022 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman, Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann, Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick, and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark. REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021- 01273 Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code. The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1 The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a presentation. Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30 days. The applicant stated that he was aware. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3. Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020- 00903 Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy the land or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have signed the form and the approval of the church for this application. Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2 Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts. Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce housing. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9 the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria. She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect. The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take the 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10 that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500 years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.” Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time remaining. The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation. Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application. Mr. Pace said no. Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace. Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the text amendment he was requesting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11 Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission being the second step. MOTION Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment for carriage house reconstruction. Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”. The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION 6) MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADD OWN_CITY 181 N 'B' STSALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 490JACKSON OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC Current Occupant 84103 WY UT UT 83001 84102 84114 84102 84114 84103 529 E SOUTSalt Lake City 450 N STATSALT LAKE CITY 603 E SOUTSalt Lake City PO BOX 145SALT LAKE CITY STATE OF UTAH Current Occupant SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UT UT UT JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (JT259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 06/20/2023 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 06/20/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Darin Mano, Chair June 20, 2023 FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 385-226-7227 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning text amendment for the reconstruction of historic carriage houses for the purposes of creating an additional dwelling unit. Since the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation on this proposed text amendment, an ordinance has not been provided for this transmittal. If the City Council wishes to approve the proposal, the applicant will be required to draft adoptable language so that an ordinance can be drafted for City Council approval. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is unknown because the applicant has yet to identity an application process for a carriage house reconstruction. It is unknown if a future identified application would off-set staff time associated with a review of a carriage house reconstruction. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, in order to reconstruct or restore the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. Through working with Planning on potential options to create an additional dwelling unit in a reconstructed version of the historic carriage house, several zoning barriers were identified. The barriers are described in detail within the staff report. In order to address the goals and desires of reconstructing a historic carriage house at 222 E. 4th Ave, the applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (Jun 20, 2023 11:56 MDT) Aerial of Subject Property Photograph of Subject Carriage House, 2017 The submitted text amendment language specifies the eligibility criteria for a potential carriage house reconstruction as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site, also located in the following zoning districts: • SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) • RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) • RO (Residential Office) • I (Institutional) This specific criteria language limits the applicability to 5 properties citywide, which include the following: 222 E. 4th Avenue, 259 E. 7th Avenue, 529 E. South Temple, 603 E. South Temple and 1206 W. 200 S. The applicant didn’t specify a clear process for review or an application. The language does allude to a review by the Historic Landmark Commission but isn’t clear on the process. The standards and criteria provided by the applicant require evidence of the carriage house, parking requirements, prohibition of any future subdivision of the property, no requirement for an owner occupancy, and flexibility of zoning regulations of accessory structures and density limitations in the applicable base zoning restrictions. The provided text amendment language is missing key sections that lack clarification on authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application. Staff attempted to address the concerns with the proposed language with the applicant several times. Staff ultimately forwarded the language to the Historic Landmark Commission for input and direction. The Historic Landmark Commission discussed the proposal during a hearing on July 16, 2020, and unanimously decided to forward a negative recommendation to Planning Commission. After the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant did not address the identified issues identified by staff or the items discussed during the Historic Landmark Commission hearing. The applicant requested to continue the text amendment to Planning Commission. Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on February 23, 2022. The Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation on the proposal. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further historic preservation goals. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents. However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The application was submitted on February 6, 2020. • The application assigned to Kelsey Lindquist on February 7, 2020. • An Online Open House was held during April 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020. • Staff received public comments via email and comments provided direction to the applicant. Staff included these comments within the staff report for both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission. • On July 16, 2020, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. • On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records a) HLC Agenda of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access) b) HLC Minutes of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access) c) HLC Staff Report of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access Report) Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020 a) Mailed and Posted Notice b) Staff Report c) Agenda/Minutes 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – July 16, 2020 a) Staff Report b) Agenda/Minutes 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 6) MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING a) MAILED NOTICE b) STAFF REPORT c) AGENDA/MINUTES 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING a) STAFF REPORT b) AGENDA/MINUTES 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS 6) MAILING LIST 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00106 February 6, 2020 Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text amendment application. February 7, 2020 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff analysis and processing. March 9, 2020 Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant. April 8, 2020 Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties April 1, 2020 Application posted for online open house. May 15, 2020 End of online open house. July 2, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve recipients. July 9, 2020 Staff report posted to Planning’s website. July 16, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing. February 11, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve recipients. February 11, 2022 Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties. February 23, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00106 Carriage House Reconstruction – On behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue, is requesting a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and list as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday, or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM200-00106. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) PLANNING COMMISSION a) Mailing Notice February 11, 2022 3) PLANNING COMMISSION b) Staff Report February 23, 2022 Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930 Date: February 17, 2022 Re: PLNPCM2020-00106 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide MASTER PLAN: Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and The Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35, RO, I, SR-1A REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Stephen Pace, to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning text amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant’s Proposed Code C. Applicant’s Narrative D. Eligible Properties E. City Plan Considerations F. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards G. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLNPCM2020-00106 1 February 16, 2022 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING Staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on July 16, 2020 to gain feedback and direction on the proposed language. To watch the full discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission meeting can be viewed via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg7TG8fSOc&t=11s. Ultimately, the briefing resulted in the HLC forwarding a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission with the following motion (language pulled from HLC minutes): Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the property and making the property more economically sensible. 2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on properties like this. 3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35 4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances. In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to the City more broadly as a whole. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENT: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 E. 4th Avenue and 181 N. B Street, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Planning on a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 E. 4th Avenue. This historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard Kletting. Additional information on the specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in Attachment C. PLNPCM2020-00106 2 February 16, 2022 Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue Photo of Subject Carriage House, 2018 PLNPCM2020-00106 3 February 16, 2022 The applicant has approached the City with the intent of rebuilding the remains of a carriage house on the property located at 222 E. 4th Avenue, in order to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, minimum lot width and minimum lot areas for the applicable zoning district. The Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations would also prohibit the applicant’s proposal to reconstruct a carriage house as a dwelling unit on the property. The following provides a summary of these barriers: 1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the proposed location would not be allowed because: a. All principal structures required to have frontage on a public street (21A.36.010.B) must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing principal structure on the property. b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet per single-family dwelling (21A.24.130.C), so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet which does not meet the minimum size requirement. c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations (21A.24.130) due to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines. 2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephen Pace owns the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house. Staff acknowledges that the barriers to achieving the goals of restoring the carriage house prohibit the applicant from introducing an additional dwelling unit on the property. The proposed text amendment is essentially site specific in order to permit the construction of an additional single-family dwelling on the property. The proposed language will not offer or introduce an overall solution to other contributing structures within a local or national historic district. PROPOSED LANGUAGE: The applicant provided a list of “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, if they addressed staff’s recommendations, could be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s proposal is in Attachment B. To better organize and summarize the proposal, Staff attempted to categorize the provided language into the standard ordinance format (see below). Purpose Statement: No purpose statement provided by the applicant. Definitions • CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. Applicability • For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places. PLNPCM2020-00106 4 February 16, 2022 • The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential Office) and the I (Institutional). • There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property. The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence through at least two of the following methods: o Historic photographs o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps o Planning, zoning or building permit records. o Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc. Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. • A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Standards/Criteria • A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family residence. • Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit. • The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure. • If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a neighboring property, additional buffers may be required. • The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally • The two residences could not be subdivided in the future. • The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property. • Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. City Goals Regarding Historic Preservation Staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. With that said, Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and introducing additional housing stock. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents (see Attachment E). However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. Additionally, the language is essentially site-specific. 2. Rational for Negative Recommendation Planning Staff has identified the following specific issues regarding the proposed language: PLNPCM2020-00106 5 February 16, 2022 1. As proposed, the language would affect only one property by providing some allowance for the applicant to construct a second single-family dwelling on the site. However, as an amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Staff takes into consideration the limiting impact the proposal would have on incentivizing historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Staff acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Even though the applicant indicates that there are 5 properties that could potentially qualify for the allowance, many of those properties already have secondary dwelling units or are owned by entities uninterested in pursuing this allowance. 2. As is, the language is unenforceable. This means that without clear language and a framework to review proposals for a reconstruction of a historic carriage house, there could be very few limitations. While the applicant provides a suggestion to have the Historic Landmark Commission review the proposed reconstruction, it doesn’t provide clear framework for such review. 3. The proposed language doesn’t provide a way to administer the allowance of how an applicant would apply to reconstruct a historic carriage house. 4. The language does not account for how any potential impacts to abutting and adjacent properties would be mitigated. 5. Overall, the proposed amendment is missing crucial language for Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to take the proposal under consideration. NEXT STEPS: The Historic Landmark Commission provided a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, due to the noted negative recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission and the issues noted with the proposed language. Once a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, the recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a final decision; thus, it is not appealable by the applicant. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment. PLNPCM2020-00106 6 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties. PLNPCM2020-00106 7 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE PLNPCM2020-00106 190 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment April 9, 2020 The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. PLNPCM2020-00106 1132 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. PLNPCM2020-00106 1143 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for Historic Carriage House Structures UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE April 3, 2020 TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this application without further additions by the city. We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 1154 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 2 are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one public commission. In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020, reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter 21A.34.020. 2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically- detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 1165 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 1176 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 4 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. 3) Meeting off-site parking standards. Submitted on February 4, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 1187 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 5 replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable application and review process that would only involve review before one commission and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process change. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 1198 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 6 neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2109 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 7 “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2210 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 8 from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2221 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 9 Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2232 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 10 The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2243 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 11 Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 2254 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE Links included in applicant's narrative: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/HLC/2020/07%20July%202020/00106StaffReport.pdf http:// utahcfa.org/architect/richard_karl_kletting PLNPCM2020-00106 2265 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE April 9, 2020 TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner NOTE Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi- family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. PLNPCM2020-00106 2276 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 2 As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. APPLICABILITY The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district). The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites may increase in the future. TEXT AMENDMENT The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse- drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 2287 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. PLNPCM2020-00106 2298 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 4 The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single- family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some PLNPCM2020-00106 3209 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 5 original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) PLNPCM2020-00106 3310 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 6 Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. PLNPCM2020-00106 3321 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 7 The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 3332 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 8 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 3343 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 9 Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. PLNPCM2020-00106 3354 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 10 On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. PLNPCM2020-00106 3365 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Page 11 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. PLNPCM2020-00106 3376 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties: 1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.) 2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple) 3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple) 4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue) 5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue) The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs. PLNPCM2020-00106 7776 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance There are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: • Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. • Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. • Avenues Master Plan o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: • Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. • Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. Community Preservation Plan The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of important historic features on historic properties. Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts. Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted City plans. Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City. PLNPCM2020-00106 164 February 16, 2022 Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource. Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan. Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in which historic or character preservation is proposed. Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties. Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City. Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the general public. Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. Initiatives: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation. Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. PLNPCM2020-00106 165 February 16, 2022 1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. 8. Support homeless services. Avenues Master Plan Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Staff Discussion: The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and creating additional housing stock. Staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. It is impossible to support a text amendment proposal that does not include actual text to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of projects under the proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered. The applicant could remedy this by drafting actual code language, productively working with staff of the Planning Division to put the proposal into an ordinance format, in recognition that the Planning Commission cannot forward a recommendation to the City Council that is not in an adoptable format. PLNPCM2020-00106 166 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF ZONING AMENDMENT STANDARDS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council considers the following factors. Although the proposed ordinance is not complete, Staff drafted responses to the factors based on the concepts of the proposed ordinance. FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; The specific proposal is not in ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The specific proposal is not in ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning district which may imposed additional standards; The specific proposal is not in ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The specific proposal is not in ordinance format and thus, this factor cannot be fully evaluated or analyzed. While the concept may be valid, Staff cannot evaluate the proposed text amendment against this factor because the proposal provided by the applicant is not in an ordinance format. PLNPCM2020-00106 167 February 16, 2022 ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on February 11, 2022, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached. PLNPCM2020-00106 168 February 16, 2022 May 8, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Dear Mr. Lindquist, I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a quarter of a block from the subject property. The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city. I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic integrity. I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request. Respectfully, Jim Bradley Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 PLNPCM2020-00106 117649 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 From: Barbara Hounsell To: Stephen C Pace Cc: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze Subject: (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM Hello Stephen, Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House reconstruction project. Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape materials, vegetation, or water and water retention. Sincerely, Barbara Hounsell Alex Cross Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC Cc: Scott Cruze Kelsey Lindquist PLNPCM2020-00106 117750 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 From: Carol Foster To: Lindquist, Kelsey Cc: Paul Foster Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM To whom it may concern: We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at 163 B St. We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan. Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood, promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term housing for families or individuals. Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed that, living here since 2002. Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and Stephen explained there weren’t any. Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. Many thanks, Carol and Paul Foster PLNPCM2020-00106 117761 FebruaJruyly196,, 22002202 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018. A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that under the circumstances I would not bother him again. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 176 February 16, 2022 3) PLANNING COMMISSION c) Agenda/Minutes February 23, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the following determination by the Planning Commission Chair: I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases, that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would be present. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273 2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903 3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) 4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) 6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226- 7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION a) Staff Report July 16, 2020 BACKGROUND: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 4th Avenue and 181 N B Street, is requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in an effort to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Salt Lake City on a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 4th Avenue. This historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard Kletting. Additional information on the site specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in Attachment C. Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue The applicant has approached the City on numerous occasions with the intent of rebuilding the carriage house to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations currently do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, as well as lot minimums for the applicable zoning district. Additionally, the applicant’s plan does not conform to the regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units. The following provides a summary of these barriers: 1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered to be a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the proposed location would not be allowed because: a. All principal structures must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing principal structure on the property. b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet per single-family dwelling so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet so it does not meet the minimum size requirement. PLNPCM2020-00106 2 July 9, 2020 c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations due to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines. 2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephan Pace owns the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house. The proposed text amendment, while it is fairly site specific, proposes solutions to the listed conflicts within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED LANGUAGE: The applicant provided a list of proposed “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language. The applicant’s proposal is in Attachment B. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, when drafted, will be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and will be structured in the following way: 1. Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve) 2. Definition of Terms 3. Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply) 4. Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process) 5. Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application) Staff organized the applicant’s list of conditions into these categories in an effort to better summarize the proposal for the Historic Landmark Commission and to begin to organize the language into a standard ordinance format (see below). Staff commentary and requested direction from the Historic Landmark Commission are at the end of the ordinance summary. Purpose • The applicant did not provide a specific purpose statement, but Staff believes the following should be considered when developing the legal purpose statement: o To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. o Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site. o Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale of single-family residential neighborhoods. o Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an existing structure. o Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic preservation goals. Definitions • CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 3 July 9, 2020 Applicability • For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places. • The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential Office) and the I (Institutional). • There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property. The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence through at least two of the following methods: o Historic photographs o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps o Planning, zoning or building permit records. o Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc. Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. • A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Standards/Criteria • A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family residence. • Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit. • The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure. • If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a neighboring property, additional buffers may be required. • The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally • The two residences could not be subdivided in the future. • The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property. • Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified. STAFF COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC LANDMARKCOMMISSION Staff is presenting the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain feedback and direction prior to finalizing draft ordinance language. This section is organized to relate each question or comment to the applicable section within the proposed language above. The following sections provides Staff’s concerns and opinions on what the language is missing, potential impacts, as well as needed clarification. Purpose The applicant did not provide a purpose statement for the proposed ordinance. Staff developed some ideas to incorporate into the purpose statement. The ideas and potential language were pulled from the applicant’s narrative, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and applicable master plans. Point to Discuss • Does the Commission agree with the statements and/or have anything to add? Definitions The applicant provided the definition of Carriage House to Staff. Staff believes that there are additional definitions that will be needed to provide direction and clarity for the proposed language. PLNPCM2020-00106 4 July 9, 2020 Points to Discuss • Should Historic Footprint be defined as part of this proposal? • Are there other needed terms that the Commission can identify? • Other terms may be included in the definition section as the ordinance is developed. Applicability The Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority to review alterations to properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposal encompasses properties listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and properties listed as Salt Lake City Landmarks. Points to Discuss • Should the proposal be modified to strictly include properties that are Salt Lake City Landmarks and listed in the applicable zoning districts? • This change would clarify the review authority but would not significantly modify the number of properties eligible for the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house, due to the limiting zoning districts. The applicant provided a list of 4 items that could be used to determine the existence of a carriage house, which include; historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, zoning and building permit history and identifiable structural elements. The applicant proposes that only 2 of the 4 would be required to satisfy the burden of proof. Points to Discuss • Staff is concerned that the proposed criteria is too loose. o This concern is directly connected to the potential impact that a reconstructed historic carriage house could have on abutting properties, due to height and setbacks. • Pictorial evidence or information should be required to understand the design, materials and height of the historic structure. o If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural. o Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status of the landmark site? o Without pictorial evidence, the proposed language would essentially permit the building of a new single-family structure, which is not the purpose or intent of this language. o Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and determined? o If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns? o What would be the review process for a historic carriage house that does not have any pictorial evidence? • The suggested zoning and building permit history would be difficult to satisfy, since the full records are not available or encompass all of the permit history. • Does the Commission have any additional concerns or recommendations with other provisions in the proposed applicability section? Review Process The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design, construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. Points to discuss • The Landmark Commission does not have the authority to approve projects that increase density beyond what is allowed by ordinance. Staff proposes to draft the ordinance so that an extra dwelling unit would be permitted by right within a restored or reconstructed carriage house. The Landmark Commission would then review the restoration or reconstruction. • Construction in the H Historic Overlay is reviewed in a number of ways. o Minor Alteration Applications are the most commonly submitted applications for the alteration of a site. These applications are also applicable for the construction of a detached garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit. PLNPCM2020-00106 5 July 9, 2020 Since minor alterations are applicable for the ADUs and detached accessory structures, Staff initially considered this the most appropriate application for the proposal. However, this type of reconstruction has potentially more impacts to the abutting and adjacent properties. • The potential impacts include the location, setbacks, height and footprint. o Major Alteration or New Construction Application requires the review and approval of the Historic Landmark Commission. Due to the potential for impacts, would the process for new construction or a major alteration be more appropriate? A new construction or major alteration application would require Historic Landmark Commission review and approval. Depending upon the recommendation regarding the pictorial evidence, the new construction process may provide clearer guidelines and standards for the design of the structure. • Does the Commission have a recommendation on the process? Standards/Criteria Points to Discuss • Applicant proposes that it could only be used as a single-family residence. o Are their pitfalls with simply allowing it to be reconstructed for typical accessory uses? • Currently, proposed construction in the Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not conform to dimensional zoning standards, such as setbacks and building coverage requires Special Exception approval by the HLC. The applicant proposes that the HLC should be able to approve dimensional zoning exceptions through the Certificate of Appropriateness. o Staff supports this idea, due to the need for zoning flexibility for reconstructed historic carriage houses. o Staff does have a concern with coupling the review process and any needed special exceptions, due to the potential for impacts to the adjacent and abutting properties. There should likely be a notification process to provide notice to effected property owners and tenants. • The applicant suggests that the reconstructed carriage house be limited to the historic footprint. o The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps are fairly accurate for the historic footprint determination. Is the Landmark Commission comfortable with the utilization of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for this purpose, if the historic foundation or walls are no longer visible? • The applicant suggests that additional buffers may be required if an impact is determined. o How will the size of an additional buffer be determined? • Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration? KEY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Limitations of the Proposed Language: Staff acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Through limiting the language, as proposed, the proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance would potentially impact 5 properties. While the proposed language is narrow in focus and addresses rather specific issues, the overall goal of the proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines. The proposed language incentivizes the preservation or reconstruction of historic features on historic properties. STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION: Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: PLNPCM2020-00106 6 July 9, 2020 • Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. • Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outlined in this master plan. o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. • Avenues Master Plan o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: • Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. • Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to creating incentives for historic preservation, as well as zoning flexibility to create additional housing units. All of the applicable policies and guidelines are discussed in Attachment E and F. As discussed in those attachments, the proposed zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies. NEXT STEPS: One of the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission is to make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments that involve historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites. After the Historic Landmark Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the concepts of the proposed ordinance, Planning Staff will work with the applicant to develop the actual ordinance language, which will be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will consider the proposed ordinance in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment. PLNPCM2020-00106 7 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties. PLNPCM2020-00106 8 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment April 9, 2020 The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for Historic Carriage House Structures UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE April 3, 2020 TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this application without further additions by the city. We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 2 are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one public commission. In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020, reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter 21A.34.020. 2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically- detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 4 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. 3) Meeting off-site parking standards. Submitted on February 4, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 5 replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable application and review process that would only involve review before one commission and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process change. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 6 neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 7 “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 8 from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 9 Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 10 The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies Page 11 Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE April 9, 2020 TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner NOTE Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi- family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be. Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following: • Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020 Page 2 As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. APPLICABILITY The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district). The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites may increase in the future. TEXT AMENDMENT The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met: 1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. 2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an identifiable carriage house on the property. 4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse- drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants. PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020 Page 3 5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of the following methods: • Sanborn maps; • Historic photographs; • Planning, zoning or building permit records; • Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc. 6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification. 7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the historic footprint). 8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission. 9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required. 10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit on the property. 11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use. 12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process 13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally. 14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future. PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020 Page 4 The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: 1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. 2) Meeting the current minimum lot size. Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020 This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City Cultural Register. According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows: Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated. Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present. The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single- family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020 Page 5 original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for discussion with the city. The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the current zoning ordinance, including: • Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does not keep a permanent address; • Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure; • Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning district. In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an opportunity for input. The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each. Avenues Master Plan Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3) Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4) PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020 Page 6 Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7) Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity to transportation and for walkability. Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10) Residential Design Guidelines The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5: “Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may be considered rehabilitation projects.” A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that Reconstruction is: “The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at a specific period of time.” Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1) This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings: • Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. • New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary structure. • Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided. PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020 Page 7 The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14) This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues: • Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. • Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. • Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. • A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and form. Community Historic Preservation Plan “The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8) The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also supportive of this application include: - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and other landmarks in all new development strategies. - Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse. Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations 3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020 Page 8 3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Regulatory Incentives Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by: 3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. 3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow. 3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Economic Development 6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local economy. Housing 6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-residential buildings. 6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. 6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020 Page 9 Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Goal 1: Increase Housing Options Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for this proposal: 1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition; 2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods; 4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City; 7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods. Plan Salt Lake Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are supportive of this application. PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020 Page 10 On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following: 2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 8) A beautiful city that is people focused. 9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. 10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture. Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and identity. Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population. Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include: 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include: 3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials, including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition. Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include: 5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place. Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value. PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020 Page 11 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include: 2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the decision-making process. PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties: 1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.) 2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple) 3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple) 4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue) 5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue) The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs. PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation and housing. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following: • Community Preservation Plan o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for incentivizing preservation. • Plan Salt Lake o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value. o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth. • Avenues Master Plan o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites. The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following: • Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to create additional housing stock. • Plan Salt Lake o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock. o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan. Community Preservation Plan The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of important historic features on historic properties. Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts. Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted City plans. Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City. Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource. Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan. PLNPCM2020-00106 165 July 9, 2020 Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in which historic or character preservation is proposed. Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures. Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure. Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the preservation of historic properties. Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties. Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure. Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City. Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the general public. Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units. Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of historic structures. Plan Salt Lake Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past. Initiatives: 1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. 2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate. 3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. 4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making. 5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. 6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation. Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. PLNPCM2020-00106 166 July 9, 2020 5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. 6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit. 8. Support homeless services. Avenues Master Plan Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District. Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. Staff Discussion: The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language also promotes the sustainability through the restoration or recreation of a historic carriage house. PLNPCM2020-00106 167 July 9, 2020 ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on April 6, 2020, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached. PLNPCM2020-00106 171 July 9, 2020 May 8, 2020 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division Dear Mr. Lindquist, I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a quarter of a block from the subject property. The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city. I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic integrity. I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request. Respectfully, Jim Bradley Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020 From: Barbara Hounsell To: Stephen C Pace Cc: Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze Subject: (EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM Hello Stephen, Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House reconstruction project. Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape materials, vegetation, or water and water retention. Sincerely, Barbara Hounsell Alex Cross Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC Cc: Scott Cruze Kelsey Lindquist PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020 From: Carol Foster To: Lindquist, Kelsey Cc: Paul Foster Subject: (EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM To whom it may concern: We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at 163 B St. We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan. Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood, promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term housing for families or individuals. Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed that, living here since 2002. Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and Stephen explained there weren’t any. Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions. Many thanks, Carol and Paul Foster PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020 Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018. A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that under the circumstances I would not bother him again. kirk.preserve@gmail.com (801) 949-4040 4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION b) Agenda/Minutes July 16, 2020 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at: http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-07-16-2020 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning. It is recommended to login 10 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM Approval of Minutes for June 4, 2020 Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Director’s Report PUBLIC COMMENTS The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date. For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b). APPEAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued. The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b) Thursday, July 16, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30:00 PM . Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters, Commissioners Rocio Torres Mora, Victoria Petro- Eschler, Michael Vela and Paul Svendsen. Vice Chairperson Robert Hyde and David Richardson were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner and Rosie Jimenez, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Peters provided participation options and instructions to the public. APPROVAL OF THE June 4, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. MOTION Commissioner Petro- Eschler moved to approve the June 4, 2020, meeting minutes. Commissioner Svendsen seconded the motion. Commissioners Vela, Maw, Petro-Eschler, Svendsen, and Torres Mora, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Chairperson Peters reported, Commissioner Esther Stowell has stepped down from the Historic Landmark Commission. We appreciate her service and wish her well on her next steps. We are working on filling her seat. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Commissioner Adams will not be reappointed he has chosen to step down. There are now two vacancies. There have been several people who have applied. We will update as we find out new information. 5:30:36 PM Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434- 7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission review the proposed regulations and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Reasoning behind approving demolishing and reconstructing versus creating and ADU • Clarification on owner occupancy on an ADU Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 1 • Clarification on Staff Report in reviewing alterations • Questions on zoning codes • Restoration or Reconstruction of the existing structure Kirk Huffaker and Stephen Pace were available for questions. The Commission and Applicant discussed the following: • How does the Proposal benefit the City as a whole • Total of Carriage Houses and explanation • Clarification of proposed qualifying zones • Clarification of the request and building renovation • More clarification on the existing structure • Preservation clarification • Definition of Carriage House • Lot line adjustment or consolidation PUBLIC HEARING 6:30:46 PM Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer – In support of proposal and asks city and commissioner to approve Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing. MOTION 6:54:18 PM Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the property and making the property more economically sensible. 2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on properties like this. 3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35 4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances. In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to the City more broadly as a whole. Commissioner Torres-Mora seconded the motion Commissioners Vela, Svendsen, Petro- Eschler. Maw, Torres-Mora, voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:07:58 PM Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically Wednesday, February 23, 2022 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman, Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann, Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick, and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark. REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021- 01273 Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code. The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1 The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a presentation. Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30 days. The applicant stated that he was aware. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3. Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020- 00903 Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy the land or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have signed the form and the approval of the church for this application. Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2 Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts. Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce housing. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9 the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria. She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect. The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take the 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10 that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500 years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.” Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time remaining. The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation. Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application. Mr. Pace said no. Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace. Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the text amendment he was requesting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11 Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission being the second step. MOTION Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment for carriage house reconstruction. Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”. The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12 5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION 6) MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADD OWN_CITY OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 181 N 'B' S SALT LAKE CITY 84103 UT AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 49 JACKSON WY 83001 Current Occupant 529 E SOU Salt Lake City UT 84102 STATE OF UTAH 450 N STAT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Current Occupant 603 E SOU Salt Lake City UT 84102 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 14 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (J 259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00054 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance related to the sight distance triangle, which is the area at street, alley, and driveway intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. The purpose of sight distance triangles is to allow drivers, pedestrians, and users of other transportation modes to see each other and stop safely. Chapter 21A.62.040 of Salt Lake City Code measures sight distance triangles as a triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two points. The code establishes a distance of 30 feet for corner lots and at the intersection of streets and large truck driveways, and a distance of 10 feet for passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk. The current code is silent on intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. The proposed amendment adds these intersections, as they have similar risks. In addition, the proposal adds sight distance triangle standards to Salt Lake City Code chapters 21A.36.020 applying to principal buildings and 21A.40.050 related to accessory structures respectively. The images below provide a representation of the proposed changes. Other minor changes are also proposed in the text amendment. These generally clarify fence regulations and add driveway distance requirements from a street intersection to all zoning districts. Under the proposal fences, walls, and hedges on developed properties without a principal structure would be limited to four feet in the front yard area, and six feet in the rear or side yard areas. Hedges are considered fences for zoning purposes and are included in the proposed amendment. The current proposal does not include landscaping and locations of trees. Heights of other plants within the sight distance triangle is included in a separate text amendment and will be consistent with current standards and the proposed amendment. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Page | 2 Driveways for single- and two-family dwellings would be required to be a minimum of 20 feet from street corner property lines, and driveways for all other uses would need to be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its May 10, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 Page | 4 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. Are Council Members supportive of the proposed text amendment? KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Adding New Language and Clarifying Existing Language As discussed above, intersections of alleys with sidewalks and streets are being added as part of the proposed text amendment. In addition, language restricting principal and accessory buildings is being added to the for consistency in how the requirement is applied. Consideration 2-Noncomplying Fences and Structures Under the proposed amendment, continued use of legally existing noncomplying structures such as fences, buildings, and driveways would be allowed. They could be altered, expanded, and in some cases, replaced. The proposed addition of alley intersections with sidewalks and streets would also not impact these structures. Driveways closer to street intersections than allowed under the proposal would also be allowed to remain and be repaired. Noncomplying structures could be modified provided the changes do not make them more noncompliant. If a noncomplying structure is voluntarily removed or destroyed, a replacement structure would need to comply with the then current standards. Consideration 3-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in Plan Salt Lake Planning staff referenced the transportation and mobility guiding principle in Plan Salt Lake which says in part “a transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The sight distance triangle’s purpose is to improve safety by providing unobstructed sightlines at intersections of streets, driveways, sidewalks, and alleys. Incorporating language that includes all types of intersections, transportation modes, and structures will ensure consistent application of requirements and reduce potential for accidents. Additionally, Planning found that the proposed amendments support transportation and mobility initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake, and in particular, Initiatives 5 and 3 which are respectively “Make walking and cycling viable, safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City” and “Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.” Planning further noted the proposal is in line with guiding principle 1 of Plan Salt Lake “Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.” Planning staff stated “…the purpose of this proposal is to increase safety for all modes of transportation at all points of potential conflict.” Page | 5 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment B (pages 10-11) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies A proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 27, 2023 - Application accepted. • January 30, 2023 - Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner. • October 2022 - Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of the February 2023 petition. • February 15, 2023-Notice mailed to all community councils. • February 15, 2023-Application posted for the online open house. • March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council. • April 27, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. • May 10, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • May 23, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • May 30, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE TEXT AMENDMENT PLNPCM2023-00054 •Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle •Proposed changes to sections: •21A.62.040:update the definition of sight distance triangle. •21A.36.020 & 21A.40.050: apply standards to principal & accessory buildings •21A.40.120: regulations for fences, walls and hedges •Related provisions of Title 21A Recommendation: Council adopt proposal PROJECT REQUEST •Sight distance triangle: a clear zone area identified at the intersections of streets, driveways or alleys & streets, and driveways or alleys & sidewalks where obstructions are restricted •Purpose: increase safety for all modes of transportation at potential points of conflict BACKGROUND •Adding language: •Include alleys to the definition of site distance triangle •Height restrictions to apply to buildings and other structures in the sight distance triangle •Clarifying language •21A.44.060 –parking regulations •21A.40.120 –fence regulations PROPOSED CHANGES •Continued use of legally existing structures would not be impacted •Fences, walls & hedges •Buildings •Other structures •Subject to provisions of Chapter 21A.38 IMPACT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 05/30/2023 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/30/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 30, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00054 STAFF CONTACT: Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to the sight distance triangle as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. Under the current code, sight distance triangles are measured as a triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two points. Currently the definition in the code establishes a distance of 30’ for corner lots and at the intersection of street and large truck driveways, and distance of 10’ for passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk. The code is silent about intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. Alleys intersecting with sidewalks and streets operate in a similar manner as driveways, and therefore presents similar risks to oncoming pedestrian, vehicular, or bike traffic. The proposed amendment modifies the sight distance triangle to include alleys in the standards. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (May 30, 2023 15:09 MDT) In addition to amending the definition, the proposed amendment will add standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. In the current code, the sight distance triangle is only referenced in the regulations for fences, walls and hedges. Because no reference is made in other parts of the code, other structures, including buildings, are currently allowed to encroach on the sight distance triangle areas. This creates inconsistent application of the clear zone standards and open doors to hazardous conditions at intersections. In addition to the changes mentioned above, the proposed ordinance will correct minor inconsistencies in the code and help achieve the purpose of the sight distance triangle. More specific information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission considered the request at a May 10, 2023 public hearing and voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance text. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations on February 15, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The proposal was presented at the March 20, 2023 Sugar House Community Council meeting and the overall response was support for the amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 1, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 15, 2023, to April 1, 2023. No public comment was received. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of MAY 26, 2023: Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff report EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Petition to Initiate LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. of 2023 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 8 to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall 11 (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44; 12 and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle; 13 and 14 WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 15 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 16 petition; and 17 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 18 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 20 21 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That 22 Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with 23 Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while 24 retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section: 25 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 26 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 27 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2 28 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate 29 safety concerns. 30 31 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That 32 Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 33 Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to 34 include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section: 35 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 36 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 37 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve 38 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate 39 safety concerns. 40 41 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. 42 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 43 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 44 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 45 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the 46 following zoning districts: 47 a. Residential Zoning Districts: 48 (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 49 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property 50 line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the 51 primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 52 (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 53 principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. 54 (3) On developed properties Where where there is no existing principal 55 structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front 56 yard area or six (6) feet in the rear or side yard areas. 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3 58 59 60 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 61 (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the 62 primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 63 (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 64 principal structure shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 65 66 (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the 67 height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in 68 the rear or side yard areas. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4 69 (3) Not withstanding (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l) 70 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be 71 up to six (6) feet in height if when located between the front property line and the front 72 yard setback line. 73 (4) (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, 74 a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than 75 ten (10) feet from the property line. 76 (5) (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located 77 behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid 78 wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor 79 storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. 80 81 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3. 82 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 83 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 84 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 85 3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or 86 undeveloped lots may be up to six (6) feet in height, provided the fence is not closer 87 than five (5) feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than eighty percent (80%) 88 transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with 89 the height restrictions of this Ttitle. 90 91 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. 92 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 93 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 94 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 95 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a 96 fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the Ssight Ddistance Ttriangle Rrequirements 97 of this Ssection. 98 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 99 erected to a height in excess of three (3) feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 100 the sight distance triangle extending thirty (30) feet either side of the intersection of the LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 5 101 respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 102 noted in sSection 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 103 b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges 104 may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the 105 front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any 106 required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side yard or 107 required rear yard to a height not to exceed six (6) feet. The zoning administrator may 108 require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to 109 provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 110 c. b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway 111 and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 112 thirty (30) inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in sSection 113 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 114 d. c. Sight Distance Triangle Aand See Through Fences: Within the area 115 defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) 116 open shall be allowed to a height of four (4) feet. 117 e. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for 118 driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 119 review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 120 requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 121 created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 122 123 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7. 124 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 125 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read 126 as follows: 127 7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 128 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate 129 the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of 130 way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen (17) foot six (6) inch 131 setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, 132 and large truck driveways shall require a one hundred (100) foot setback from back 133 edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement 134 does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property 135 or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. 136 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6 137 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c. 138 That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, 139 Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be, 140 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20') from street corner property lines and Driveways shall be at least five5 feet (5') from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway. (2)(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. (3)(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 7 164 (4)(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be 165 improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual. 166 167 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the 168 definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: 169 General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining 170 all other definitions in said section: 171 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting 172 two (2) points when measured as follows: 173 A. For corner lots: Extending thirty30 feet (30') from the intersecting line of each street 174 face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. Proposals in 175 commercial and industrial districts which have a minimum front or corner side yard 176 setback requirement, that seem to allow encroachment into the sight distance triangle, 177 shall be reviewed through the site plan review process by the city's development 178 review team. 179 180 B. For intersections of street or large truck and driveways or alleys: Extending thirty feet 181 (30') 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street face of 182 curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. 183 184 C. For alleys or passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk: 185 Extending ten10 feet (10') from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and 186 back edge of the sidewalk. 187 188 The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are 189 prohibited. (See illustration in sSection 21A.62.050 of this chapter.) 190 191 SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That 192 Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code 193 (Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety 194 and replaced with the following: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 8 195 Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9 196 197 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 10 198 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 199 first publication. 200 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 201 2023. 202 203 204 205 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHAIRPERSON 206 207 CITY RECORDER 208 209 Transmitted to Mayor on . 210 211 212 Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. 213 214 215 MAYOR 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: By: Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44; and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle; and WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section: D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve 2 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate safety concerns. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section: D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate safety concerns. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following zoning districts: a. Residential Zoning Districts: (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas. 3 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas. 4 (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height when located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet from the property line. (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height, provided the fence is not closer than 5 feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80% transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with the height restrictions of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the sight distance triangle requirements of this section. a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 5 b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 30 inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. c. Sight Distance Triangle and See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be allowed to a height of 4 feet. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c. That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: 6 (1) Driveway Location: Driveways shall be at least 5 feet from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway. (3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. (4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. (5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining all other definitions in said section: SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two (2) points when measured as follows: 7 A. For corner lots: Extending 30 feet from the intersecting line of each street face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. B. For intersections of street and driveways or alleys: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. C. For alleys or driveways crossing a sidewalk: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and back edge of the sidewalk. The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are prohibited. (See illustration in Section 21A.62.050 of this chapter.) SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle 8 9 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: May 22, 2023 By: Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2023-00054 January 27, 2023 January 30, 2023 Application accepted. Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner. October 2022 – Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of February 2023 the petition. February 15, 2023 Notice mailed to all Community Councils February 15, 2023 Application posted for the online open house. March 20, 2023 Presented proposal at Sugar House Community Council meeting. April 27, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. May 4, 2023 Staff report posted to Planning’s webpage. May 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. May 23, 2023 Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00054 – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections. The proposed changes will affect sections 21A.40.120, regulations for fences, walls and hedges, 21A.36.020 and 21A.40.050 to apply visual clearance to buildings, and 21A.62.040 to update the definition of sight distance triangle. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Madison Blodgett at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Madison Blodgett at 801-535-7749 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00054. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00026 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the zoning ordinance that would prohibit drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. Currently, drive-throughs are permitted for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed changes prohibiting drive- throughs are not citywide; they apply only to the Sugar House Business District. The proposal is to prohibit new drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) by removing the permitted use designations in these districts from the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030 Salt Lake City Code). In addition, the proposal calls for modifying Section 21A.40.060 Salt Lake City Code clarifying that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Under the proposal, existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District would become legal nonconforming uses and could continue operating. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Commission reviewed the proposal during its April 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which three people spoke. The comments were generally in support of the proposal and some suggested potential exceptions for financial institutions and pharmacies. Commissioners voted 10-1 in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner who voted against the proposal did not indicate why he was opposed. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Page | 2 Planning staff included the image below indicating where the current 12 drive-through facilities are located in the Sugar House Business District. Existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to allow new drive-throughs for new pharmacy and financial institution uses in the Sugar House Business District as a permitted or conditional use as raised in the Planning Commission Public Hearing. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Planning staff found the proposed text amendment supports principles found in Plan Salt Lake and the Sugar House Master Plan including: •reducing auto dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips •promoting a “pedestrian-first” walkable community •reducing greenhouse gas emissions •a balanced economy Page | 3 •encourage people-focused development Planning noted “The proposed amendment will contribute towards the implementation of the above- mentioned goals and policies by preventing an increase in the number of automobile-dependent uses, encouraging pedestrian-oriented development, and facilitating small business clusters in a similar manner to downtown areas.” (Planning Commission staff report page 5.) Consideration 2-Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses If the amendment is adopted, businesses would not be allowed to construct a new drive-through in the Sugar House Business District. Existing drive-through facilities would become legal nonconforming uses and allowed to continue until voluntarily removed or deemed to be abandoned. Nonconforming uses are defined as “any building or land legally occupied by a use at the time of passage of the ordinance codified herein or amendment thereto which does not conform after passage of said ordinance or amendment thereto with the use regulations of the district in which located.” (Chapter 21A.62.040 Salt Lake City Code.) If a nonconforming drive-through use is proposed to change to another nonconforming drive-through use, the Appeals Hearing Officer would determine whether the new use would be a similar land use type as the existing use. Planning provided an example of a bank in the Sugar House Business District with a drive- through requested a change of use to a restaurant with a drive-through. Under that scenario, a process outlined in City Code requires a hearing by an Appeals Hearing Officer, and staff review of applicable drive- through facility regulations including stacking lane standards, and the requirement that internal circulation patterns keep traffic from backing onto the street or block access to required parking spaces on the lot. Consideration 3-Use Analysis During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people utilized drive-throughs as a convenient way to get goods and services while maintaining social distancing. Some businesses without drive-throughs adapted by dedicating parking spaces for online or phone order pick-up. Others provided a delivery option, limited the number of customers allowed inside, or scheduled appointment times. Planning staff acknowledged drive- throughs provide community benefits, but businesses can be successful without them. Access for those with disabilities or who may have difficulty leaving their vehicle is an important consideration. Planning staff noted the importance of equity discussed in Plan Salt Lake with an initiative to “pursue equitable access to privately provided services and amenities across the City.” Planning reiterated that under the proposal existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District will be allowed to continue. They also noted other nearby zoning districts on 2100 South outside the Sugar House Business District such as Corridor Commercial and Community Business that would continue to allow drive-throughs. Planning provided the following map showing where drive-through facilities are permitted, prohibited, or permitted for some uses. In general, drive-throughs are prohibited in residential districts or in areas where the district purpose statement emphasizes walkability. Drive-throughs are permitted or conditional uses in major commercial only districts and some transitional/support districts. Page | 4 Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division In their recommendation to the Planning Commission, Planning staff stated “The proposed amendment implements professional best practices, does not conflict with other applicable State of City Code, and aligns with the City’s zoning purposes by promoting a walkable community in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed amendment also furthers the purpose of the city’s policies and goals, including those in the applicable master plans.” (Planning Commission staff report page 13.) ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment D (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies A proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not Applicable Page | 5 The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • August 24, 2022-Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition. • January 26, 2023-Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner. • February 17, 2023-Petition posted to the Planning Division Online Open House webpage. • February 6, 2023-Notice emailed to Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. • March 1, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 boundaries. • March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee. • April 14, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to City and State websites. • April 26, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • June 9, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • June 21, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council // July 18, 2023 SUGAR HOUSE DRIVE-THROUGH TEXT AMENDMENT PLNPCM2023-00026 •This petition initiated by Planning Commission to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). REQUEST 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND CSHBD2): Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. Legend:C = Conditional P = Permitted 21A.40.060: DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY REGULATIONS: B. Applicability And Permit Requirements: 2.Drive-through facilities may be authorized as accessory uses to permitted uses or conditional uses as when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in part III of this title,specific district regulations for residential,commercial,manufacturing, downtown,gateway,and special purpose districts when developed in accordance with the standards of this section. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution P P P P P P Financial institution with drive- through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Restaurant P P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS: This minor modification is proposed to clarify that drive-through facilities must be expressly permitted in the land use tables. Nonconforming Uses •The proposed amendment will not affect the ability of existing businesses with drive-through facilities to continue their normal operations. •Nonconforming uses are continued to exist. Use can be remodeled and may be allowed some expansion and changes. •When a nonconforming drive-through use is proposed to change to another nonconforming drive-through use, the request would be subject to determination by the Appeals Hearing Officer. Salt Lake City // Planning Division EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES Benefits of Drive-Throughs •Business access for individuals with disabilities. •Convenient access to services while social distancing. Other Considerations •Individuals without access to a vehicle may benefit from a walkable community. •Other social distancing options available (delivery, parking for online order pick-up, appointment times, etc.). •Existing drive-through facilities will continue to operate within the Sugar House Business District. •This proposal is not a citywide amendment. Drive- through facilities will continue to be allowed in other zoning districts throughout the city. Salt Lake City // Planning Division ARE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES ESSENTIAL? Drive-through Uses Not Appropriate for Walkable Districts •Areas with frequent drive-throughs can make pedestrians feel unwelcome. Economic Benefits of Walkable Districts •Increased tax revenue •Less costly maintenance •Increased goods and services produced •More money spent locally •More economically productive development pattern Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROFESSIONAL BEST PRACTICES Salt Lake City // Planning Division BUSINESSES IN WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Millie’s Burgers, 2092 S. 1000 E. BGR, 1202 E. Wilmington Ave. #120 Apollo Burger, 400 S. & Main St. (D-1) Beans & Brews, 268 S. State St. (D-1) MASTER PLAN POLICIES & INITIATIVES Plan Salt Lake Transportation & Mobility •“A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” •“Automobile dependency increases air pollution and traffic, and encourages development that is designed for cars, not people.” •“Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips.” Air Quality •“Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” •“Minimize impact of car emissions.” Economy •“A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive.” Beautiful City •“A beautiful city that is people focused.” •“Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that is people-focused.” Sugar House Master Plan •“Implement a ‘pedestrian-first’ policy for the Sugar House Business District zone.“ •“Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable, attractive, harmonious and pedestrian oriented community.” •“Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented.” •“Retain the small scale of the Business District to maintain a more pedestrian friendly environment.” •“Ensure that new development is managed, balanced, and designed with multi-modal options so that automobile travel does not exceed the capacity of the street infrastructure within the Business District.” •“Support locally-owned businesses to operate within the Sugar House Business District.” •“Examine ways to preserve small businesses and provide incentives for developers to accommodate these businesses into new projects.” Salt Lake City // Planning Division ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00026, Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Andy Hulka, Principal Planner andy.hulka@slcgov.com or 801-535-6608 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District, as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:43 MDT)06/21/2023 06/21/2023 The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning the land use tables with the stated purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District “to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population.” The proposal is also intended to align with city goals related to reducing automobile dependency, improving air quality, and supporting the local economy. The amendment will not affect the ability of existing businesses with drive-through facilities to continue their normal operations. The Planning Commission considered the request at an April 26, 2023 public hearing and voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance text. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce on February 17, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. Staff attended the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee Meeting on March 20, 2023. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 3, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 17, 2023, to April 3, 2023. Staff received comments from five Sugar House residents in favor of the proposal and one comment from a nearby business owner opposed to the proposal. The Sugar House Community Council sent a letter supporting restrictions on restaurant drive-throughs but opposing restrictions on bank and pharmacy drive-throughs. This letter has been included as an exhibit. The Key Considerations section of the staff report discusses the issues and concerns that were raised by the public. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access) c) PC Agenda of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access) d) PC Minutes of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access) e) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access) f) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access) g) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Sugar House Community Council Letter (Submitted after publishing of staff report) 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 4 drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District) 5 6 An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City 7 Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition 8 No. PLNPCM2023-00026. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission 11 (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: 12 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060 13 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the 14 Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District 15 (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when 16 specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and 17 WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 18 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 19 petition; and 20 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that 21 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 24 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 25 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 26 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 27 the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which 28 row shall read and appear as follows: 29 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 30 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 31 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 32 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 33 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 34 the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall 35 read and appear as follows: 36 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 37 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 38 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 39 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 40 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 41 the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and 42 appear as follows: 43 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 44 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 45 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 46 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 47 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 48 the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and 49 appear as follows: 50 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 51 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2. 52 That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 53 and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 54 2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized as accessory uses to permitted uses or 55 conditional uses as when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in 56 part III of this title, specific district regulations for residential, commercial, 57 manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose districts when developed in 58 accordance with the standards of this section. 59 60 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 61 first publication. 62 63 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. 64 ______________________________ 65 CHAIRPERSON 66 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 67 68 ______________________________ 69 CITY RECORDER 70 71 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 72 73 74 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 75 76 ______________________________ 77 MAYOR 78 ______________________________ 79 CITY RECORDER 80 (SEAL) 81 82 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 83 Published: ______________. 84 Ordinance amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (legislative) 85 86 87 88 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 2 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which row shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB 3 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2. That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in part III of this title, specific district regulations for residential, commercial, manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose districts when developed in accordance with the standards of this section. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 9, 2023 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2023-00026 August 24, 2022 January 26, 2023 February 17, 2023 February 17, 2023 March 1, 2023 March 20, 2023 April 14, 2023 April 26, 2023 June 9, 2023 Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition. Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner. Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage (Public comment period ended April 3, 2023). Notice emailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. Property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 boundaries were mailed an early notification of the proposal. Staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee. Planning Commission agenda posted on City and State websites. Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 10-1 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00026 – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. (Staff Contact: Andy Hulka at 801-535-6608 or andy.hulka@slcgov.com). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Andy Hulka at 801-535-6608 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at andy.hulka@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00026. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL LETTER ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/29/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/29/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/29/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Emina Alibegovic member of the Police Civilian Review Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 29, 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: Police Civilian Review Board Emina Alibegovic to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in September 2026 and starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/29/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/29/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/29/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Justin Neville member of the Police Civilian Review Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 29, 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: Police Civilian Review Board Justin Neville to be appointed for a three year term, ending the first Monday in September 2026 and starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 7/5/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/5/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 7/5/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Anne Olsen member of the Business Advisory Board. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 July 5, 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: Business Advisory Board. Anne Olsen to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and ending on Monday, December 27, 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: 6/21/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/21/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/21/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Cultural Core Finance Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Cultural Core Finance Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Spencer Lawson member of the Cultural Core Finance Committee. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 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: Culture Core Finance Committee Spencer Lawson to be appointed for a two year term, starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 4/5/23, 5:06 PM BCA-00437 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001UZ5qUAG/p 1/2 Close Window Print This Page Expand All | Collapse All BCA-00437 BC Boards and Commissions Application Name BCA-00437 Outcome Board Applied For Arts Council Case 00083686 Second Choice Owner SLCCRM Third Choice Stage New Profession Account Planner and Strategist, Penna Powers Previous Contact Yes Previous Contact Details I am a former employee of the Department of Economic Development and worked for the city of Salt Lake. How Heard Current Board or Commission member Applicant Applicant Spencer Lawson Applicant City Council District Applicant Email thespencerslawson@gmail.com Contact Spencer Lawson Applicant Phone Contact Email thespencerslawson@gmail.com Applicant Address 49 South 400 East 1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Questionaire Reason of Interest As a member of the arts community in Salt Lake City, I am a firm believer in the work that the Arts Council does. I have worked as an artist in 15+ different states and understand many different aspects of being a working artist. I also have a Bachelor of Fine Arts (in Theater) and a Masters of Business which gives me a unique perspective to the business side of the arts. Membership - Current member of the Stewardship committee of PBS Utah and frequently assist with on-air fund drives. Community Service - Working theatrical performer in the Salt Lake valley. - Involved with the Utah High School Theater awards, working as a judge and mentor - UHSAA certified judge/mentor for Debate and Drama - Guest Emcee for the Miss Utah organization Other Information References Reference 1 Name Lorena Reference 3 Name Lindsey Reference 1 Last Name Riffo-Jenson Reference 3 Last Name Smith Reference 1 Phone 18018593170 Reference 3 Phone 18016992288 4/5/23, 5:06 PM BCA-00437 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001UZ5qUAG/p 2/2 Reference 2 Name Laura Reference 2 Last Name Durham Reference 2 Phone 18015736174 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Male Disabled No Veteran No Languages Housing Rent ID as LGBTQ Yes Education Level Masters Degree Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 4/5/2023 4:54 PM Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 4/5/2023 4:54 PM Files SpencerSLawson_RESUME Last Modified 4/5/2023 4:59 PM Created By SLCCRM Copyright © 2000-2023 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved. June 21, 2023 Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Please see the attached application and recommendation for Spencer Lawson for the Cultural Core Finance Committee-an interlocal six-person committee in partnership with Salt Lake County. This Committee is responsible for the fiscal oversight and strategic guidance of The Cultural Core-The Blocks. Having had the privilege of previously working closely with Spencer Lawson in the Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development, I can confidently attest to his remarkable dedication, expertise, and passion for fostering the arts in our city. Spencer possesses a rich arts background with a specific focus on theater, which has significantly contributed to his ability to think creatively and approach challenges with a fresh perspective. His experience in the theater industry has honed his skills in project management, collaboration, and effective communication. These qualities are invaluable in a board member, as they bring an innate understanding of the artistic process and the needs of artists within our community. One aspect that sets Spencer apart is his expertise in the marketing and communications realm. His proficiency in this area has been instrumental in elevating the visibility and outreach of numerous artistic initiatives. Through his strategic marketing campaigns and innovative promotional strategies, they have effectively attracted diverse audiences, strengthened community engagement, and facilitated collaborations between local businesses and the arts community. These skills will be key to the strategic objectives of placemaking and promotion of The Blocks. Importantly, Spencer has earned the unanimous recommendation from colleagues, and I am confident that Spencer would be a tremendous asset to the team. His unique combination of artistic expertise, marketing acumen, and dedication to community engagement makes him an ideal candidate for this important role. His insights, leadership, and unwavering commitment to the arts would undoubtedly contribute to the vision of a vibrant and thriving artistic landscape. Should you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this recommendation, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact Spencer will undoubtedly bring. Sincerely, Felicia Baca Cultural Core Contract Manager Salt Lake City Arts Council Barney, Michelle From:Pehrson, Amber Sent:Tuesday, July 18, 2023 7:46 PM To:City Council Members Cc:ccFront Office; ccAnalysts; Recorders (All) Subject:Additional Comments on 1782 South 1600 East Rezone Good evening Council Members, Below are additional comments submitted by Camille Thorpe regarding the 1782 South 1600 East rezone. Camille addressed the Council during tonight's public hearing but ran short on time. Additional comments: I echo the concerns of staff and the Planning Commission. This rezone generally does not align with the proposal of Sugar House Plan. This property does not meet the identity location for rezoning of flat lot or infill. The amendments to legalize to develop do not align with the objectives. Thank you, Camille Thorpe A MBER P EHRSON Salt Lake City Council Staff She/Her/Hers O FFICE of the C ITY C OUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7612 SLCCOUNCIL.COM 1 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/12/2023 10:52 Landon Kraczek thanks for funding the arts. Dear Ana Valdemoros, I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to the City Council for funding the Arts Council, which supported my art project, Busking Bus theater company. Through this project, we provide a platform for a variety of arts, magicians to pop singers, cellists to acting troupes, to perform in our public spaces, bringing art to everyone in our community. Your financial support has been instrumental in making this initiative a reality. The funding provided by the City Arts Council has allowed us to create an inclusive and accessible platform for artists to showcase their talents. We believe that art should be for everyone, and by performing in public spaces, we can reach a wider audience and break down barriers to artistic engagement. Thanks to your investment, we have been able to organize more than 15 performances that captivate and inspire individuals from all walks of life. We are midway through our season, and we have already been seen by over 2000 people in Salt Lake City and more than 3000 in SLC county. Your investment has also made it possible to make much needed improvements to our platform. Which now has a robust sound system that allows more people to hear and understand the performance even from a distance. Allowing us to reach larger audiences and those hard of hearing. I want to express my gratitude for the City Council's recognition of the importance of making art accessible to the community. Your support not only benefits individual artists but also contributes to the cultural vibrancy of our city. Through the Busking Bus theater company, we are fostering a deeper appreciation for the arts and creating shared experiences that bring joy and inspiration to our residents. Once again, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the City Council for your invaluable support. Your funding has helped us make a significant impact in our community, and we are dedicated to maximizing the benefits of your investment. I will keep you informed of our performances and the positive impact they have on our community. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to the arts and for helping us bring art to everyone in our city. With deep gratitude, Landon Kraczek Owner/Operator of Busking Bus Theatre. 7/12/2023 11:21 Shanlee Nielson zoning THE LAND YOUR WANTING TO REZONE INTO A HOSPITAL IS MY FAMILYS LAND. FIND A DIFFERENT SPOT TO MESS UP. I DONT HAVE A VEHICLE RIGHT NOW BUT LATER TODAY I WILL BE THERE. STOP TRYNG TO MESS WITH MY FAMILS STUFF AND TAKE IT FROM ME BEFORE I HAVE A CHANCE! 7/12/2023 13:41 Nancy Saxton buisness licensing in light of the supreme court desision allowing buisnesses to discriminate to whomever they will serve. I would like to inquire and propose that SLC require "signage" to be displaied prominently at entrance of a brick & mortar buisness location, to clearly state that the owners intend to discriminate in their services. I would also request that any Online business doing buisness with a SLC buisness licnese also clearly state the same on all writen materials. Please consider including spacifics to the group or individuals being refuesed service or services. Thank you for your consideration. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/12/2023 13:54 Corby Booth (EXTERNAL) Safe Side Streets 2 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of District 7 to seek your support for the implementation of the CIP Safe Side Streets Part 2. Our community has come together to study the baseline issues in our area, analyze the data and hot spots, and now we are seeking additional support to implement the wonderful ideas we have developed. Our neighborhood, spanning a 12-block area from 900E to 1100E and Garfield to 2100 S., is committed to working in partnership with the city to address the growing challenges posed by traffic on the main corridors of Sugar House. Our proposed plan is fully aligned with the principles of LIVEABLE STREETS and the Sugar House Master Plan, making us a model for the rest of the city. We are eager to serve as a laboratory for change. As the city experiences significant growth, we look to you as leaders to help ensure our safety. The recent Highland Improvements, 2100S Build, and the 900E revision have already impacted our community, and we are concerned about the effects on our daily lives, particularly with the safety of our children. Our study results indicate that we are currently facing the second-worst traffic conditions in our district, highlighting the urgent need for attention and action. We are not seeking elaborate or expensive solutions but rather affordable and practical measures that can be targeted to have the greatest impact without adversely affecting our neighboring streets. We are fully committed to making our streets safer and more enjoyable for everyone, and we sincerely request your assistance in achieving this goal. To finalize our CIP, we are seeking funding in the amount of $150,000. This budget will cover Traffic Calming Design and Construction costs amounting to $115,232.63, as well as Design and Engineering Fees of $34,767.37, which will be utilized by the Engineering Division. This investment will go a long way in enhancing the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We urge you to support our cause and help us cross the funding finish line. By allocating the necessary funds, you will contribute significantly to the well-being of our community, especially the younger generation who deserve a safe environment to grow and thrive. Thank you for considering our request and for your dedication to serving our city. We are confident that, with your support, we can build a safer and happier community. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you require any further information or if there are any questions you may have. Yours sincerely, Corby W. Booth 7/13/2023 8:59 Michael Baker CIP StoryMap Lacks Key Information howdy, thank you for the informative CIP storymap summarizing improvements. It is difficult to provide informed feedback if we dont know the proposed cost of each improvment. for example, "complete street improvements" (an imporrtant concept that i'm glad we are implementing) can have a huge range of potential costs/improvments. at least provide a range of costs so we can understand the order of magnitude of each cost (ie <$10k. $10-100k, $100-500k, $500k-$1m, etc). also a percentage breakdown of the CIP by district would help show transparency and equity between different areas. also, for places like Jackson Park improvements, I like the idea in theory, however, it's tricky since that park is particularly popular with the homeless community. some information about programmatic improvements (ie rangers, HOST interventions) could help show that improvmenets can be enjoyed by the whole community. fencing the playground is great but im not sure families want to step over used needles or get hassled on their way to enjoy it. Thank you! 7/13/2023 16:46 Patrick Lechtenberger Salt Lake City - Environmental (and Humanitarian and Economic) Time Bomb? Dear City Council, My wife and I, along with our two children, want to move to Salt Lake City. I work in technology and she’s in healthcare. We would add value to the local community and economy. But we’re concerned that the Great Salt Lake will dry up and we’ll be breathing toxic dust. Sources… • CNN: Great Salt Lake will disappear in 5 years without massive ‘emergency rescue,’ scientists say • The Guardian: ‘Last nail in the coffin’: Utah’s Great Salt Lake on verge of collapse. • New York Times: As the Great Salt Lake Dries Up, Utah Faces an ‘Environmental Nuclear Bomb’ Is it true 73% of the lake has dried up? And, is it true that it may be gone in a few years? And, is it true toxic dust, will blow into Salt Lake City making life there unsustainable? If all true what are the plans to refill the lake and keep the city safe? Best regards, Patrick Lechtenberger Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/14/2023 12:42 Rich Vosepka Housing Issue - 142% Rent Hike Hello Councilman Wharton, This is your neighbor Rich Vosepka, a longtime resident of your district, at the corner of 6th Ave. and C Street. I've lived here, in my basement apartment, for more than 13 years. There are four other units in this old building, and we rent from a local couple who owns the place. Earlier this year, the building owners, who are in their late 70s now I believe, decided they were ready to be done being landlords and signed on with a property management company. Then the troubles began. It started with a barrage of demands and purported new fees from the property management company (Concept Property Management). These demands and fees were not compliant with the existing month-to-month lease, and after pleading with the property owner (Kathleen and Alan Zeitlin), the owners told the property management company to knock it off and comply with the existing lease. But it didn't stop. Next demand was a notice, that I received in late June, that my rent would increase in September by 142 percent. My current rent, $600, is obviously a bargain in this market, but a rent hike to $1,399, plus a new and unavoidable "fee" of $57 for water and garbage service is going to create another homeless Veteran in our community. Even if I could afford the rent hike, I wouldn't pay it. This dumpy basement apartment is not worth that much in any market. Further, the property management company has not performed any maintenance or upgrades to my unit since they took over back in January that would justify such an increase. Obviously, the property owners and management company have the right to take this action. My month-to-month lease requires only 30 days' notice of termination, and they provided more than double that. They could have kicked us all out in February if they'd wanted to. But the greed that I see evident in my personal case here, and in our rental housing market in general, is causing me some awful anxiety. Where are we supposed to go? I have a decent job -- but I can't live here anymore! I've lived in Salt Lake City for 22 years and have made a diligent working commitment to this community every day of it. I am now staring homelessness squarely in the face and dealing with the fact that a city that has felt like home for so long ain't going to be my home after September. I realize our laws around here stack the deck strongly in favor of the landlords, but is there nothing the City Council can do about the companies that operate and profit here? Yes, I am aware that the Veterans Administration has resources to help homeless vets. But the only reason I'm facing homelessness is the greed of these landlords and property management companies. I shouldn't be price-gouged like this, and neither should the taxpayers. Help! Regards, Rich Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/14/2023 13:32 Frances Hays 1/2 (EXTERNAL) SAFE SIDE STREETS SUGARHOUSE / D7 Good Morning, I am a resident of District 7 in the Sugarhouse area and have been for 35 years. We are asking for your support on the CIP Safe Side Streets Part 2 Project. For the past two plus years we have been working diligently towards safer streets in our community. With the massive amounts of construction building multi units in such a small neighborhood in downtown Sugarhouse it has made congestion incredibly busy. And to note the apartments and condo's going up are not even half occupied yet. Driver's are not waiting for the long lines going north and south on 900 East and 1100 East and on 2100 South so they cut down our residential streets for a quick fix. I live on the corner of 1000 East and Ramona Ave. We have cars on the hour traveling down 10th East at a high rate of speed. They have to be going at least 40 MPH most of them. And down the smaller side streets on Ramona and Hollywood Ave close to that. With the McClelland trail we have lots of cyclists and so many neighbors walking their kids on bikes and strollers. It has become so unsafe. Drivers running stop sign east and west and if they were to hit a speeding car on 10th it would send cars up into our lots not to mention loosing their lives. We have had several cars hit over the years and a pregnant mother hit with her 2 year old in a stroller where she was killed. We want to feel safe in our neighborhoods. The over development has been awful. We want our streets safe again. We all have put so much time and effort into helping make this happen and so desperately need help. This summer they installed big temporary concrete circular barriers in the intersections and up and down Ramona and Hollywood Ave. And over night the traffic was forced to slow down. It was truly amazing to watch. But come September they will be removed due to snow plows. We are working toward speed bumps now for a more permanent solution. We are a 12 block area from 900 East-1100 East and Garfield to 2100 South and we are committed to partnering to reduce speeds and counts of traffic as the main corridors of Sugarhouse grow. Our plan is aligned with LIVEABLE STREETS and the Sugarhouse Master Plan. We are a model for the rest of the city and we are okay to be a laboratory for change. You are leading the growth and we ask for your support to remain safe and keep our streets walking and biking friendly. We want to be a walking friendly area as it once was. We have the results of our study, and we are the second worst area of traffic in our district, and we desperately need attention. We do not want to wait as our kids are little and the daily worries that it brings as they are out playing and on their bikes with our pets. We are interested in affordable, simple solutions, targeted to the places it will make the best impact and not hurt our neighbor streets. We are ready to make our streets safer and happier. 7/14/2023 13:32 Frances Hays 2/2 CONTINUNED!! (EXTERNAL) SAFE SIDE STREETS SUGARHOUSE / D7 Please help us accomplish this. Please fund to finalize our CIP. Help us get over the funding finish line!! Budget for a 12 block area: Traffic Calming and Construction $115,232.63. Design and Engineering Fees (Engineer Division) $34,767.37. Total $150,000.00 Please consider our requests and help make our community safe again. It's only going to get worse with the construction nearing it's completion point. We appreciate your consideration in this important request. Thank you for all your time and efforts put forth on a daily basis to make our communities a better place to live. We appreciate you all immensely. And Sarah Young....welcome. We are excited to get to know you and you start your journey in our District as our representative. Regards Frances Hays 7/14/2023 15:56 Lisa Hampis Needing a place to stay Hello, My name is Lisa Hampis and I am in need of the place to satyed. I've lost all of my family and all of my belonging got taken away. I have been living outside for over 2 years on the wheelchair and I'm on the ssn. I've apply for the SLC housing but the list is so long and I've been waiting long enough that I have to sleep outside in the cold. I heard you have a Tiny home that being build. is there anyway you can help me to get one. I'm getting so frustatrate and I have no family. please contact me back at my phone number. Thank you. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/17/2023 9:46 Anthony Arrasi Rezone at 1782 Hi Julee, My name is Anthony Arrasi and I'm proposing to build a modest single-family home on my vacant lot at 1782 S 1600 E in District 7. My intent is to live in the proposed home and become a Sugar House resident. This item is scheduled for the City Council on Tuesday, July 18th. My understanding is that the new Council Member for District 7 will be sworn in tonight. Once the council member is chosen, would you be able to assist me in setting up a brief meeting with he or she to discuss my proposal? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you! Anthony 7/17/2023 10:29 Christina Burnley Liberty Park/D5 . I just looked out my window and counted 28 people on the block camping outside of my house. People have been trespassing on my property, trying to camp on my yard, and conduct suspicious activity. I feel unsafe and scared to go to sleep at night. I am worried if nothing gets done, it will only continue to get worse. Last week there were roughly 15 or so people outside of my house, and now 13 more. If I need to move, I will, but myself and my neighbors are growing more worried by the day. We need help. 7/17/2023 10:56 Denise Dubek Petition/D5 *Attachement Dear Salt Lake City Council members, I am asking you to please read the attached letter regarding the petition to rezone or amend the current property located at 1782 S. 1600 E. SLC. You made a decision on this property just three months ago, and I implore you to keep that decision in tact. Sincerely, Denise Dubek 7/17/2023 10:59 Rebecca W Davis Comments on SH Master Plan Map I am strongly opposed to the requested Rezone Amendment from R1-7000 to SR-3 and Sugar House Neighborhood Plan Amendment for the property located at 1782 S 1600 E. The Salt Lake City Planning Division recommended that the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding these amendments which it has done. I urge the Salt Lake City Council to follow these actions and deny the requested applications to rezone the property and to amend the Sugar House Plan. The Staff Report states that it would be difficult to fit more than 1 single family home on the property given its configuration. Therefore, it makes no sense to change the zoning from R-1/7000 to SR-3. Also, the lot is an illegal lot created through a non-approved subdivision by a previous owner. Under the R-1/7000 zoning, the property could potentially be developed subject to a Planned Development, Preliminary Subdivision Amendment and Final Plat. The current R1-7000 zoning allows for single family homes and duplexes which exist in this low-density residential area. Approving the rezone amendments for SR-3 zoning would allow for medium-density housing to be built on this lot which can’t accommodate more than 1 single family home. This lot doesn’t meet the goals in the Sugar House Plan for flag lot standards or in-fill. Also, the property doesn’t meet the intent of the location parameters for medium density classification in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. The requested rezone amendment applications should be denied. Thank you. Rebecca W Davis Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/17/2023 16:23 Denise Dubek 1/2 Attached letter regarding petitions: PLNPCM2022 -1138, PLNPCM2022-1139 **same attachement as above Dispute over request to change or rezone existing property from Denise Dubek July 12, 2023 To the Members of Salt Lake City Council Dear Council members, I am writing regarding the petition by Blaine Properties to amend and rezone the properties PLNPCM202201138 & PLNPCM2022-1139. My name is Denise Dubek. I own one of the homes directly to the east of the above mentioned properties. I was comforted and I commend the decision made by the City Council last April to deny the requested changes. The decision the council made at that time was wise and prudent and the ethical thing to do to support and preserve the integrity of Sugarhouse and this particular section of the city. I understand that the current owner of the mentioned property is unwilling to accept your previous ruling, because we as property owners are once again defending our neighborhood. According to the report I read and re read, below are some of the points of interest that clearly support your decision not to make changes to rezone or amend the current residential map. • The Appeals Hearing Officer agreed that the lot was illegally subdivided and upheld the Administrative Interpretation. The subject property is an illegal lot created through a non approved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment. The property history which is extensively discussed in a published administrative interpretation • If the amendments are approved, the proposed development would require a planned development process for a building without street frontage, and reduced lot width. Additionally, a preliminary subdivision amendment and final plat amendment will be required to legalize the subdivision. • Preserve the existing privacy of the surrounding properties to the extent possible; and Support new structures of a similar scale that incorporate the desirable architectural design features common throughout the neighborhood. • Discussion: The Sugar House Plan designated the properties as Low Density Residential to preserve and protect the older low density single-family neighborhoods. Medium Density Residential should primarily be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods, as well as near the neighborhood commercial zoning and business district. The plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Plan. Additionally, the R-1/7000 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 6 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the applicant claims that the property is a flag lot. 7/17/2023 16:23 Denise Dubek 2/2 CONTINUED!! Attached letter regarding petitions: PLNPCM2022 -1138, PLNPCM2022- 1139 **same attachement as above As noted above in the body of the report, the property doesn’t comply with the zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Staff included the policy statements from the Sugar House Plan which address flag lots. These policy statements also do not support this amendment. I can only assume when Stephanie Arrasi purchased this “illegal” and unusual piece of land, she had hoped to capitalize by getting the property rezoned. Because of her real estate back ground most of her supporters are also in the business to make money through real estate. Most of us homeowners in this area just want to maintain the integrity of this neighborhood and stay in our homes as long as we are able. We agree with the previous decision made by you our elected City Council members. I plead with you to once again deny any proposed changes to our current neighborhood. Sincerely, Denise Dubek Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/17/2023 16:25 Peter DeWeerd PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Map and Plan Amendment for 1782 S 1600 E. Dear Council Members, We live at REDACTED, and have attended meetings, and have reviewed the 61 page Staff Report prepared by Kelsey Lindquist dated April 20, 2023. We have lived here since 2009. We are proud members of the greater SLC community, we work hard, and we pay our taxes. In regards to: PLNPCM2022- 01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Map and Plan Amendment for 1782 S 1600 E: The subject property is an illegal lot created through a non-approved subdivision . The proposed master plan amendment is not consistent with adopted City policies, and the proposed zoning amendment does not meet the applicable factors for consideration. I request that the city council follow the recommendations of the planning staff and not approve the above mentioned amendments. Sincerely, Pete DeWeerd 7/17/2023 16:29 Devin Asher Vernick Fleet Block Rezone Hi, As a homeowner and resident of the Central Ninth neighborhood, I kindly ask that the council do what is in its power to prevent or reduce the building of further high-density market-rate housing. The neighborhood desperately needs green space. Thank you for listening, Devin Vernick 7/18/2023 12:00 Kaitlin Wilson SLC Police Brutality Murals Hello, Due to illness in my family, I'm unable to attend the formal meeting for this agenda. I want to make sure my comments are taken into consideration as well. These murals not only help to keep these victims of police brutality alive through memory, they remind us that there are changes that desperately need to be made so we have an equitable justice system. I will be deeply disappointed if the decision is made to essentially erase the history of police brutality instead of learning and growing from it. Thank you for your consideration, Kaitlin Wilson Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/18/2023 12:03 Dan Killian 7/18 public hearing: 1782 S 1600 E Property (Strongly OPPOSED to Petitions) Dan, We are writing in regards to the public hearing scheduled for today, 7/18 regarding property 1782 S 1600 E (and Petitions PLNPCM202201138 & PLNPCM2022-01139). We previously spoke at the Planning Commission Meeting on 4/26/23. We are unable to be there this time to speak, but request that our voices be counted. We strongly ask that you agree with the Planning Division’s NEGATIVE recommendation that Kelsey Lindquist prepared - and would like to reiterate what the Staff said about NOT approving this petition. • • • The proposal is NOT consistent with Plan Salt Lake or the Sugar House Plan.The • proposed master plan amendment is not consistent with adopted city policies, and the proposed zoning amendment does not meet the applicable factors for consideration. • • • • The property owner is requesting development rights on a portion of the property that was ILLEGALLY subdivided. • • • • The proposed map amendment would allow for medium density development, which would not be compatible with the existing • scale of the neighborhood. The properties within this neighborhood primarily consist of R-1/7000 • zoning. • As we are sure you will hear from our wonderful neighbors, this decision will have a drastic effect on our Sugar House neighborhood and we hope that the elected City Council representatives truly do listen to the voice of those most impacted by the decision. If this were approved, this would impact the homes that all of us worked so hard to own, all while following zoning laws. If the zoning amendment is approved then there could be at least four--and up to six rental units on a property the city currently considers to be one lot. We sympathize with Anthony and his goal of being a homeowner, as we just purchased our first home (finally at age 36 years) in October after planning and saving for years. Before purchasing the home, we did our research, confirmed plot lines, zoning regulations, and title information in order to fully understand what our hard earned money was buying. Moving from Chicago, where bungalows became two-flats, which then became three-flats, which then became three-flats + roof patio, blocking any hope of seeing downtown, we settled in Sugar House because the original charm remains and Utah’s beautiful mountains can still be seen from our backyard. If we allow this to pass, this marks the beginning of irreversible change to our neighborhoods. Although the requesting party states he only wants a “single family home,” there is no guarantee he will only build that. Once you allow one exception, more and more will come. Please protect our neighborhood. We FULLY support the need for affordable housing and the push for ADU allowances. However, as noted above, this petition violates Salt Lake and Sugarhouse plans and risks setting a precedent that could hurt this beautiful neighborhood and city. Thank you for your time. Meg Stopczynski and Dan Killian (neighbors down the street) 7/18/2023 12:49 Brandi Tillman District 4 -337 Park Development As a property owner in District 4. 337 Park needs capital improvements. I am excited and hopeful that the capital improvements will pass and the project will start sooner than later. I vote YES. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/18/2023 12:58 Mark Baer 21st South / Proposal 424210 At a minimum the 21st South project - proposal 424210 per your report - should, at a minimum, be put off while all of the other construction projects in the area are completed. The disruption to the area has already gone on for the better part of 20 years and this proposal simply perpetuates the never-ending construction - not to mention the never ending financial costs to businesses in the areas who, ironically, are collectively paying millions of dollars so the city can disrupte - and perhaps bankrupt - the same. And blocking off businesses will result in tax revenues tending down, which usually means higher rates which drives businesses futher toward insecurity and the downward cycle begins. The history of community demise is replete with examples. If/when you do decide to go forward with this project then at least there must be left turning lanes (which are already in the current plans - only sparringly in the current plan) at EVER intersection that has businesses on the corner / businesses who's ingress and egress will be effected (to say nothing of those individuals who life on every cross street). Anything less is a betrayal of the Council's obligation to treat everyone evenly and not pick winners and losers which, stated again, will impact your own. revenues which, in turn and in principle, are used to keep up the area over the long, long term. 7/18/2023 15:12 Vicki Gorman 7/18 meeting Re:PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Dear City Council Members, My husband and I are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezone of 1782 S 1600 E (PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139). The current property owner is requesting amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the property at 1782 S 1600 E. We reside at REDACTED just adjacent on the southeast side of the property under review. We are extremely opposed to changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District with a corresponding Master Plan change, because if the zoning amendment is approved then there could be at least four--and up to six rental units on a property the city currently considers to be one lot: 1572 E. Blaine Avenue in Salt Lake City. The rezone request conflicts with many of the parameters set forth in the Staff Report that was presented by Kelsey Lindquist at the April 26, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. Such as: Existing Land Use Designation The majority of the residential land uses in Sugar House consist of single-family dwellings on lots typically between 5,000 and 8,000 square feet. These low-density residential areas are interspersed with duplexes and a few multiple-family dwellings. It is desirable to preserve and protect the dominant, single-family character of these neighborhoods by holding the density between five and ten (5-10) dwelling units per acre. Examples of zoning districts that support this density range are R-1/7000, R- 1/5000, R-2 and RMF-30. Additionally, I ask the Council Members to also consider the parameters for Flag lots as outlined below: Flag Lots Specific policies that address flag lots include the following: • Explore the feasibility of maintaining interior block areas for use as parks and community gardens. • Support more restrictive standards for Flag Lots or planned developments. • Approve Flag Lots only if it is demonstrated that negative impacts can be minimized or avoided.* • Preserve the existing privacy of the surrounding properties to the extent possible These Flag Lots policies are the most important to me and my neighbors. *Please consider all the negative impacts that are stated in this message and the many others you have received from the concerned neighbors! Additionally, if this rezone is approved, it sets a dangerous precedent that will forever threaten the character of Sugarhouse and other such communities that house primarily single family/owner occupied homes, the safety of its residents and tranquillity of the neighborhood. No one wants the rezone. Zoning exists to preserve the stability of neighborhoods. We request that the city council follow the recommendations of the Salt Lake City planning staff and not approve the proposed amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan. Thank you for time, attention to this issue and service to our community. Sincerely, Victoria Gorman and Gregory Karr Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/18/2023 15:13 Andrea Jimmie PLNPCM2002-01138 & PLNPCM2002-01139 Dear Council members, I am writing in regard to the petition on Blaine Properties to amend and rezone the properties PLNPCM202201138 & PLNPCM2022-1139. I am writing to express my deep concern and opposition to the rezoning of the property in our cherished residential area. As a longstanding resident of this neighborhood, I feel compelled to voice my objections and highlight the potential negative impact this development may have on our community. First and foremost, our residential area has been cherished for its peaceful and serene environment, where families can raise their children in a safe and secure setting. The proposed rezoning threatens to disrupt this delicate balance. It may lead to overcrowding, strain on local resources, and increased traffic congestion, along with parking issues that would be jeopardizing the quality of life for the existing residents. In addition to the impact on the residents, the proposed rezoning may also have ecological consequences. Clearing such areas for construction purposes would not only result in the loss of valuable natural habitats but also exacerbate environmental concerns such as air pollution and stormwater management. Furthermore, rezoning the property is not in harmony with the architectural character and aesthetic appeal of our neighborhood. Our community takes pride in its unique charm, characterized by single- family homes, well-maintained gardens, and a sense of unity among residents. The proposed rezoning of the property would not only disrupt the visual appeal but also potentially increase property taxes and insurance for existing homeowners. I urge you to carefully consider the concerns raised by the residents of this neighborhood and explore alternative solutions. It is essential to prioritize sustainable development that aligns with the needs and values of the community, rather than focusing solely on short-term gains. I plead with you to once again deny any proposed changes to our current neighborhood. Sincerely, Andrea Jimmie 7/18/2023 15:14 Leverett Woodruff Comment on Fleet Block proposed rezone Good afternoon, I have reviewed the Mayor’s Office proposal regarding the Fleet Block zoning and disposition strategy, and would like to offer the following comment. I have previously written to comment that the Administration and Council should prioritize the wishes of the families whose loved ones are portrayed in the Fleet Block murals when it comes to any redevelopment of this property. I want to reiterate how important it is that these families guide the redevelopment process. As noted in the most recent communication from the Mayor’s Office, the city vacated Fleet Block in 2010 and left it with various levels of environmental contamination. It was the families and loved ones of those portrayed in the murals who restored the site to beneficial use for the community by painting the murals, planting garden boxes before each mural, and installing benches and resource boxes for food, water, and other necessities for unsheltered Salt Lake citizens. It is these families and their community who continually maintain the site by mowing, weeding, and picking up trash. They do this because the site is a sacred space of healing for them and of outreach to our neighbors experiencing homelessness. I urge you to listen to the input of these families about the future of Fleet Block. Any redevelopment must prioritize saving the murals. They should be the main feature of the public space proposed for the site. I also urge that any housing proposed for the site be required to be deeply affordable, or affordable to Utahns whose incomes do not exceed 30% of Area Median Income. Far too often, what is called “affordable housing” is not affordable to most of those who need it. The solution to homelessness is housing, and if we want this site to benefit the community, there are few more beneficial or urgent projects than housing our neighbors who need it most. The Administration’s update states that the City will “involve underrepresented communities in the development process” for Fleet Block. The City has a responsibility to include the Murals families on any committees or other bodies that make decisions going forward. Please give these families the voice they are owed, because they uplifted this space to honor their loved ones whose lives were lost to state-sanctioned violence. Thank you. Levy Woodruff July 12, 2023 To the Members of Salt Lake City Council Dear Council members, I am writing regarding the petition by Blaine Properties to amend and rezone the properties PLNPCM202201138 & PLNPCM2022-1139. My name is Denise Dubek. I own one of the homes directly to the east of the above mentioned properties. I was comforted and I commend the decision made by the City Council last April to deny the requested changes. The decision the council made at that time was wise and prudent and the ethical thing to do to support and preserve the integrity of Sugarhouse and this particular section of the city. I understand that the current owner of the mentioned property is unwilling to accept your previous ruling, because we as property owners are once again defending our neighborhood. According to the report I read and re read, below are some of the points of interest that clearly support your decision not to make changes to rezone or amend the current residential map. • The Appeals Hearing Officer agreed that the lot was illegally subdivided and upheld the Administrative Interpretation. The subject property is an illegal lot created through a non approved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment. The property history which is extensively discussed in a published administrative interpretation • If the amendments are approved, the proposed development would require a planned development process for a building without street frontage, and reduced lot width. Additionally, a preliminary subdivision amendment and final plat amendment will be required to legalize the subdivision. • Preserve the existing privacy of the surrounding properties to the extent possible; and Support new structures of a similar scale that incorporate the desirable architectural design features common throughout the neighborhood. • Discussion: The Sugar House Plan designated the properties as Low Density Residential to preserve and protect the older low density single-family neighborhoods. Medium Density Residential should primarily be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods, as well as near the neighborhood commercial zoning and business district. The plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Plan. Additionally, the R-1/7000 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 6 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the applicant claims that the property is a flag lot. As noted above in the body of the report, the property doesn’t comply with the zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Staff included the policy statements from the Sugar House Plan which address flag lots. These policy statements also do not support this amendment. I can only assume when Stephanie Arrasi purchased this “illegal” and unusual piece of land, she had hoped to capitalize by getting the property rezoned. Because of her real estate back ground most of her supporters are also in the business to make money through real estate. Most of us homeowners in this area just want to maintain the integrity of this neighborhood and stay in our homes as long as we are able. We agree with the previous decision made by you our elected City Council members. I plead with you to once again deny any proposed changes to our current neighborhood. Sincerely, Denise Dubek