The URL can be used to link to this page

07/11/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA FORMAL MEETING July 11, 2023 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room or Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 326 or 315 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 District 7 Generated: 15:23:36 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 April 4, 2023, and May 2, 2023. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 and B2 will be heard as one public hearing 1. Grant Application: Urban Forest Management Plan and Canopy Assessment The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from Urban Forestry to the USDA Forest Service. If awarded, the grant would fund public tree pruning, an Urban Forest Management Plan and Canopy Assessment, a street and park tree inventory, and park tree watering optimization. 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 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Grant Application: Climate Pollution Reduction Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Energy and Environment to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If awarded, the grant would fund one full-time Program Coordinator position, travel for one project staff member to attend EPA Climate Innovation Team Training Workshops, office supplies, professional services from an Environmental Analysis consultant and an Environmental and Climate consultant, and other fees. 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 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at approximately 1350, 1358, and 1370 South West Temple Street from RB (Residential Business District) to TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core). The request is to facilitate future redevelopment of the site to allow for a mixed-use structure that may include commercial and multi-family residential uses. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Sattar Tabriz Petition No.: PLNPCM2022- 00810. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/WestTempleRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 23, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at Riverside Cottages The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning for portions of property located at 1500, 1516, 1520, & 1522 West 500 North from R1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District), and other portions of these properties from R-1/7,000 to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential 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). 5. Ordinance: Rezone at 1549 South, 1551 South, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1549 South 1000 West, 1551 South 1000 West,1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). The amendment is intended to allow the property owner to develop townhouses on the subject properties; however, no development plans have been submitted at this time. If the amendment is approved, the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the newly adopted RMF-30 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. 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). 6. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 510 South 200 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 510 South 200 West from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The property is approximately 1.02 acres or 44,431 square feet. No development plans were submitted with this application. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Jason Boel, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01108. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 6, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Ordinance: Nonconforming Signs The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 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). 8. Ordinances: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754 South State Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at approximately 754 South State Street from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property with an urban hospital. The Council will also consider an ordinance that would amend the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01109 For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance Clarification: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation Text Amendment The Council will clarify intended adjustments for the ordinance proposed and adopted at the June 6, 2023 meeting for the amendments to various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code regarding Downtown Plan area building height and street activation regulations. The clarification relates to street activation language that was excluded from an earlier draft of the ordinance that was clarified in a later version of the ordinance but not included in the adopted version. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00529. 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, July 11, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinances: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting one or more ordinances adopting the final rate of tax levy, for all City funds including the Library Fund, in an amount greater than the Certified Tax Rate, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and adopting the final budget, including the Library Budget, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Resolution: Clarification on Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room Name at the Salt Lake City International Airport The Council will consider adopting a resolution clarifying the name of the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room as the Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room after former Salt Lake City Mayor and Utah Senator Jake Garn. A previous resolution did not include Senator Garn’s first name. 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, July 11, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 3. Board Appointment: Racial Equity and Policing Commission: Michael Ryan Hogan The Council will consider approving the appointment of Michael “Ryan” Hogan to the Racial Equity and Policing Commission for a term ending December 20, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Approve. 4. Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board: Kerri Nakamura The Council will consider approving the appointment of Kerri Nakamura to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending July 11, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Reappointment: Library Board: Sarah Reale The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Sarah Reale to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 2:00 p.m. on Monday July 10, 2023,, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, April 4, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Sam Owen – Public Policy Analyst, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff, Tim Cosgrove – Community Liaison, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Roxana Orellana – Policy Advisor for Mayor's Office, Tony Milner – Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Heather Royall – Deputy Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development, Dillon Hase – Community Development Grant Supervisor, Kelsey Lindquist – Planning Manager, Shane Andreasen – Airport Director of Administration and Commercial Services, Bill Wyatt – Airport Director, Kristen Hansen – Community Liaison, Zalmay Mallyar – Know Your Neighbor Support, Kaitlyn Harris – Principal Planner The meeting was called to order at 2:06 pm. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. 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 Tim Cosgrove provided information regarding Community Engagement Updates •Ways to engage with the City at www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Planning events/projects: ◦Shelter zoning – public hearing tonight ◦Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) modifications – tentative Council action tonight ◦Affordable Housing Incentives ◦Sugar House Drive Through Text Amendments and Landscape Chapter update •Mayor’s Community Office Hours information Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Homeless Resource Center (HRC)/Winter overflow utilization data •Rapid Intervention Team/Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) locations and recent data •Next Resource Fair to be held April 14, 2023 at Pioneer Park •Next Kayak Court to be held May 19, 2023 •Overflow bed availability and closing dates Laura Briefer provided information regarding: 2023 Spring Runoff Flood Control Update •Runoff characteristics being highly dependent on weather patterns over the next few weeks •Current snow pack in the Provo-Utah-Jordan basin was 207% of median •Local drainage water supply forecast ranges from 128% (City Creek) to 200% (Parleys) of average •Spring runoff planning and preparation status/information regarding: ◦Parleys reservoir storage ◦System modeling MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 2 ◦Continuous situational awareness upstream ◦Equipment and sandbag staging ◦Filling and storage of sandbags ◦Strategic movement of water ◦Weekly preparation and response ◦Public engagement and Joint Information Center •How residents can be prepared for spring runoff ◦Determine risk ◦Be prepared ◦Be safe •Key references – Links provided for flood zone mapping and preparedness resources Council Members Mano and Fowler requested the links for flood zone mapping and preparedness resources be provided to Council Staff in order to provide to citizens via the Council website, social media, and Council Member newsletters. Council Member Puy inquired if there were locations on the westside where residents could pick up sandbags and if not could Salt Lake County help to provide additional locations. Laura Briefer said coordination could be made with Salt Lake County for additional sandbag filling locations and also noted some areas in proximity to the Jordan River that were listed in the FEMA Flood Plains contained the surplus canals – a major piece of flood control infrastructure that would alleviate pressures for those living near the Jordan River. Council Member Puy said it was also important to provide communication to the community, and suggested the use of the SLC Mobile app to test push notifications regarding sandbagging locations, how to report blocked storm drains, along with other important flood information as well as provide presentations to local Community Councils about important flood information. Laura Briefer indicated her full support in reaching the community in any way necessary. 2.Informational: Equity Update ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 3 Roxanna Orellana, Kristen Hansen, and Zalmay Mallyar provided information regarding: • Introduction of the new Afghan community coordinator, Zalmay Mallyar • Know Your Neighbor program support staff • Afghan community challenges: housing, English, employment, legal status, child care, education, etc. (most issues being interconnected) • Volunteer solutions for the Afghan community: ◦ Childcare ◦ Voxy – a program that assisted with English and employment ◦ Document assistance for housing and legal status ◦ Refugee center programs: computer assistance, sewing program, women’s mentorship program 3.Funding Allocations for One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 2:35 p.m. 75 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations resolution that would authorize grant funding to selected applicants and adopt the One-Year Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2023- 24. The plan includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. The resolution would also approve an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 and Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Council Member Petro joined the Council meeting during this agenda item. Ben Luedtke provided an introduction to the briefing and highlighted information regarding: • Attachment 4 – Summary of Housing Stability Division Funds currently before the Council • Attachment 5 – Comparison of Salt Lake County housing rehabilitation programs • Attachment 6 – Comparison of Housing Stability programs • Re-captured funds from prior years for CDBG, HOME, and HOPWA • Responses to questions from the Council from the previous briefing • Salt Lake City CDBG Program – Neighborhood Improvements: Transportation & Economic Development Infrastructure – Item 1: Neighborhood Business MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 4 Improvement Program (NBIP) – request for $923,000 (Page 3 of the Funding Log) • Salt Lake City CDBG Program – Public Services – (Page 3 of the Funding Log) ◦ Council Members Petro and Fowler expressed support for Line Item #8 (funding up to $30,000) ◦ Council Members Valdemoros and Fowler expressed support for Line Item #7 (funding up to $30,000) ◦ Council Member Petro expressed support for and suggested funding amounts for Line Items #2, #3, #9, #14, #20 • Salt Lake City ESG Program – (Parts 1 and 2 on Pages 8 and 9 of the Funding Log) • Salt Lake City HOME Investment Partnership Program – (Page 11 of the Funding Log) ◦ Council Member Petro requested more information on the difference between funding for Neighborworks in the CDBG program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program ◦ Council Member Fowler requested more information/clarification regarding Line Item #8 and if it was related to the Community Land Trust or home buyer program Tony Milner, Heather Royall, and Dillon Hase were available for questions from the Council and provided information regarding: • Timeline for the recaptured funds/amounts to be utilized • Details of the target area map (Attachment 3) • Clarification on the Community Land Trust (CLT) status, role, structure, and parameters Council Member Fowler inquired why re-captured funds from prior years were not originally spent. Tony Milner explained that for program years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 there were staffing changes/capacity as well as the COVID-19 pandemic where many City programs were in decline and were not able to operate as normal. Council Member Puy said it was important to him to possibly find other ways to fund some of these requests such as additional funding from the General Fund to avoid cutting certain programs that Council Members might have felt strongly about. Ben Luedtke provided past examples of situations where items on the funding log were underfunded or scored low and still received some General Fund dollars and said some might even qualify for funding under other programs such as Funding Our Future, additional federal funding, etc. 4.Ordinance: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation Text Amendment ~ 3:50 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 5 The Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided an introduction to the proposal. Nick Norris, Kelsey Lindquist, Callie New (Design Workshop) and Jessica Garrow (Design Workshop) provided information regarding: • Process overview ◦ Design Workshop Team members involved with the project ◦ Land use code process used by the Design Workshop Team ◦ Comparison of project boundaries for proposed amendments with the Downtown Master Plan project boundaries • Project elements and code changes ◦ Pedestrian orientation consideration details (applying to all zone districts), including: ◾Front yard setbacks ◾Surface-level parking lots ◾Mid-block walkways ◾Proposed setbacks in all chapters ◾Screening updates of service areas ◾Streetscape standards ◾Design review updates ◾Specific changes by zone district ◦ Building height consideration details, including: ◾Proposed code locations and heights ◾Requirements specific to D-1, D-2, and D-4 zoning districts ◾New height transition standard ◦ Human scale and design consideration details, including: ◾Design standards table modifications and additions ◾Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) additions ◦ Clarification considerations, including: ◾Design standard applicability ◾Design standards added to each zoning district to ensure consistency ◾Design review process modifications ◦ Proposed code language ◾Clarification of the code language ◾Consolidation of text MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 6 ◾Creating a more urban feel ◾Incentivizing public benefits ◾Emphasize walkability, pedestrian interest and human scale ◾Increase compatibility/acknowledge impacts • Proposed sidewalk widths and associated zoning setbacks and right-of-ways • Proposed building height changes for the Granary District and differences vs. the Depot District 5.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Ordinance: Rezone at 792 West 900 South & 875 South 800 West ~ 4:40 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property at 792 West 900 South and 875 South 800 West from M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) to R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District). The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to develop two small multi-family dwellings. No development plans have been submitted at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The properties are within Council District 2. Petitioner: Cameron Broadbent. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction to the proposal. Nick Norris and Kaitlynn Harris provided information regarding: • Existing conditions of the project site MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 7 • Surrounding zoning designations • Existing (M-1) and proposed zones (R-MU) • Planning Commission having forwarded a positive recommendation for the proposal Cameron Broadbent (Applicant) explained his proposal for a four-plex for the property to bring longer-term tenants, provided examples of similar zoned areas near and around the subject property, and detailed the benefits of smaller multi-family dwellings on the City’s westside. 7.Informational - Legislative Intent Administration Responses, Fiscal Year 2023 and Previous Follow-Up ~ 5:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the responses to the Fiscal Year 2023 adopted legislative intents and further responses from prior fiscal year’s open legislative intents. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 21, 2023 and Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Allison Rowland provided an introduction to the briefing and presented information regarding: • #4 – Fire Department Costs ◦ Options for recouping costs for calls at the University of Utah ◦ The City’s hazardous materials ordinance, implementation of that ordinance, assuring the City was reimbursed from private insurance payments to those responsible for an incident ◦ Continue evaluating options for electrified Fire vehicles • #5 – Mayor’s Office ◦ FY23 Evaluating efficiencies across diversified response teams ◦ FY23 Importance of plan adoption • #6 – Police Department ◦ FY21 Police Department role ◾Social Workers ◾Internal Affairs ◾Police Civilian Response Team ◾FY21 Police Department zero-based budget exercise ◾Police Department reporting ordinance • #7 – Public Lands Department ◦ FY23 Transition to environmentally sustainable weed control in public lands ◦ FY22 Golf Fund update ◦ Public Lands maintenance funding estimates MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 8 • #8 – Public Services Department ◦ FY15 Maintenance of Business Districts • #9 – Public Utilities Department ◦ FY23 water usage by the City (responses by Public Services and Public Lands) • #10 – Redevelopment Agency ◦ FY23 New programs and capital accounts review ◦ FY23 Prioritize equity and variety of professional opportunities ◦ FY 22 Structure of accounts within RDA and all other departments, including fund balances and previous capital projects • #11 – Sustainability Department ◦ FY 23 Sustainability holding account 8.Ordinance: Airport Title 16 Amendments ~ 5:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would repeal and replace Title 16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Airports. The proposed amendment would eliminate duplicate and outdated regulations. Changes also include moving codified commercial standards to standalone administrative documents for operators doing business at the airport. Language related to ground transportation rules and fees is removed where it’s duplicated on the City’s ordinance regulating business (Title 5). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Sam Owen provided an introduction to the ordinance. Shane Andreasen and Bill Wyatt provided information regarding: Title 16 Aviation Update • Background: ◦ Updates being necessary for some time ◦ Recent general aviation development interest re-prioritized the effort ◦ Efforts started in mid-2021 ◦ Internal/external stakeholder involvement ◦ Airport Director’s role was clarified and consolidated into one section ◦ Proposed changes being more user-friendly, transparent and understandable by the public ◦ Fees to remain linked to the Consolidated Fee Schedule • Four main categories of updates: ◦ Removal of commercial aeronautical minimum standards and development of stand-alone documents MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 9 ◦ Removing language regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or redundant in Airport rules and regulations ◦ Consolidate ground transportation business into Title 5 (Chapters 5.71 and 5.72) ◦ General updating • Establishment and purpose of minimum standards • Overview of minimum standards • Current and proposed minimum standards examples • Examples of redundancy in regulations • Details of the consolidation of Ground Transportation ordinances into Title 5 9.Board Appointment: Airport Board - Hoang Nguyen ~ 5:40 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Hoang Nguyen prior to considering appointment to the Airport Board for a term ending April 4, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Hoang Nguyen’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 10.Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs (CDCIP) Advisory Board – Joseph Murphy ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Joseph Murphy prior to considering appointment to the CDCIP Advisory Board for a term ending June 1, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 10 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Joseph Murphy’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 11.Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Alla Chernenko ~ 5:50 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Alla Chernenko prior to considering appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending April 4, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Alla Chernenko’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 12.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board – Talula Pontuti ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Talula Pontuti prior to considering appointment to the PNUT Board for a term ending April 4, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Petro said Talula Pontuti’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11 Item not held. 14.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. Item not held. 15.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 Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12 Meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder – Cindy Trishman 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, April 4, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 4, 2023 13 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 2, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Kristin Riker – Public Lands Department Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Katie Riser – Community Outreach Special Projects & Equity Coordinator, Tonya Richardson – Civilian Review Board Investigator, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Xris Macias – Language Access Coordinator, Lex Traughber – Senior Planner, Michaela Oktay – Assistant Planning Director, Michelle Hoon – Housing Stability Policy & Program Manager, Jorge Chamorro – Public Services Director, Carmen Bailey – Public Lands Deputy Director, Tyler Murdock – Public Lands Deputy Director, Roberta Reichgelt – Business Development Director, William Wright – Economic Development Project Manager, Scott Mourtgos – Deputy Police Chief, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Katie Riser provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates •Ways to engage with the City found at: www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Love Your Block events/projects •SLC Corps events/projects •City-wide Plans: Transportation Plan and Housing SLC updates •Sustainability Department updates/events •Planning Department updates/events •Transportation Department updates/events •Mayor’s Community Office Hours updates/locations Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Homeless resource center (HRC)/Winter overflow utilization data •Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) locations/outreach/site rehabilitation •Next Resource Fair to be held at Library Square on May 12, 2023 •Taufer Park Block Party to be held May 13, 2023 •Kayak Court to be held May 19, 2023 •Homeless Housing Grant updates: ◦Point at Fairpark: ◾Located at 130 North 2100 West ◾Opening this week ◾94 units ◾Phased occupancy beginning in May 2023 ◦Ville 1659: ◾197 units ◾Located at 1659 West North Temple ◾Phased occupancy beginning in June 2023 ◦Medically Vulnerable Project (MVP): MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2 ◾Located outside municipal boundaries ◾98 units ◾Occupancy to begin August 2023 Rachel Otto and Tonya Richardson provided information regarding: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) •Board duties •Board composition: ◦21-member board (expanded from 14 in 2020) ◦Each district having three positions ◦Term is three years •Board member requirements: ◦Nomination by the Mayor/final appointment by the City Council ◦Extensive background check ◦Ride-alongs with an officer of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) ◦Training by SLCPD Internal Affairs ◦Attendance at the Citizen’s Academy ◦Meetings with community groups •Planned improvements of the PCRB •How to apply for the Board Laura Briefer provided information regarding: Spring Runoff Updates •Continuing to monitor all hydrologic conditions, weather, etc. •Emigration Creek had peaked again, becoming a concern •Parley’s and City Creek being closely monitored •Sandbag filling stations and sandbag pick-up locations •Detention basin monitoring at Sugar House Park •Jordan River not posing a concern at this time due to surplus canals 2.Informational: Equity Update ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 3 Xris Macias provided information regarding: •Recently attended the Welcoming Interactive Conference 2023; held in San Jose California, 600+ attendees, focus on immigration inclusion, how to create government leadership with the intentionality of inclusivity, etc. •Salt Lake City being a member of the Welcoming America network •Salt Lake City working to become Welcoming certified (national recognition/formal designation) •Details regarding the areas of assessment for certification •Next steps include self-assessment, application, audit, report, and certification 3.Informational: Planning Director’s Local Historic District Reports ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Local Historic District Designation reports. The proposed boundaries are the Princeton Heights Local Historic District at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. As well as the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District from approximately 1300 East to 1500 East, including both the northern and southern sides of Laird Avenue. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council in order to continue the designation process. 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 - n/a Brian Fullmer provided an introduction to the briefing. Lex Traughber, Michaela Oktay, Katie Lewis and Aiden Lillie provided information regarding: Yalecrest – Laird Heights & Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) Planning Director’s Report •Local and national historic district locations throughout the City •Details of the proposed local historic district locations •Laird Heights: ◦Located in the Yalecrest National Historic District ◦Containing 66 homes, 68 properties, 2 small vacant associated parcels •Princeton Heights: ◦Located in the Yalecrest National Historic District ◦Containing 43 homes, 45 parcels MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 4 •Local Historic District designation process •Details of the Director’s report/purpose of today’s meeting •Details of funding to administer the local historic district •The Council’s role in the requested designation process 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 ~ 2:55 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for adapting the Seven Canyons Fountain at Liberty Park into a dry art piece, a roof replacement for the Steiner Aquatics Center, and several proposals to use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for revenue replacement and a $10 million contribution to the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah among other items. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Ben Luedtke, Michelle Hoon, Jorge Chamorro, and Mary Beth Thompson provided information on budget amendment items, including: •Current projections of General Fund revenue for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 •Item A-1: Additional funding for the Cultural Core ($291,000 from Salt Lake City’s Cultural Core Surplus Fund) •Items A-2/A-3/D-1/E-3: Additional one-time funding for Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team ◦$300,000 from rescoping projected personnel vacancy savings in Community and Neighborhoods Department ◦$160,000 from rescoping part of the State Mitigation Grant ◦$73,418 from rescoping unspent funds from Operation Rio Grande ◦Straw Poll: Support for Item A-2. All Council Members present were in favor (6-0). Council Member Fowler was absent for the poll •Item A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain rescope change ($823,548 from Capital Improvement Projects – CIP) •Items A-5/A-6: Open Space property acquisitions ◦$450,000 from Impact fees for City parks ◦$300,000 from Impact fees for City trails MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 5 •Item A-7: Recapture of one-time Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act Funds ($209,552 rescope from $200,000 of City Administration and $9,552 from Volunteers of America – VOA Homeless Outreach Program) •Item A-8: Steiner Aquatics Center roof replacement ($1.38M from General Fund balance – review) •Item A-9: Natural gas cost increase ($635,000 from General Fund balance of which $135,000 to the Fleet Fund) •Item A-11: Environmental Assessment additional funding ($50,000 from General Fund balance) ◦Straw Poll: Support for Item A-11. All Council Members present were in favor (6-0). Council Member Fowler was absent for the poll 5.Informational: Proposal for Investing in the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah ~ 3:40 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s proposal to use $10 million from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to invest with the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah to facilitate the development of affordable rental housing units in Salt Lake City under an equity sharing model. 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 - n/a Jennifer Bruno, Rachel Otto, Chris Parker (Giv Development) and Ashley Atkinson (Giv Development) provided information regarding: Perpetual Housing Fund (PHF) •Overview of the Mayor’s goals/priorities regarding the program/proposal •This proposal being part of Budget Amendment No. 6 •The City having to spend the $10M allocated by December 2024 •Identifying the issue of renting vs. owning a home •Data on the current state of Utah housing market •Density being a potential solution to creating affordability by lowering land costs per unit •Shared ownership offered residents the benefits of both apartments and condos •Potential solutions for affordable housing •How PHF paired with existing low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC ) subsidies with shared ownership to benefit building residents •SLC’s investment projected outcomes; $10M ARPA investment in PHF would provide: ◦2-6% return on investment for 20+ year term MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6 ◦1,000 equity-sharing PHF units for individuals and families making 65% of area median income (AMI) and below ◦500 condo units in the City affordable to individuals and families making 60%-120% of AMI •Unit delivery schedule •Details of the resident perspective from a typical 200-unit project •How the asset would appreciate over time (including debt reduction) with shared ownership for a 200-unit project Council Member Dugan recommended a mentoring program to assist residents in understanding the PHF process. 6.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 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 7.Informational: Review of Department of Public Lands Report Adequately Maintaining SLC's Public Lands ~ 4:40 p.m. 30 min. The Council will be briefed on a report that the Department of Public Lands produced in response to a Fiscal Year 2022 Legislative Intent. It estimates future maintenance funding needs based on a complex framework that includes full staffing, replacement of failing infrastructure, and unfunded responsibilities, including tasks like weed abatement and tree maintenance. 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 - n/a Kristin Riker, Carmen Bailey, and Tyler Murdock provided information regarding: •Purpose of the report; the Council having the intent for the Administration to provide an estimate of the funding needed to adequately maintain all of the City’s public lands •Areas of focus: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 7 ◦Evolving the workforce: ◾Challenges: curfew violations, safety violations, seasonal staffing changes, etc. ◾Solutions: health insurance for part-time employees, increase in seasonal salaries, police parks squad enforcing park curfews, etc. ◦Growth gap – matching population growth with growth of the parks system: ◾Challenges: growing population, slow system expansion, insufficient planning/project delivery capacity ◾Solutions: acquisition plans, strategic Capital Plan, three additional Planner positions, parks bond, and planned growth ◦Addressing the City’s aging infrastructure: ◾Challenges: previous years without investment; irrigation, playgrounds, lighting, a backlog of asset replacement, etc. ◾Solutions: asset conditions assessment and management plan, upgrading irrigation systems, and large equipment plan ◦Improving stewardship through partnership development and community engagement: ◾Challenges: lack of property management/”General” plans, limited staff capacity, data collection ◾Solutions: community park activation grants, enhance/develop partnerships, expand budget dedicated to stewardship, etc. ◦Resolving structural imbalances: ◾Challenges: increasing the number of properties to maintain ◾Solutions (new properties and amenities, public way beautification ◦Reducing or eliminating crime and antisocial behaviors in public spaces: ◾Current strategies: involving the community in the design process, visibility, activity and life, animal services •Summary of cost estimates to implement all strategies available to improve the maintenance of public lands 8.Informational: Police Department Crime Reduction Strategies ~ 5:10 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the University of Texas at San Antonio professors working with the Salt Lake City Police Department on crime reduction strategies. The Police Department’s 2022 Crime Control Plan was informed by the group’s research, particularly to address violent crime. One of the evidence-based strategies is hot spot policing which increases police visibility in the short-term in areas where violent crime is concentrated. Another strategy is problem oriented placed based policing over the medium term to address underlying conditions contributing to crime-prone areas, such as civil enforcement, nuisance abatement, and environmental design changes. Data is tracked to compare before and after interventions to help evaluate the effectiveness of strategies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 8 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Deputy Chief Scott Mourtgos, Dr. Mike Smith and Dr. Rob Tillyer (Center for Applied Community and Policy Research – University of Texas at San Antonio – UTSA) provided information regarding: •Project background details •Hot Spots Policing Strategy ◦Beginning in September 2022, SLCPD began executing its near-term, hot spots policing strategy ◦Focus on violence-prone addresses by increasing police visibility at or near those locations to deter violent offenders ◦Officers dispatched to recommended hots posts during peak crime hours •Mid-year Analysis Plan (September 2022 – March 2023) ◦Treatment fidelity tracking ◦Monthly violent crime comparison to same period last year and to previous 12-months •Fidelity results by period •Data on violent crime impact •Data on crime during the treatment period vs. previous year •Data on crime by division •Data on arrests city-wide and hot spots vs. last year •Data on calls for service city-wide and hot spots vs. last year •Next Steps – Mid-term Strategy ◦Problem-oriented, place-based policing (POPBP) – strategies carefully tailored to address underlying conditions that contribute to recurring problems in crime-prone areas ◦Initial location identified – based on three year analysis of violent crime, arrests, and calls for service ◦Mid-term Strategy timeline •UTSA Evaluation ◦Hot spot policing evaluation and continued reporting ◦Evaluation of the POPBP strategy over the next year •Information regarding staffing availability within the SLCPD 9.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Trackland, LLC ~ 5:40 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $350,000 loan for 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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9 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 Allison Rowland provided a brief introduction to the ordinance. Roberta Reichgelt and William Wright introduced Trackland, LLC, noting they were the first tech company considered for a loan since the program began and provided information regarding the employee structure of the company. 10.Resolution: Local Emergency Declaration Extension – Flooding ~ 5:50 p.m. 10 min. The Council will be briefed about a proposed resolution that would extend the Mayor’s April 12, 2023 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to flooding from spring runoff. 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 2, 2023 Katie Lewis and Laura Briefer provided information regarding: •The Council’s role in the extension of a local emergency •Recommended extension to June 15 or June 30 based on existing data Council Members decided on June 30, 2023, to extend the local emergency declaration. 11.Resolution: Interlocal Agreement and Memorandum for 2023 Election Services Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution for an election services interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County. It defines the services the County will provide the City for the 2023 General Election, through the Ranked Choice Voting method, on November 7, 2023. The City will be responsible for any additional charges exceeding the estimated cost such as a recount which would be invoiced to the City after the election. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10 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 2, 2023 Written briefing only. No discussion was held. 12.Informational: Naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the Senator Garn Greeting Room Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposal from Mayor Mendenhall in naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the “Senator Garn Greeting Room” after former Salt Lake City Mayor and Utah Senator Jake Garn. Senator Jake Garn was elected Salt Lake City Commissioner in 1967 and Mayor in 1971. He went on the serve three terms as a United States Senator from 1974-1992. 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 2, 2023 Written briefing only. No discussion was held. 13.Board Appointment Interviews for the Sister Cities Board ~ 6:00 p.m. 10 min The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Sister Cities Board: •John Wilson •Matilyn Mortensen •Ross Chambless •Annie Quan 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Interviews held. Council Member Mano said the applicant’s names (Ross Chambless, Annie Quan, John Wilson, Matilyn Mortensen) would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. 15.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to; •Inland Port Travel; •Agenda Packet Days; and •Scheduling Items. Cindy Gust-Jenson presented two items for Council consideration: •Delivery of Council materials would be moved to Fridays (instead of Thursdays) •Upcoming Inland Port Board travel to Germany to visit rail sites and discuss best practices – which Council Member Petro would be attending, noting it was more appropriate for the City to pay for the travel to preserve independence and objectivity Unanimous Council support for a City representative to be present for the upcoming Inland Port Board travel. 16.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12 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. Closed Session started at 6:33 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Dugan, Fowler, Puy, Mano, Wharton and Valdemoros. (Council Member Petro Absent) City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Mendenhall, Katherine Lewis, Jonathan Pappasideris, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Lindsey Nikola, Andrew Wittenberg, Mary Beth Thompson, Debra Alexander, David Salazar, Lisa Hunt, Tyler Murdock, Kristin Riker, Cindy Gust- Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Cindy Lou Trishman, Ben Luedtke, and Taylor Hill. Closed Session ended at 6:55 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, and attorney-client matters. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to exit the Closed Session. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 13 AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Amy Fowler, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano ABSENT: Victoria Petro Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 2, 2023 14 Meeting adjourned at: 6:21 pm. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder – Cindy Trishman 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 2, 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 2, 2023 15 Item B1 & B2 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 and B-2 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 7/11/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No.1 FTE Project Coordinator for four years. Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program: Formula grants for planning (greenhouse gas reduction) Phase 1: Cities will produce a Priority Climate Action Plan & Comprehensive Climate Action Plan. Phase 2: the EPA will conduct competitive grant rounds to distribute $4.6 billion to implement the plans. If awarded, the City would be the lead agency and responsible for providing the plans to the EPA. Funding would include salary & benefits for one FTE, travel to team workshops, office supplies to support outreach, meetings, and professional svcs from EPA consultant and support from the Int’l. Council for Local Enviro. Analysis consultant & Enviro. & Climate consultant. Needs a Public Hearing. Does the Council wish to hold a Work Session to ask more questions? No Grant amount is $1 million. Salary & benefits: $120,728 annually for 4 years for Project Coordi- nator. U.S.EPA Dept. of Sustainabili- ty/Division of Energy & Environmt. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 2.Yes. $4 million. Source: Existing tree pruning contract and staff time. No new FTEs.Salt Lake Healthy Community through Healthy Trees Consultant will be hired to assess the urban forest and create an urban forestry management plan. Needs a Public Hearing. Does the Council wish to hold a Work Session to ask more questions? No Grant amount is $4 million for a five-year grant. USDA Forest Service Department of Public Lands Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards , Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Elizabeth Gerhart, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com EC: Department of Public Lands | Kristin Riker, Tony Gliot FROM: Sarah Behrens DATE: June 7, 2023 SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Healthy Community through Healthy Trees FUNDING AGENCIES: USDA Forest Service GRANT PROGRAM: Urban & Community Forestry REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $3, 095,000 DEPARTMENT: Public L ands| Urban Forestry COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DATE SUBMITTED: June 4, 2023 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies Only Technical Assistance Provides Hourly Positions Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required 1:1 $4,000,556 In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: Urban Forestry requested funding for the following activities Public Tree Pruning The pruning work will focus on pruning trees that had dead or dangerous limbs and trees with low limbs that need to be remove d to promote tree health and clearance away from streets, sidewalks and yards. Urban Forest Management Plan & Canopy Assessment The Urban Forest Management Plan will identify strengths and gaps in the City urban forest composition, SLC codes, policies and procedures, programs, and specifications. As the result of a robust public process, the Urban Forestry Management Plan will also provide a clear picture of citizen wants, needs, support, and concerns regarding the city’s urban forest. Upon completion, the Urban Forestry D ivision will implement recommendations from the assessment for tree planting. Street and Park Tree Inventory The Tree Inventory project item will deliver the following data for each tree: Location (x and y coordinates), species, size (d.b.h.), health condition, site characteristics, maintenance need prioritization. Furthermore, the inventory data will be provided in a form t hat is compatible with the City’s asset management software (Cartagraph). Data collection will begin in the underserved communities known to have insufficient tree canopy This approach will provide actionable maintenance and management data for communities with the greatest need first, enabling the Urban Forestry Division to mos t effectively allocate resources to improve forest health in the se neighborhoods first. Salt Lake City Urban Forestry Division will conduct regular audits of delivered tree invent ory data to verify accuracy. Park Tree Watering Optimization- Salt Lake City Parks and Urban Forestry Divisions will prioritiz e park locations where existing watering systems can be efficiently modified to specifically water trees both existing and new tre es to maximize City resources and increase water conservation. Project: Salt Lake City Healthy Community through Healthy Trees Federal Funds (requested) Non-Federal Match Total Source of Matching Funds Cash In-Kind Personnel $1,256,556.00 $1,256,556.00 Applicant Contractual $3,095,000.00 $2,744,000.00 $5,839,000.00 Applicant Total Direct Costs: $3,095,000.00 $4,000,556.00 $7,095,556.00 Indirect Cost: $0.00 Total Project Cost: $3,095,000.00 $4,000,556.00 $7,095,556.00 The match is met through, Staff time $1,256,556 .00 Tree Pruning Contract (existing) $2,744,000.00 The grant has a five -year performance period. Item B1 & B2 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 and B-2 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 7/11/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.No.1 FTE Project Coordinator for four years. Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program: Formula grants for planning (greenhouse gas reduction) Phase 1: Cities will produce a Priority Climate Action Plan & Comprehensive Climate Action Plan. Phase 2: the EPA will conduct competitive grant rounds to distribute $4.6 billion to implement the plans. If awarded, the City would be the lead agency and responsible for providing the plans to the EPA. Funding would include salary & benefits for one FTE, travel to team workshops, office supplies to support outreach, meetings, and professional svcs from EPA consultant and support from the Int’l. Council for Local Enviro. Analysis consultant & Enviro. & Climate consultant. Needs a Public Hearing. Does the Council wish to hold a Work Session to ask more questions? No Grant amount is $1 million. Salary & benefits: $120,728 annually for 4 years for Project Coordi- nator. U.S.EPA Dept. of Sustainabili- ty/Division of Energy & Environmt. City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 2.Yes. $4 million. Source: Existing tree pruning contract and staff time. No new FTEs.Salt Lake Healthy Community through Healthy Trees Consultant will be hired to assess the urban forest and create an urban forestry management plan. Needs a Public Hearing. Does the Council wish to hold a Work Session to ask more questions? No Grant amount is $4 million for a five-year grant. USDA Forest Service Department of Public Lands Page 1 of 2 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, Christopher Thomas FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: June 2, 2023 SUBJECT: Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Program| Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap FUNDING AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) GRANT PROGRAM: Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Program (CPRG): Formula Grants for Planning REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,000,000 DEPARTMENT: Department of Sustainability | Division of Energy and Environment COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Alta, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay, Millcreek, Salt Lake County, Tooele County, University Neighborhood Partners, Utah Division of Air Quality, Wasatch Front Regional Council, West Jordan, West Valley City, and other jurisdictions to be confirmed DATE SUBMITTED: May 31, 2023 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance  Provides 1 FTE Position □ Existing  New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation - NEW: Four years of salary and fringe benefits totaling $482,915 for one FTE Program Coordinator. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement. □ Match Required  In-Kind Services and  Cash GRANT DETAILS:  The EPA CPRG Program, created through the Inflation Reduction Act, directs a national investment of $5 billion to support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  CPRG funding is available in two phases. In the first phase, Formula Grants for Planning are apportioned to states ($3 million each) and 67 of the largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas ($1 million each) to produce a Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) and Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP). In the second phase, EPA is conducting competitive grant rounds to disperse $4.6 billion to implement measures identified in PCAPs and CCAPs. Page 2 of 2  The United States Office of Management and Budget delineates Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) according to published standards that are applied to Census Bureau data.  The Salt Lake-Utah MSA is defined as jurisdictions within the boundaries of Salt Lake County and Tooele County.  Salt Lake City is serving as the agency leading the participation of the Salt Lake-Utah MSA in the CPRG: Formula Grants for Planning as a result of discussions with representatives from EPA-Region 8, City of Holladay, Millcreek City, Salt Lake County, Tooele County, and Wasatch Front Regional Council.  As the lead agency, Salt Lake City is responsible for producing the EPA-defined deliverables for the full geographic scope and population of the MSA over the course of the four-year performance period. The deliverables are: 1) PCAP, due to the EPA by March 1, 2024 2) CCAP, due to the EPA in late summer/early fall 2025 3) Status Report, due to the EPA at the close of the grant period in 2027  Required activities for the development of the PCAP and CCAP include conducting a regional greenhouse gas inventory and compiling near-term (PCAP) and long-term (CCAP) greenhouse gas reduction measures and climate actions that could have a quantifiable impact to reduce pollution.  Project staff will coordinate closely with Utah Division of Air Quality to include and/or align measures in the PCAP and CCAP for the Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap with the State-led PCAP and CCAP.  University Neighborhood Partners is assisting in the formation and convening of a Resident Environmental Justice Committee to give residents of low-income and disadvantaged communities (identified with the EPA Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool) in Salt Lake City and West Valley City a place at the table in the development of the PCAP and CCAP for the Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap.  Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability is directing the $1 million worth of federal funds allocated to the Salt Lake City-Utah MSA to costs presented below to produce the deliverables: Expense Category Total Salary and Benefits: One FTE Project Coordinator $482,915 Travel: One project staff to attend EPA Climate Innovation Team Training Workshops $6,508 Supplies: Office and relevant supplies to support outreach, engagement, meetings, etc. $2,500 Contractual: Professional services from an Environmental Analysis consultant and an Environmental and Climate consultant $149,320 Other: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI USA) = $144,986 $358,757 County-government led efforts and community-based services for community engagement = $197,356 Membership Fees to ICLEI USA = $12,400 Printing services = $3,250 Interpreter Services = $765 Total $1,000,000  There is $0 worth in non-federal local match committed to the project. Item B4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: 1350, 1358, 1370 South West Temple Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2022-00810 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: 1350, 1358, 1370 South West Temple Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2022-00810 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.). 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. Item Schedule: Briefing: May 23, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 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. 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. Page | 3 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. 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. Page | 4 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 B5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 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 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Riverside Cottages Zoning and Master Plan Amendments (1500, 1516, 1520, 1522 West 500 North, and 552 North 1500 West) PLNPCM2021-01075/01203 & PLNPCM2022-00674 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. 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: Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 •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 B6 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties at 1549, 1551, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West PLNPCM2022-00733 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties at 1549, 1551, 1565 South 1000 West, and 1574 South 900 West PLNPCM2022-00733 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. 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 Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 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. PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Housing Loss Mitigation Report 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. A formal 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 this application is a “petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land,” a Housing Loss Mitigation Plan is required. Housing Loss Mitigation Plans are reviewed by the City’s Planning Director and the Director of Community & Neighborhoods. The plan includes a housing impact statement and a method for 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 - Under this option, the applicant would pay into the City’s Housing Trust Fund an amount calculated as the difference between the market value of the home, as determined by the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office, and the replacement cost of building a new dwelling unit of similar size and meeting all existing building, fire and other applicable law (excluding land value). The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office shows the 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 costs exceed 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-30 is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the City’s 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 make a contribution to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. Although not required, 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: 03/29/2023 Single-family dwelling at 1549 S 1000 W Single-family dwelling at 1574 S 900 W PLNPCM2022-00733_HLM Report_Draft Final Audit Report 2023-03-29 Created:2023-03-29 By:Katherine Vuong (katherine.vuong@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAa1RgsVaHfy2nTsYqMzzCD5wVDrCHFObh "PLNPCM2022-00733_HLM Report_Draft" History Document created by Katherine Vuong (katherine.vuong@slcgov.com) 2023-03-29 - 7:55:52 PM GMT Document emailed to Orion Goff (orion.goff@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-03-29 - 7:56:25 PM GMT Email viewed by Orion Goff (orion.goff@slcgov.com) 2023-03-29 - 7:57:56 PM GMT Document e-signed by Orion Goff (orion.goff@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-03-29 - 7:58:05 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-03-29 - 7:58:05 PM GMT Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted. 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 B7 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Property at 510 South 200 West PLNPCM2022-01108 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Property at 510 South 200 West PLNPCM2022-01108 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 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 Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 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. 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. Page | 3 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. Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1) Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right Minimum height-100 feet Maximum Height-no limit Buildings taller than 200 feet Page | 4 Above 65 feet up to 120 feet subject to design review 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 Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Page | 5 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 B8 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Nonconforming Signs Ordinance Text Amendment PLNPCM2022-00984 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Nonconforming Signs Ordinance Text Amendment PLNPCM2022-00984 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. 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, Item Schedule: Briefing: June 13, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 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. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Page | 3 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 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 Not Applicable Page | 4 zoning districts which may impose additional standards. 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 • 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. Page | 5 • 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 B9 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block) PLNPCM2022-01109 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: 754 South State Street Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Sears Block) PLNPCM2022-01109 The Council will be briefed on a proposed zoning map amendment for ten parcels totaling approximately nine acres on the block bordered by 700 South, 800 South, State Street, and Main Street as shown in the image below. This is the former Sears department store location which closed in 2018 and the buildings have since been demolished. The property is currently zoned D-2 (Downtown Support District), and the requested zoning designation is D-1 (Central Business District). Intermountain Health owns the property, and their stated objective is to construct an urban hospital on the site. Hospitals are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed D-1 or current D-2 zoning. Included with the zoning map amendment, the petitioner also requested a text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts found in Salt Lake City Code to allow hospitals, including accessory lodging facilities, and ambulance services as permitted uses in the D-1 zoning district. It is worth noting that the Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt the text amendment to specify that these uses should be conditional rather than permitted. Additional information follows later in this report. Nine acres is significantly smaller than a typical hospital development, but the applicant indicated additional height allowed under the proposed D-1 zoning district would allow them to build up rather than out, so the site would accommodate their needs. (Building height is limited to 120 feet in the current D-2 zoning district. There is no height limit in the D-1 zone, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to design review and conditions). Item Schedule: Briefing: July 11, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 11, 2023 Potential Action: July 18, 2023 Page | 2 It is worth noting that Major Street is a public street entering the site mid-block from 700 South. During the design process, if the petitioner wants to build over the street property rather than use it as an access point, a separate street vacation petition would be required. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying text amendment. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. A representative of the Downtown Community Council expressed general support and referenced a letter sent to Intermountain (included on pages 31-34 of the Planning Commission staff report) which includes several requests for the potential hospital site that would be reviewed later if the project advances. The other commenter shared concerns about potential adverse effects to nearby neighbors from the hospital and helicopters landing there. When asked about the anticipated frequency of helicopter landings, the petitioner said the hospital will not be a trauma one center as are Intermountain Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital, so helicopter traffic will be light. Some patients will require transport via helicopter, with a projected average of one to two times per week. This is based on what LDS Hospital experiences. Heliports are currently allowed as a conditional use in the D-1 zone. The Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map for the subject parcels from D-2 to D-1, and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district: •Ambulance service (indoor) •Ambulance service (outdoor) •Hospital, including accessory lodging facility. One Commissioner who voted against the motion previously made a motion to include the above uses as permitted. A substitute motion was made to include the uses as conditional in the D-1 zoning district, which a majority of the Commission voted to support. Others who voted against the motion did not specify why they were opposed. Page | 3 Vicinity map with the subject parcels outlined in yellow. Note-other parcels on the block are under separate ownership and not included in this proposal. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner whether they are planning to provide housing at or near the proposed hospital site. 2. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about what ground floor public facing amenities are anticipated for the site such as retail and food establishments, in order to provide ground floor activation for pedestrian traffic, as is the goal of other D-1 district parcels. 3. The Council may also with to ask about plans for other public-facing amenities such as open space, etc. that could provide a benefit to the adjacent community. 4. The Council may wish to discuss policy goals for midblock walkways or other ways to break up the building(s) and provide a more open feel to the site. As previously stated there is no current site plan and the Council’s role is not to review site plans, although this could provide policy guidance for the future as it relates to closure of Major Street, which fall under the Council’s purview. 5. The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if they have plans to provide healthcare services for those staying at the homeless resource centers, or services not available from other providers. 6. As shown in the map below, if approved, this parcel would be zoned D-1 and would not be contiguous with other D-1 properties. It would be separated by properties on the north side of 700 South which are zoned D-2. The Council may wish to ask the Planning Division if this is consistent with best practices (previous concerns have been raised by the Administration and past Councils about “spot zoning”), or if there are considerations for rezoning those properties in the future. As noted in Planning’s analysis, the surrounding uses are compatible with the proposal. Page | 4 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-9 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Neighborhood and Citywide Master Plan Considerations The subject parcels are near the southern edge of the area covered by the Downtown Master Plan, adopted in 2016. The plan acknowledges ongoing population growth and calls for improved access to services and amenities that support current and future downtown residents. If the proposed hospital is built it would provide healthcare and jobs for nearby residents and those in the region. Existing infrastructure will not accommodate the level of demand a hospital would generate. The developer will be required to make improvements to offsite water, sewer, and stormwater quality in addition to nearby water mains. Other needed improvements will be identified if the hospital is built. The subject parcels are less than one block south of the D-1 zoning district as shown in the area zoning map below. Although the proposed zoning change to D-1 would allow for higher density development and taller buildings called for in the Downtown Master Plan, Planning staff found the zoning supports initiatives outlined in the plan and continues the established development framework. If approved by the Council, the subject properties would be surrounded by D-2 zoning, but Planning anticipates these property owners will eventually work toward rezoning their properties. Planning staff identified the following guiding principles found in Plan Salt Lake (2015) that relate to the proposed zoning map and text amendments. •Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. •A beautiful city that is people focused. •Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice and respect. •A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. Page | 5 Area zoning map with subject property outlined in red. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. Consideration 2-Development Potential D-2 zoning limits building height to 120 feet. The requested D-1 zoning does not limit building height, but buildings taller than 200 feet are subject to conditions and design review. One of the following conditions would have to be provided as part of the design review process if a building taller than 200 feet is built: •Midblock walkway that exceeds standard requirements by at least five feet, •Affordable housing incentives, •Additional ground floor use and visual interest, •A restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and not listed as a local landmark site, or •500 square feet of open space with a shade that covers 60% of the area. Planning staff anticipates a design review application will be submitted requesting additional building height. Consideration 3- Compatibility with Adjacent Properties As noted above, the subject property is less than one block south of the D-1 district and the Downtown Master Plan anticipates this district to expand to approximately 900 South. Planning staff believes the proposed rezone is compatible with development to the north and aligns with the community’s expectation of downtown expansion. Surrounding businesses are smaller in scale and include restaurants, barber shops, banks, and car dealerships. Page | 6 The Central City neighborhood is located to the east of the subject property, and Central 9th is to the west. Central City is an established residential neighborhood with some of the city’s oldest single-family homes. Central 9th is also an older single-family residential neighborhood but is transitioning to more medium density among the older homes. It is Planning staff’s opinion the surrounding community would not be adversely impacted by the rezone. Additionally, if surrounding property owners work to rezone their properties as is anticipated, development potential on those properties would be the same. The subject site is within the Ballpark Community Council boundaries, but is within 600 feet of the Central 9th, Central City, and Downtown community council boundaries. It is within the Ballpark neighborhood, but not included in the recently adopted Ballpark Small Area Plan. Rather, as noted above, it is located within the Downtown Master Plan area. If the proposed hospital is built, there will be a significant increase in area pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Planning noted that designers would need to consider City plans related to streetscape design, midblock connections, and activation on State and Main Streets. They also encouraged transit use for employees, promote active transportation, and to be an example of how an urban hospital can revitalize a site. Those recommendations would be reviewed if the project develops. ZONING COMPARISON The following table includes regulations in the zoning ordinance recently adopted by the Council. Regulation Existing Zoning (D-2)Proposed Zoning (D-1) Building Height Maximum height-65 feet by right Above 65 feet up to 120 feet subject to design review Minimum height-100 feet Maximum Height-no limit Buildings taller than 200 feet subject to design review and must include at least one of the following: •Midblock walkway •Affordable housing •Exceed minimum ground floor uses •Restrictive covenant on historic building to preserve for at least 50 years •Privately owned publicly accessible open space of at least 500 square feet Yard Requirements Front/corner side yard-no minimum. Ten feet maximum. Buildings with ground floor residential: Minimum eight-foot front yard setback, 16 foot maximum. Provided yard shall No minimum Eight feet maximum. If provided must include at least one of the following: •Minimum of one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space •Landscaping that includes increase of at least 25% of Page | 7 be landscaped and provide at least one of the following: •Minimum of one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space •Landscaping that includes increase of at least 25% of total number of required trees •Awning covering at least five feet width and length from all street-facing building entrances total number of required trees •Awning covering at least five feet width and length from all street-facing building entrances Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 25-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and zoning text amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Zoning Map Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the applicable master plans. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The change in zoning is not anticipated to create any substantial new negative impacts that wouldn’t be anticipated with the current zoning. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. There is no applicable overlay district that imposes additional development standards on this property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The redevelopment of the site will require public facility upgrades. Zoning Text Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the applicable master plans. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Page | 8 Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The change in zoning is not anticipated to create any substantial new negative impacts that wouldn’t be anticipated with the current zoning. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. The redevelopment of the site will require public facility upgrades. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 11, 2022-Petition for zoning map and text amendment received by Planning Division. • November 23, 2022-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. • December 8, 2022-Notice sent to Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown Community Councils, and Downtown Alliance. Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. • December 12, 2022- Proposal posted for an online open house. • March 10, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notice sent. Agenda posted to Planning Commission website and State Public Notice webpage. • March 22, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. The Commission also forwarded a positive recommendation to add the proposed hospital and ambulance service land uses to D-1 as conditional rather than the requested permitted uses. • March 27, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • April 14, 2023-Signed ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office. • April 27, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council // July 11, 2023 ZONING MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT754 S STATE STREET PLNPCM2022-01109 Request 1:Request to rezone the property at approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 (Downtown Support District)to D-1 (Central Business District) •Property includes 10 parcels and is approximately 9 acres •If the amendments are approved,the property owner, Intermountain Healthcare,intends to build an urban hospital on the site Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST S T A T E S T M A I N S T 700 S 800 S Address Parcel ID Approximate Acreage 748 South State St.16-07-103-017 .55 709 South Main St.16-07-103-001 .66 36 E 700 S 16-07-103-002 .81 48 E 700 S 16-07-103-003 .17 56 E 700 S 16-07-103-004 .24 728 S Major St.16-07-103-008 .10 725 S Major St.16-07-103-009 .25 735 S Major St.16-07-103-010 .10 739 S Major St.16-07-103-011 .1o 754 S State St.16-07-103-022 5.97 Major Street None Total Acreage:8.95 Request 2:Text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts would add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 zoning district: • Ambulance service (indoor) • Ambulance service (outdoor) • Hospital, including accessory lodging facility Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST AMBULANCE SERVICE: An emergency response facility housing ambulance services, dispatching, staging, and maintenance. HOSPITAL, INCLUDING ACCESSORY LODGING FACILITY: An institution licensed by the State of Utah specializing in giving clinical, temporary, or emergency services of a medical or surgical nature to human patients. Salt Lake City // Planning Division •General Plan Policies •Development Potential •Compatibility with Adjacent Properties CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division On March 22,2023,the Planning Commission voted 7-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council amending the zoning map for the subject parcels from D-2 to D-1,and add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 district: •Ambulance service (indoor) •Ambulance service (outdoor) •Hospital,including accessory lodging facility PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division Amanda Roman // Urban Designer amanda.roman@slcgov.com Salt Lake City // Planning Division Downtown Plan The subject property is located at the edge of downtown within the South State corridor and adjacent to the Central 9th neighborhood,in an area also referred to as Midtown. •Growth is expected &appropriate •The existing infrastructure will need to be improved,as the current systems cannot handle such an increase in demand •Public and city reviewer comments call for street activation,breaking up the block,and high quality design,specifically of the public realm. Plan Salt Lake 1.Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment,opportunities for social interaction,and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 8.A beautiful city that is people focused. 11.Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness,justice and respect. 12.A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce,local business,and industry to thrive. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES Salt Lake City // Planning Division D-2 Zoning District •By-right height of 65 feet •Maximum height of 120 feet,with Design Review approval •The zone has design standards relating to ground floor use and visual interest,building materials and glass requirements,building entrance locations,and maximum building length DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL D-1 Zoning District •By-right height of 200 feet,no maximum height with Design Review approval •Projects requesting additional height must include:a midblock walkway or affordable housing incentives, additional ground floor use and visual interest,a restrictive covenant for a building older than 50 years and not listed as a local landmark site,or 500 square feet of open space with at least 60%tree canopy coverage •New D-1 Design Standards:maximum blank wall and reflective glass limitations,dimensions between building entrances,streetscape requirements,and increased building articulation Salt Lake City // Planning Division The site is within the Ballpark Community Council boundary,but also within 600 feet of the Central 9th,Central City,and Downtown Community Council boundaries North:Downtown,small-scale restaurants &retail East:Central City residential neighborhood South:Medium density residential,commercial,car dealerships West:Older transitioning single-family neighborhood, commercial,car dealerships,medium density residential COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES Hoyt Place Salt Lake City Council Meeting July 11, 2023 Confidential and property of Intermountain Health •Easily accessible for patients, including convenient ingress/ egress and proximity to freeways •Place where physicians want to practice •Adequate acreage •Singular owner/transaction •Near public transportation •Municipal support Site Priorities •Existing D-1 zone is only a half block to the north. •D-1 change will improve growth of the nearby central business district. •Facilitates connection between adjacent zones that are east and west of State Street. Relation to Existing Zoning Aerial photo from Google Earth •Market has not responded to or valued the existing D-2 zoning, which has left a vacant, un-used site. •Re-zone will facilitate a comprehensive approach to redeveloping the site. D-1 Will Facilitate Highest and Best Use Photos from Google Earth, Street View(Existing site before demolition) What might a new, world class hospital mean for downtown Salt Lake City? •Daily flow of 1,700 Employees •High quality, high reputation infrastructure for decades •Influx of new, purpose-driven downtown traffic ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 754 S State Street Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Urban Designer 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the zoning map of 10 parcels at approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District and amend section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts to add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 zoning district: •Ambulance service (indoor) •Ambulance service (outdoor) •Hospital, including accessory lodging facility BUDGET IMPACT: None. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:42 MDT)04/27/2023 04/27/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of 10 parcels at approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property with an urban hospital. To develop the property, the D-1 zoning district land use table also needs to be amended to add hospitals and ambulance services as Permitted or Conditional uses. Planning staff recommended that the two proposed uses (Hospitals and Ambulance Services) be adopted as Permitted uses in the D-1 zoning district. During the Planning Commission discussion period on March 22, 2023, a majority of the Commission (7:3) voted to modify staff’s recommendation and forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation to adopt the uses as Conditional rather than Permitted. Additional discussion topics during the March 22, 2023, Planning Commission meeting included parking and housing options on the site if the rezone is adopted. The intent behind the rezone and text amendment request is to allow for more design flexibility for the purpose of constructing an urban hospital. The building height in the D-2 zoning district is limited to a maximum of 120 feet, with Design Review approval. The by-right building height in the D-1 zone for buildings located on a block corner is 100 – 375 feet. Buildings taller than 375 feet must receive Design Review approval, but there is no maximum height. The Planning Division has transmitted a proposed ordinance to the City Council that would increase allowable building heights in the Downtown Districts while supporting human-scale development, increased street activation, pedestrian accessibility, and community character. If adopted, the Downtown Building Heights and Street Activation text amendment (PLNPCM2022- 00529) would directly affect the development potential of the subject property. The proposed amendment would eliminate the distinction of corner and midblock lots and change the by-right building height in the D-1 zone to 200 feet. Buildings over 200 feet would be required to receive Design Review approval but would have no maximum height. The City Council was briefed on the proposed text amendment on April 4, 2023. At the time of this transmittal, a vote has not been taken to approve, modify, or deny the ordinance. For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. ST A T E S T MA I N ST 700 S 800 S PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the associated community councils for the property: Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown. The councils held a joint meeting with Planning staff and the applicant to discuss the proposal on January 19, 2023. A formal letter was submitted and is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project on December 12, 2022. • An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since December 12, 2022. The page remains open for review. • Four public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting and three were submitted either after the Commission staff report was published or after the meeting. The three additional comments are included in Exhibit 4 of the transmittal. Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access) PC Agenda for March 22, 2023 PC Minutes of March 22, 2023 PC Staff Report for March 22, 2023 EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Petition Application 4. Additional Public Comments 5. Mailing List 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 754 S State Street from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the property owner, to rezone ten parcels located at 754 S State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-103-017- 0000, 16-07-103-001-0000, 16-07-103-002-0000, 16-07-103-003-0000, 16-07-103-004-0000, 16-07-103-008-0000, 16-07-103-009-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000, 16-07- 103-022-0000) from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109; and WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the property identified on Exhibit “A” hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District. 2 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 754 S State Street to D-1 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney April 14, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment: Parcel Tax ID Nos. 16-07-103-017 16-07-103-001 16-07-103-002 16-07-103-003 16-07-103-004 16-07-103-008 16-07-103-009 16-07-103-010 16-07-103-011 16-07-103-022 PARCEL 16-07-103-001-0000: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 16-07-103-004-0000: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 16-07-103-008-0000: PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND COMMENCING 206.25 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 16-07-103-009-0000: COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCELS 16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, and 16-07-103-011-0000: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75 FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE EAST 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. 4 PARCEL 16-07-103-002-0000: BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 16-07-103-003-0000: BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 16-07-103-022-0000: TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS; THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING. TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL (S. Major St.): PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING: A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY 5 SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5 FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District) An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on March 22, 2023 to consider a petition by Tyler Buswell, counsel for the property owner, to amend the text of Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as permitted uses in the D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01109; and WHEREAS, at its March 22, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) that Section of 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), Ambulance Services (indoor), and Ambulance Services (outdoor) as conditional uses in the D-1 Central Business District; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050 That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS: Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4 Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Ambulance Service (indoor) C Ambulance Service (outdoor) C Animal, veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C C C Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P14,18 P18 P18 P18 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 Blood donation center P Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7 3 Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P3 Check cashing/payday loan business P5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18 Community garden P P P P Convention center P Crematorium P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P12 P12 P12 P12 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P12 P12 P12 P 12 Dwelling: Artists' loft/studio P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P Group home (large) C C Group home (small) P P P P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Exhibition hall P Farmers' market P Financial institution P P P P Financial institution with drive-through facility P8 P8 Funeral home P P P Gas station P P7 P7 Government facility C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P7 P7 4 Heliport, accessory C C C Home occupation P13 P13 P13 P13 Homeless resource center C15 C15 Homeless shelter C15 C15 Hospital, including accessory lodging facility C Hotel/motel P P P P Industrial assembly C18 C18 Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18 Laundry, commercial P18 Library P P P P Limousine service P Mixed use development P P P P Mobile food business (operation in the public right-of-way) P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P Mobile food court P P P P Municipal services uses including City utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P P Office P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7 Park P P P P Parking, commercial C P C C Parking, off site P P P P Performing arts production facility P P P P Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11 Radio, television station P P P Railroad, passenger station P P P P Reception center P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Restaurant P P P P 5 Restaurant with drive-through facility P8 Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P K - 12 private P P K - 12 public P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Shared housing P P P P Small brewery C18 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C Stadium C C C Storage, self P16 P P Store: Department P P P Fashion oriented department P2 Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P P P P Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9 Theater, movie P P P P Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle: Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7 Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7 6 Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10 Vending cart, private property P P P P Vending cart, public property Warehouse P18 Warehouse, accessory P P Wholesale distribution P18 Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A.40.090, table 21A.40.090E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title. 2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District (section 21A.34.110 of this title). 3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed. 4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review (chapter 21A.59 of this title). 5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. 7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of chapter 21A.59, "Design Review", of this title. 8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District. 10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors. 11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 12. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.350 of this title. 16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the building, with the exception of associated public leasing/office space. 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. 7 ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney April 14, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3.ORIGINAL PETITION 4.ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 5.MAILING LIST 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2022-01109 November 11, 2022 November 23, 2022 December 8, 2022 December 12, 2022 March 10, 2023 March 17, 2023 March 22, 2023 March 27, 2023 April 14, 2023 Application for a Zoning Map and Text Amendment. Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 was assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, for staff analysis and processing. Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing them of the petition. The RCO’s notified included the Ballpark, Central City, Central 9th, and Downtown Community Councils, and the Downtown Alliance. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house through March 22, 2023. The proposal can still be viewed online. Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. Planning Commission Staff Report posted. Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. The Commission also forwarded a recommendation to approve the text amendment, but modified the recommendation to add the land uses to the D-1 zoning district as Conditional rather than Permitted. Ordinance request sent to Attorney’s Office. Signed ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01109 Zoning Map & Zoning Text Amendment for the property at approximately 754 S State Street. Kirton McConkie, represented by Tyler Buswell, Attorney for IHC Health Services, Inc. (the Property Owner), initiated a petition for a zoning map and zoning text amendment, which would facilitate the development of an urban hospital at approximately 754 S State Street. The zoning map amendment request is to rezone 10 parcels from D-2 Downtown Support District to D-1 Central Business District. The 10 parcels included in this proposal are listed below for reference. Address Parcel ID Approximate Acreage 748 South State St. 16-07-103-017 .55 709 South Main St. 16-07-103-001 .66 36 E 700 S 16-07-103-002 .81 48 E 700 S 16-07-103-003 .17 56 E 700 S 16-07-103-004 .24 728 S Major St. 16-07-103-008 .10 725 S Major St. 16-07-103-009 .25 735 S Major St. 16-07-103-010 .10 739 S Major St. 16-07-103-011 .1o 754 S State St. 16-07-103-022 5.97 Major Street None Total Acreage: 8.95 The proposed text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts would add the following uses as Conditional within the D-1 zoning district: • Ambulance service (indoor) • Ambulance service (outdoor) • Hospital, including accessory lodging facility As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at amanda.roman@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01109. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) ORIGINAL PETITION Tyler Buswell 50 E. South Temple, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 4862-9323-6517 November 15, 2022 Nick Norris, Director Salt Lake City – Planning Division 451 S. State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 nick.norris@slcgov.com RE: Letter in support of application for zoning map and text amendment. Applicant: Kirton McConkie Attn: Tyler L. Buswell 50 E. South Temple Street, #400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 321-4820 tbuswell@kmclaw.com Property Addresses: 754 S. State St. 709 S. Main St. 36, 48, and 56 E. 700 S. 725, 727, 728, 735, and 739 S. Major St. All of S. Major St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 As more fully described in Exhibit A (collectively, the “Property”). Totaling approx. 9.22 acres. Amendments Requested: Zoning map amendment of the Property from the D-2 Zone to the D-1 Zone. And zoning text amendment to the D-1 Zone to allow hospitals as a permitted use. Application Fees: $2,036.95 for map amendment ($1,075 + $121 x 7.95 acres). $1,075 for text amendment. 2 of 7 4862-9323-6517 Dear Mr. Norris: This law firm represents IHC Health Services, Inc. (“Intermountain”), which is the owner of the Property described above. This letter accompanies the zoning map and text amendment application submitted concurrently with this letter. The purpose of this letter is to address the submittal requirements of the City’s Zoning Amendment application form. Specifically, this letter will provide the following: (1) a statement declaring the purpose of the amendment, (2) a description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned, (3) the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area, (4) the parcel numbers for each parcel affected by the proposed map amendment, and (5) the requested text revisions to the applicable zoning ordinance. Intermountain and our firm look forward to working with the City regarding this application. We hope to create an outcome that will benefit the City, the Property, and residents of Salt Lake City. (1) Purpose for the amendment. Intermountain proposes to amend both the zoning map and the applicable text of the D-1 zone. The Property is comprised of 10 separate tax parcels where the old Sears building is located and an old, unused right of way (S. Major St.), all of which is situated just south of downtown Salt Lake City. The current zoning of all such parcels is the D-2 Downtown Support District zone, and Intermountain proposes to amend the zoning map to the D-1 Central Business District zone. As explained further in paragraph (5) below, Intermountain also proposes to amend the text of the D-1 zone to allow Hospitals as a permitted use, along with other uses to be designated as either permitted or conditional uses. Accordingly, the purpose of these proposed amendments is to allow for the re- development of the majority of the Sears block to accommodate a new, downtown, urban hospital. As the City has known for some time, the Sears property has been in dire need of improvement and redevelopment for many years. The unique location of the block, directly on the southern border of downtown and right along State Street, makes it a prime location for a unique project in general, and an urban hospital in particular. The amendment to D-1 will allow for the maximum flexibility on the Property to create a project that can both function as part of the downtown core, but also facilitate a transition from the downtown uses to the supporting uses of the D-2 zone. Moreover, the amendment will allow the Property to best meet the City’s vision for the South State area as described in the Downtown Master Plan. (2) Description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. While Intermountain has not created any formal or conceptual plans for the Property, the hospital use would be akin to many urban hospitals across the country. 3 of 7 4862-9323-6517 The project would create and serve as an anchor and bookend on the south end of downtown. The current border of the D-1 zone is less than half a block away to the northwest of the Property, and approximately half a block away directly to the north of the Property, so a hospital project would not only fit with the existing development pattern in the surrounding area, but it would serve to revitalize the area. The hospital would include the typical necessary accompanying uses for a hospital. (3) Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The current zoning of D-2 for the Property is not appropriate because it has created a site that is underperforming and is not the highest and best use for the Property. The Property has sat largely vacant and underutilized for so long because the D-2 zone does not foster and has not attracted the type of users and uses that this site will support. Because the Property is located in a transition block from D-1 to D-2, it has created a circumstance where more traditional downtown uses, such as high-rise office or residential projects are not well suited, and the economics of lower-rise commercial, office, or residential uses are not as financially viable. The proposed use of a hospital can bridge the gap of those drawbacks created by the Property’s location. The D-1 zone will allow Intermountain the flexibility in building height while also not being out of character for the area with the Grand America being two blocks away, and the new multi-story office/residential projects built on 600 South and Main Street, 700 South Main Street, and 600 South State Street. The D-1 zone’s building height and density flexibility will also help Intermountain in working with the City to design a project that better incorporates permeability and walkability of the Property that would not otherwise be possible given the small area of the Property compared to the level of services Intermountain desires to include on the Property. Amending the Property to D-1 will also be in line with the City’s vision of the “South State” area in its Downtown Master Plan. A hospital will accomplish the goals of re-urbanizing South State while not disrupting the integrity of the neighborhoods to the east. It would also serve those neighborhoods by providing needed healthcare services within walking distance to many residents. The current state and zoning of the Property has failed to live up to or satisfy the City’s vision for the area. So, Intermountain would strive to cooperate with the City in its efforts to implement the Downtown Master Plan goals for this site. A hospital can blend and accomplish the City’s desired outcomes for this area. (4) Parcel numbers to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the Zoning Map. The following parcels are all proposed to be changed from D-2 to D-1 on the City’s Zoning Map: 4 of 7 4862-9323-6517 Address Parcel Number Approx. Acreage 709 S. Main St. 16-07-103-001-0000 0.66 56 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-004-0000 0.24 728 S. Major St. 16-07-103-008-0000 0.10 725-727 S. Major St. 16-07-103-009-0000 0.25 754 S. State St. 16-07-103-017-0000 0.55 735 S. Major St. 16-07-103-010-0000 0.10 739 S. Major St. 16-07-103-011-0000 0.10 36 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-002-0000 0.81 48 E. 700 S. 16-07-103-003-0000 0.17 754 S. State St. 16-07-103-022-0000 5.97 All of S. Major St. None (5) Requested text amendments to the D-1 Zone. Currently, a hospital is not specifically designated in the table of permitted and conditional uses for the D-1 zone. Consequently, in addition to the requested map amendments, Intermountain proposes the following text amendments to the D-1 zone. (a) Edit to 21A.33.050, Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For Downton Districts. Intermountain proposes to add the following uses to Table 21A.33.050:  “Ambulance service (indoor): Permitted.”  “Ambulance service (outdoor): Permitted.”  “Hospital, including accessory lodging facility: Permitted.”  “Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees: Permitted.” (Note that the following uses that may be incorporated into the proposed hospital are already either permitted or conditional uses in the D-1 zone as shown on Table 21A.33.050: Bio-medical facility (permitted); medical clinic (permitted); heliport (conditional use); laboratory, medical related (permitted); mixed-use development (permitted); office (permitted).) 5 of 7 4862-9323-6517 We look forward to working with the City on these proposed changes. Please feel free to contact me at if you would like to discuss. Sincerely, Kirton McConkie Tyler L. Buswell Counsel for Intermountain 6 of 7 4862-9323-6517 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property Real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah, more particularly described as follows: PARCEL 1 (16-07-103-001-0000): COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 160 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 160 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2 (16-07-103-004-0000): BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 62.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 62.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3 (16-07-103-008-0000): PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND COMMENCING 206.25 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; THENCE WEST 82.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 22.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4 (16-07-103-009-0000): COMMENCING AT A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 44 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 57.75 FEET; THENCE WEST 27.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 136.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 5 (16-07-103-017-0000, 16-07-103-010-0000, 16-07-103-011-0000): COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 92.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79.75 FEET; THENCE EAST 109 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27.5 FEET; THENCE EAST 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 107.25 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 6 (16-07-103-002-0000): BEGINNING AT A POINT 160 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 87.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 179 FEET; THENCE WEST 87.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 179 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. ALSO: BEGINNING AT A POINT 4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 78.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 78.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. ALSO: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 37.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE 7 of 7 4862-9323-6517 SOUTHWESTERLY 22.4 FEET TO A POINT 165 FEET SOUTH AND 22.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7; THENCE WEST 26.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 4 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 7 (16-07-103-003-0000): BEGINNING 57.5 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT "A", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE WEST 30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.4 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 148.5 FEET SOUTH FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 8 (16-07-103-022-0000): TRACT 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 17 RODS; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE NORTH 3 RODS; THENCE WEST 142.5 FEET; THENCE NORTH 5 RODS; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 15 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 239 FEET; THENCE EAST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 10 RODS; THENCE SOUTH 221 FEET; THENCE EAST 660 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. TRACT 2: BEGINNING 165 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 22.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE WEST 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41.25 FEET; THENCE EAST 82.5 FEET TO THE BEGINNING. TRACT 3: BEGINNING AT A POINT 88 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 21 FEET; THENCE EAST 165 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 9 (S. Major St.): PARCELS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING: A RIGHT OF WAY IN COMMON WITH OTHERS: COMMENCING 37.5 FEET EAST FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 16, PLAT ''A'', SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 142.5 FEET WEST AND 165 FEET NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 165 FEET; THENCE EAST 50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 165 FEET; THENCE NORTHWEST 22.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 107.5 FEET WEST AND 11 RODS NORTH FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE NORTH 148.5 FEET; THENCE WEST 20 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. 4)ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS From:Thomas Merrill To:Roman, Amanda Subject:(EXTERNAL) Downtown coalition requests re: Intermountain Date:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:54:05 PM Hi Amanda, After having reviewed the excellent staff report prepared for tomorrow's agenda item entitled, "Zoning Map & Text Amendment at Approximately 754 S State Street," we wondered what opportunities there are to get our official requests from the 1/19 meeting with Intermountain and Planning Commission staff on record? Those requests are summarized below: 1. Requirement of a concept plan prior to D1 zoning approval We believe Intermountain is a unique entity that has a greater obligation to transparency with regard to their planning process by virtue of their non-profit status and corresponding community benefit obligations set forth by state and federal law. Specifically, we believe that their request for D1 zoning approval be approved but conditioned upon first the submission of a concept plan that demonstrates a sincere - even if preliminary - incorporation of community feedback gathered to date. Note: we have communicated this request to our D4 Council Member, Ana Valdemoros. 2. The fourth text amendment element re: internal retail should be conditional and limited As communicated by surrounding businesses, we are concerned that the fourth element of the proposed text amendment, "Retail, sales and service accessory use when located within a principal building and operated primarily for the convenience of employees: Permitted” should be only conditionally approved and limited.We strongly recommend against internal retail developments that impede the full beneficial impact of Intermountain's workforce and clientele on the surrounding retail community. We understand that Intermountain would reasonably want food options for employees that allow them to stay close to their responsibilities but an approach similar to the Medical Center in Murray with a variety of internal restaurants would undermine the objective to support the existing retail community. Thank you for your consideration on this. -- Tom Merrill Downtown Community Council From:Erik Bieging To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) No IHC hospital downtown without comprehensive reproductive healthcare Date:Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:17:45 AM Hello, The following comments are intended to be read for the planning commission regarding Intermountain Healthcare's request to rezone 754 S State Street (the Sears block): With the passage of H.B. 467 during the most recent state legislative session, hospitals will soon be the only institution legally allowed to provide abortion services in Utah. The two providers of routine abortion in the state, Planned Parenthood and Wasatch Women's Center, will soon be forced to close in May. Residents of Salt Lake City will have to travel hundreds of miles to receive what the American Medical Association calls an essential healthcare service. Zoning offers communities the opportunity to align land uses with the needs of their residents. When a new land use is granted, it should fulfill the needs of the community. At first glance, it would seem that Intermountain Healthcare's proposal to add hospital functions as a permitted use on their downtown property would improve access to healthcare for Salt Lake City residents. However, Intermountain Healthcare has not and has made no intention to provide routine abortion services at its hospitals, despite being uniquely positioned to do so. In Salt Lake City, we already have access to tertiary care hospitals with extensive healthcare services, but abortion care will soon be the exception. We should not grant a new hospital land use unless the hospital will provide the essential healthcare services that our residents need most. Thank you, Erik Bieging Salt Lake City Resident From:Clark, Aubrey To:Roman, Amanda Cc:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela Subject:Bird Friendly Glass Date:Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:16:06 PM Attachments:image001.png Just received this in the MySLC portal: Hello, Council Member Dugan received the below email from a constituent and referred the constituent to planning. Council MemberDugan is interested in seeing bird friendly windows implemented at the new IHC building. Thanks! From: Jeanne LeBer <j >Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 2:17 PM To: Dugan, Dan <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>Cc: Jeanne LeBer <; Linda Johnson ; GSLA Membership; Barbara Brown ; Cooper Farr <>; Christopher Merritt <Subject: (EXTERNAL) Who could we talk to about building with bird-friendly glass? Dear Dan:Our Great Salt Lake Audubon Bird-window Collision Working Group recently talked with you about building with bird-friendly glass.We noted the hospital building being built on the old Sears property is still in the planning phases. (See link in email below from LindaJohnson.) Can you suggest a contact person we could talk to about using bird-friendly glass in the structure. Appreciate you getting back to us on this. Let me know.Thanks. Jeanne I am sure applicants don’t want us giving out their info. What would the proper response be here? Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers) Administrative Assistant PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701 Email: Aubrey.Clark@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. 5) MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STAT OWN_ZIP S & S ROBERTS INVESTMENTS, LTD 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ADY-CHASE, LP 535 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 QUALITY OIL COMPANY 4625 S 2300 E # 203 HOLLADAY UT 84117 KEN GARFF ENTERPRISES, LLC 111 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TAYLOR AIR, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 700 SOUTH PARTNERS, LLC 180 N UNIVERSITY AVE PROVO UT 84601 AXIOM PROPERTIES III, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 HARRIS & HARRIS, LC PO BOX 71979 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84171 D STEVEN BREWSTER; DANA S BREWSTER (JT)657 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THIRD RIVER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION 4701 N STONEHAVEN LOOP LEHI UT 84043 LOTUS WINTER, LLC 338 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CITY GREEK LLC PO BOX 520795 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 DELUXE MANAGEMENT, INC 662 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PEZELY, PROPERTIES LLC 1433 S CHANCELLOR WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BNOLLC 68 S MAIN ST # 200 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SINCLAIR REAL ESTATE COMPANY PO BOX 30825 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84130 CUP OF SUGAR INC 1383 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 STANLEY D SCHUBACH PO BOX 128 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 SHELTER THE HOMELESS COMMITTEE INC 242 W PARAMOUNT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 AM TALBOT & SONS LLC 273 E SIXTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 700 GS, LLC PO BOX 3390 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 MOUNTAIN AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2331 SANDY UT 84091 LOUIS A. MATE 1172 HWY 89 FISH HAVEN ID 83287 FOOD ALLEY LLC 722 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ALTAF H SIAL 777 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM B SUTTON 825 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DENA LLC 26 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NINTH STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC PO BOX 65809 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165 VINA ENTERPRISES LLC; SHERRY VINA 3751 S WASATCH BLVD MILLCREEK UT 84109 WILLIAM B SUTTON 823 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KIMWELL CORPORATION 1000 S MAIN ST # 104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 STORE CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS LLC 2410 LILLYVALE AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90032 WOLF BUILDING LLC 20 W CENTURY PARK WY SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 LC SMGA HOLDINGS 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GEORGE S CASSITY 801 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 676 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 18 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 16 W 700 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 690 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 755 S RICHARDS ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 750 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 702 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 16 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 808 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84101 UT Current Occupant 659 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 640 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 679 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 29 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 31 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 43 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 47 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 61 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 660 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 666 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 680 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 34 E EARDLEY PL Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 49 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 57 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 665 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 675 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 131 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 709 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 36 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 48 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 56 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 68 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 728 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 725 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 735 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 739 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 730 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 748 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 62 E 700 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 716 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 754 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 711 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 735 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 741 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 745 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 749 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 14 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 56 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 60 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 827 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 830 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 802 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 810 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 38 E 800 S Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 833 S MAIN ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Current Occupant 817 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84111 UT Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 11, 2023 RE: Downtown Building Height and Street Activation Text Amendment PLNPCM2022-00529 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council accept the clarification and adopt the ordinance as prepared for this meeting. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the zoning text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building heights in the Downtown Plan area) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building heights in the Downtown Plan area pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529. WHEREAS, on August 24, 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall--at the request of the Salt Lake City Council--to amend land use regulations pertaining to building heights in the Downtown Plan area (Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529); and WHEREAS, at its August 24, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Section 21A.26.070. That Section 21A.26.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: CG General Commercial District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.26.070: CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CG General Commercial District is to provide an environment for a variety of commercial uses, some of which involve the outdoor display/storage of merchandise or materials. This district provides economic development 2 opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail sales and services, entertainment, office, residential, heavy commercial and low intensities of manufacturing and warehouse uses. This district is appropriate in locations where supported by applicable master plans and along major arterials. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. The standards are intended to create a safe and aesthetically pleasing commercial environment for all users. B. Uses: Uses in the CG General Commercial District as specified in Section 21A.33.030, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts”, of this title are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.26.010 and this section. C. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Width: 60’. 3. Existing Lots: Lots legally existing prior to April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. D. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Five feet. 2. Corner Side Yard: 10’. 3. Interior Side Yard: None required. 4. Rear Yard: 10’. 5. Buffer Yard: All lots abutting residential property shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 6. Accessory Buildings and Structures in Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B of this title. E. Maximum Yard: The maximum yard requirement is 10’. 1. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: a. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or b. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or c. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 3 2. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. 3. All provided front or corner side yards must contain a tree every 30’. 4. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or b. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 5. Exceptions to this subsection may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of five feet shall be required on all front or corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of Section 21A.48.090 of this title. G. Maximum Height: No building shall exceed 75’ unless the property is within the following boundary: from 400 South to 700 South from 300 West to I-15, where buildings shall not exceed 150’. Additionally, buildings taller than 75’ to a maximum of 105’ outside of the described boundary may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Subsections G.1 through G.3 of this section. Illustration of Regulation 21A.26.070.G Maximum Height 4 1 No building shall exceed 75’ unless it is within the identified boundaries. 2 Buildings that are outside of the identified boundary higher than 75’ may be allowed in accordance with the provisions of Subsections G.1 through G.3 of this section. 1. Procedure For Modification: A modification to the height regulations, in this Subsection G may be granted through the design review process in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. In evaluating an application submitted pursuant to this section, the planning commission or in the case of an administrative approval the planning director or designee, shall find that the increased height will result in improved site layout and amenities. 2. Outdoor Usable Space: If additional height is approved, the site shall include outdoor usable space for the building occupants that is equal to at least 10% of the gross floor area of the additional floors. The outdoor usable area may be located within a wider park strip that extends further into the right of way than the current park strip, in midblock walkways that include a public access easement, in rooftop gardens, plazas, or in a provided yard that exceeds the minimum yard requirement. The outdoor usable space shall include a minimum dimension of at least 10’ by 10’. 3. Maximum Additional Height for Properties Outside of Boundary Identified in Subsection G: Additional height shall be limited to 30’subject to the provisions in Subsection G.2 for a maximum height of 105’. 5 H. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown area grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies – All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9’ and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet; (5) Skybridge – A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. Illustration of Regulation 21A.26.070.H Midblock Walkways 6 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. I. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the General Commercial (CG) District. To control such impacts, the following regulations shall apply to parking facilities that are at or above ground: 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed in the zone other than parking. 2. Parking lots not wholly behind the principal building are limited to no more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. 3. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. 4. Parking structures shall conform to the requirements set forth in Chapter 21A.37 of this title. 5. All parking lot and structure landscaping must comply with the provisions set forth in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Section 21A.27.020. That Section 21A.27.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building Types and Forms Established), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 7 21A.27.020: BUILDING TYPES AND FORMS ESTABLISHED: A. Building Types and Form Standards: 1. Encourage building forms that are compatible with the neighborhood and the future vision for the neighborhood by acknowledging the current scale of the area and it’s architectural and material elements. These elements within new development shall compliment those of the existing buildings; 2. Arrange building heights and scale to provide appropriate transitions between buildings of different scales and adjacent areas, especially between different subdistricts; 3. Guide building orientation through setbacks and other requirements to create a consistent street edge, enhance walkability by addressing the relationship between public and private spaces, and ensure architectural design will contribute to the character of the neighborhood; 4. Use building form, placement, and orientation to identify the private, semiprivate, and public spaces; 5. Minimize the visual impact of parking areas; and 6. Minimize conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. B. Building Types and Forms: 1. Description: The permitted building forms are described in this subsection. Each building form includes a general description and definition, as well as images of what the building form may look like. Building form images are for informational purposes only and not intended to demonstrate exactly what shall be built. The description and images should be used to classify existing and proposed buildings in order to determine what development regulations apply. The drawings are not to scale. They should not be used to dictate a specific architectural style as both traditional and contemporary styles can be used. a. Urban House: A residential structure with the approximate scale of a single dwelling unit, as viewed from the street, but may contain up to two dwelling units. The structure has a single entry facing the street, a front porch or stoop, and a small front yard. Second units may be arranged vertically (up and down) or horizontally (front and back), but the entry to the second unit is from the side, rear, or interior of structure. A third unit may also be located along an alley as a stand alone unit or as a dwelling unit located in an accessory building. All units are on a single lot. 8 9 b. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two dwelling units in a single building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and down, or front and back. Each unit has its own separate entry directly to the outside. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. A third unit may also be located along an alley as a stand alone unit or as a dwelling unit located in an accessory building, but may not be located on a separate lot. 10 c. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains two or more detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with 11 a common green or open space area. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. d. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms: (1) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (2) Footprint: No cottage shall have a footprint in excess of 850 square feet. (3) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space area. (4) Open Space Area: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space area is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space area shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. 12 e. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. A row house contains a minimum of three residential dwelling units. Each unit may be on its own lot. If possible, off street parking is accessed from an alley. 13 14 f. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing three or more dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of configurations. 15 16 g. Storefront: A commercial structure that may have multiple stories and contain a variety of commercial uses that are allowed in the district that permits this building type. All buildings, regardless of the specific use, have a ground floor that looks like a storefront. 17 18 h. Vertical Mixed Use: A multi-story building that contains a mix of commercial and/or office with residential uses. 19 20 C. Building Form Standards: 1. The provisions of this section shall apply to all properties located within the Form Based Districts as indicated on the maps in each Form Based District. 2. Building form and street type standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than 25% of the footprint of the structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Refer to Section 21A.27.030 of this chapter on the building configuration standards for more information on how to comply with the standards. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. Only building forms identified in the table are permitted. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Section 21A.27.030. That Section 21A.27.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building Configuration and Design Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.030: BUILDING CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS: A. Specific Intent of Configuration and Design Standards: 1. Design Related Standards: The design related standards are intended to do the following: 21 a. Implement applicable master plans; b. Continue the existing physical character of residential streets while allowing an increase in building scale along arterials and near transit stations; c. Focus development and future growth in the city along arterials and near transit stations; d. Arrange buildings so they are oriented toward the street in a manner that promotes pedestrian activity, safety, and community; e. Provide human scaled buildings that emphasize design and placement of the main entrance/exit on street facing facades; f. Provide connections to transit through public walkways; g. Provide areas for appropriate land uses that encourage use of public transit and are compatible with the neighborhood; h. Promote pedestrian and bicycle amenities near transit facilities to maximize alternative forms of transportation; and i. Rehabilitate and reuse existing residential structures in the Form Based Zoning Districts when possible to efficiently use infrastructure and natural resources, and preserve neighborhood character. B. Building Entry: Refer to the building entrance standards in Subsection 21A.37.050.D of this title. 1. Entry Feature: The following building entries are permitted as indicated: TABLE 21A.27.030.B ENTRY FEATURE STANDARDS Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Porch and fence: A planted front yard where the street facing building facade is set back from the front property line with an attached porch that is P P P P P P 22 permitted to encroach into the required yard. The porch shall be a minimum of 6’ in depth. The front yard may include a fence no taller than 3’ in height Reference Illustration - Porch and Fence Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Terrace or lightwell: An entry feature where the street facing facade is set back from the front property line by an elevated P P P P P P P 23 terrace or sunken lightwell. May include a canopy or roof Reference Illustration - Terrace or Lightwell Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Forecourt: An entry feature wherein a portion of the street facing facade is close to the property line and the central portion is set back. The court created must be landscaped, contain outdoor plazas, outdoor dining areas, P P P P P P P 24 private yards, or other similar features that encourage use and seating Reference Illustration - Forecourt Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Stoop: An entry feature wherein the street facing facade is close to the front property line and the first story is elevated from the sidewalk sufficiently to secure privacy for the windows. The entrance contains an exterior stair and landing that is either parallel or P P P P P P P 25 perpendicular to the street. Recommended for ground floor residential uses Reference Illustration - Stoop Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Shopfront: An entry feature where the street facing facade is close to the property line and building entrance is at sidewalk grade. Building entry is covered with an awning, canopy, or is recessed from the front building facade, which defines the entry and P P P P 26 provides protection for customers Reference Illustration - Shopfront Entry Feature Permitted Based on Building Form Type Urban House Cottage Development Two- Family Dwelling Row House Multi- Family Storefront Vertical Mixed Use Gallery: A building entry where the ground floor is no more than 10’ from the front property line and the upper levels or roofline cantilevers from the ground floor facade up to the front property line P P P Reference Illustration - Gallery 27 C. Additional Design Standards Required for Form Based Districts: 1. Open Space Area: A minimum of 10% of the lot area shall be provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the building form regulation. Individual districts may require additional open space area requirements. Open space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. a. At least one open space area shall include a minimum dimension of at least 15’ by 15’. b. Open space areas that are greater than 500 square feet must contain at least one useable element, accessible to all building occupants, from the following list. i. A bench for every 250 square feet of open space area; ii. A table for outdoor eating for every 500 square feet of open space area; iii. An outdoor amenity. This is defined as an amenity that intends to provide outdoor recreation and leisure opportunities including, but not limited to, walking paths, playgrounds, seating areas, gardens, sport court or similar amenity intended to promote outdoor activity; iv. Trees with a minimum spread of 20’ at mature height to shade a minimum of 33% of the open space area; and/or v. landscaping that equals at least 33% of the landscaped area. 28 2. Residential Balconies: All street facing residential units above the ground floor or level shall contain a usable balcony facing the street that is a minimum of four feet in depth. Balconies may overhang any required yard. 3. Design Standards Alternatives: a. Alternatives to Required Build-To Line: Where a “required build-to” standard applies, the following alternatives may count toward the minimum build-to requirement as indicated: (1) Landscaping Walls: Landscaping walls between 24” and 42” high may count up to 25% toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The wall incorporates seating areas. (B) The wall is constructed of masonry, concrete, stone or ornamental metal. (C) The wall maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets. (2) Pergolas and Trellises: Pergolas and trellises may count up to 25% toward the minimum build-to requirement provided the following: (A) The structure is at least 48” deep as measured perpendicular to the property line. (B) A vertical clearance of at least eight feet is maintained above the walking path of pedestrians. (C) Vertical supports are constructed of wood, stone, concrete or metal with a minimum of six inches by six inches or a radius of at least four inches. 29 (D) The structure maintains clear view sightlines where sidewalks and pedestrian connections intersect vehicle drive aisles or streets. (3) Arcades: Arcades may count up to 100% toward the minimum requirement provided the following: (A) The arcade extends no more than two stories in height. (B) No portion of the arcade structure encroaches onto public property. (C) The arcade maintains a minimum pedestrian walkway of five feet. (D) The interior wall of the arcade complies with the building configuration standards. (4) Plazas and Outdoor Dining: Plazas and outdoor dining areas may count up to 50% toward the minimum requirement, and have a maximum front setback of up to 15’ provided the following: (A) The plaza or outdoor dining is between the property line adjacent to the street and the street facing building facade. (B) Shall be within two feet of grade with the public sidewalk. (C) The building entry shall be clearly visible through the courtyard or plaza. (D) The building facades along the courtyard or plaza shall comply with the ground floor transparency requirement. b. Alternatives to Ground Floor Transparency Requirement: The planning director may modify the ground floor transparency requirement in the following instances: (1) The requirement would negatively impact the historical character of a building within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; or (2) The requirement conflicts with the structural integrity of the building and the structure would comply with the standard to the extent possible. 4. Permitted Encroachments and Height Exceptions: Obstructions and height exceptions are permitted as listed in this section or in Section 21A.36.020 of this title or as indicated in this subsection. a. Building Height: In order to promote a varied skyline and other roof shapes in the area, structures with a sloped roof may exceed the maximum building height in the form based districts by five feet provided: (1) The additional height does not include additional living space. Vaulted ceilings, storage spaces, and utility spaces are permitted. 30 (2) The slope of the roof is a minimum of a twelve-four pitch or a quarter barrel shape. b. Roof Top Gardens: Building height encroachments for rooftop uses are permitted to encroach up to 6 feet to accommodate rooftop gardens and/or outdoor living space provided: (1) The rooftop garden includes vegetation that covers a minimum of 15% of the outdoor living space on the roof. The vegetation coverage shall be calculated by utilizing the spread of any trees, shrubs, or ground cover at maturity. (2) If the rooftop is used for non-residential land uses allowed in the zone and located adjacent to the FB-UN1 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District, single-family district, or two-family district, a six foot wall shall be installed along the entire length of the outdoor space facing such zones. 31 5. Pedestrian Connections: Where required, the following pedestrian connection standards apply: a. The connection shall provide direct access from any building entry to the public sidewalk or walkway. b. The connection shall comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for accessibility. c. The connection shall be fully paved and have a minimum width of four feet (4’). d. The connection shall be separated from vehicle drive approaches and drive lanes by a change in grade and a wheel stop if the walkway is less than eight feet (8’) wide. e. Pedestrian connections that lead directly from the sidewalk to the primary building entrance may contain wing walls, no taller than two feet (2’) in height for seating, landscaping, etc. D. Other Applicable Development Standards: All uses in the form based districts shall comply with the standards set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the appliable standards in the following chapters: 1. 21A.33 Land Use Tables 2. 21A.36 General Provisions 3. 21A.37 Design Standards 4. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 5. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 6. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 7. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 8. 21A.46 Signs 9. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 10. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. E. Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District specific standards for detached or accessory parking garages or structures: 1. Detached or accessory multilevel parking garages or structures shall have the same setback requirements for principal structures. 2. When a required setback abuts a residential district, the minimum setback required shall be a landscape yard to provide a buffer to the abutting residential district. No structure (primary or accessory) shall be permitted within this landscaped buffer. 32 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.27.050.C. That Subsection 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District: FB-UN2 Building Form Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: C. FB-UN2 Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in Tables 21A.27.050.C.1 through 21A.27.050.C.3 of this section. 1. Cottage Development Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.C.1 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Cottage Development H Height 30’ maximum. All heights measured from the established grade. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 10’. Provided front or corner side yard shall provide one tree for every 30 linear foot of front or corner side yard property line. The mature tree canopy must cover at least 50% of the required yard area and sidewalk area. S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 6’. R Rear Yard Minimum of 20’ between cottage building form and rear property line. SC Separation between Cottages Minimum of 10’, measured from the outside perimeter wall of the principal structure. E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030.B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on the street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum of 5’ width required to each required entry feature. OS Open space Area At least 25% of the total land area of the cottage development shall be maintained as an open space area that complies with the requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” 33 BF Building forms per lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot. Individual lots without street frontage may be created provided each lot has legally established access to a public street that includes a minimum 5’ wide solid surface walkway. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. L Lots without Street Frontage Lots for individual cottage units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access for pedestrians and vehicles to a public street by way of a minimum 5’ wide solid surface walkway, easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s). The requirements for the disclosure of private infrastructure costs shall be the same as required for planned developments per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes the need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within this district shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: F. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. G. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. H. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies – All balconies must be located at the third story or above. 34 2. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.C.2 (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever – These coverings may be between 9 and 14 feet above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’. (5) Skybridge – A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the 3rd, 4th, or 5th stories. (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 35 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’; All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. The height of the railing/parapet is limited to the height required to meet building code requirements. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 10’ and maximum 15’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. This requirement may be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). Provided front or corner side yard shall provide one tree for every 30 linear foot of front or corner side yard property line. The mature tree canopy must cover at least 50% of the required yard area and sidewalk area. S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 6’ between row house building form and side property line. Minimum of 10’ along a side property line when abutting a property in a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 35’ or less. No setback is required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 20’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is abutting a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 35’ or less, then the minimum is 25’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates the subject property from another property shall be counted towards the minimum setback. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030.B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width required to each required entry feature. U Upper level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 35’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’, measured from finished grade, shall stepback 10’ from the building facade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. 36 OS Open space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. Tree canopy at maturity shall count toward the vegetation requirement, BF Building Forms per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow maximum building heights that exceeds those of other districts in the city, the requirement for the midblock walkway is important to maintain the overall scale and pedestrian nature of the downtown. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: a. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. The following building encroachments are permitted in a midblock walkway. Under no circumstances shall a midblock walkway be entirely covered. 37 3. Multi-family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-use building form standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.C.3 (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: These coverings may be between nine and fourteen feet above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet; (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 50’.1 All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop use is permitted and required railings and walls necessary to comply with building code requirements are permitted to encroach beyond the maximum height up to 5’. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height of 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Ground Floor Residential Uses: A minimum of 10’ and a maximum of 20’. Ground Floor occupied by retail, restaurants, taverns, brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities: no minimum is required, provided no doors open into the right of way. A maximum setback of up to 10’ is allowed. All other ground floor uses: A minimum of 5’ and a maximum 10’. The maximum may be increased due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. 38 This requirement may be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). Provided front or corner side yard shall provide one tree for every 30 linear foot of front or corner side yard property line. The mature tree canopy must cover at least 50% of the required yard area and sidewalk area. S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 6’ required, except when an interior side yard is abutting a property in a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 35’ or less, then the minimum shall be 15’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall be counted towards the minimum setback. R Rear Yard The rear yard minimum shall be 10’, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a property in a different zoning district shall be counted towards the minimum setback. GU Ground Floor Use Requirem ents 900 South: The ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities for a depth of 25’. Amenity space for the occupants of the building shall account for no more than 25% of the length of the ground floor space. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030.B for allowed entry features. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall stepback 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley M W Midblock Walkway As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow 39 maximum building heights that exceeds those of other districts in the city, the requirement for the midblock walkway is important to maintain the overall scale and pedestrian nature of the downtown. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within this district shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. The following building encroachments are permitted in midblock walkway. Under no circumstances shall a mid block walkway be entirely covered. (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies – All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’; (5) Skybridge – A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Area As required in Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” 40 Footnotes: 1. Additional Building Height Regulations. Properties listed in this footnote shall have a permitted building height of up to 65’ and 5 stories. a. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at 800 South or 900 South; b. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 200 West at 700 South, 800 South or 900 South; c. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at Fayette Avenue; d. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 300 West at 800 South or 900 South; e. On the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street. f. As indicated on the following map: DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 41 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.30. That Chapter 21A.30 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Downtown Districts), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 21A.30 DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS SECTION: 21A.30.010: General Provisions 21A.30.020: D-1 Central Business District 21A.30.030: D-2 Downtown Support District 21A.30.040: D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District 21A.30.045: D-4 Downtown Secondary Central Business District 21A.30.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: 42 A. Statement of Intent: The downtown districts are intended to provide use, bulk, urban design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help implement adopted plans. B. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title are permitted; provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. 1. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, may be allowed in the downtown districts provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title, and comply with all other applicable requirements. C. Impact Controls and General Restrictions in the Downtown Districts: 1. Refuse Control: Refuse containers must be covered and shall be stored within completely enclosed buildings or screened in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title. For buildings existing as of April 12, 1995, this screening provision shall be required if the floor area or parking requirements are increased by twenty five percent (25%) or more by an expansion to the building or change in the type of land use. 2. Lighting: On site lighting, including parking lot lighting and illuminated signs, shall be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent properties. D. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and display (outdoor)”, as defined in Chapter 21A.62 of this title, are allowed where specifically authorized in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title. These uses shall conform to the following: 1. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required parking for periods longer than 30 days; 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard area within the lot when the required yard abuts a residential zoning district; 3. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, pennants or strings of pennants; 43 4. Outdoor storage shall be allowed only where specifically authorized in the applicable district regulation and shall be required to be fully screened with opaque fencing not to exceed eight feet in height; and 5. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage shall also be permitted when part of an authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title. E. Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures: An excessive amount of at or above ground parking lots and structures can negatively impact the urban design objectives of the Downtown Zoning Districts. To control such impacts, the following regulations apply to surface parking and above grade structures: 1. Parking shall be located behind principal buildings or incorporated into the principal building provided the parking is wrapped on street facing facades with a use allowed in the zone other than parking. 2. A parking lot shall not consist of more than two double-loaded parking aisles (bays) adjacent to each other. The length of a parking lot shall not exceed 10 stalls. Parking for government facilities necessary for public health and safety are exempt from this provision. Illustration of Regulation 21A.010.E.2 Surface Parking Lots 3. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a property that has frontage on a public street and that would result in a building demolition are prohibited in the Downtown zoning districts. 4. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. 44 F. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above. (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet. (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories. (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. Illustration of Regulation 21A.30.010.F Midblock Walkways 45 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. G. Sidewalks: For all downtown districts, sidewalks must be a clear walking path that is a minimum of 10’ wide. Outdoor dining shall be permitted within the sidewalk if it complies with the minimum width of a clear path as defined in the outdoor dining design guidelines. H. Additional Standards: All uses in the downtown districts shall comply with the standards set in Part IV, Regulations of General Applicability, of this title, including the applicable standards in the following chapters: 1. 21A.36 General Provisions 2. 21A.37 Design Standards 3. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 4. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 5. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 6. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 7. 21A.46 Signs 8. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 9. Any other applicable chapter of this title that may include applicable provisions. 21A.30.020: D-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-1 Central Business District is to provide for commercial and economic development within Salt Lake City’s most urban and intense areas. A broad range of uses, including very high density housing, are intended to foster a 46 24 hour activity environment consistent with the area’s function as the business, office, retail, entertainment, cultural and tourist center of the region. Development is intended to be very intense with high lot coverage and large buildings that are placed close together while being oriented toward the pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape and preserving the urban nature of the downtown area. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban design, pedestrian amenities and land use control. B. Uses: Uses in the D-1 Central Business District as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.30.010 of this chapter. C. D-1 Central Business District General Regulations: The regulations established in this section apply to the D-1 Central Business District as a whole 1. Yard Requirements: No minimum yards are required. A maximum yard of eight feet is allowed. a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least five feet in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 47 d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. e. Interior Side Yards: No minimum interior side yard is required. f. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required. 4. Landscape Requirements for Demolition Sites: Vacant lots, resulting from demolition activities where no replacement use is proposed, shall conform to Chapter 21A.48 of this title, special landscape requirements applicable to the D-1 Central Business District. D. Height Regulations: Buildings in the D-1 zoning district shall comply with the following provisions: 1. Building Heights: No building shall be less than 100’. There is no maximum building height, subject to standards contained in Subsections 21A.30.020.D.2 through D.3. 2. Exceptions to the minimum height requirements are as follows: a. Utility Buildings necessary to provide electricity, water, sewer, storm water, and other necessary utility services to the downtown area. b. Accessory building and structures, including accessory buildings that serve public transportation, downtown improvement districts, and other public maintenance buildings. c. Buildings on lots or parcels that are less than 5,000 square feet in size. d. Buildings with a footprint of less than 2,500 square feet. e. Building approved through the design review process in Chapter 21A.59. 2. Buildings in excess of 100’, are allowed subject to the following standard: a. A minimum stepback of five feet or other architectural feature that can deflect snow and ice from falling directly onto a sidewalk, midblock walkway, or other public space. The stepback may be located above the height of the first floor and below 150’ in height above the sidewalk or public space. Buildings that are not clad in glass are exempt from this requirement. 3. Buildings in excess of 200’ with no limit and subject to Chapter 21A.59, Design Review, shall include at least one of the following five options: a. Midblock walkway is provided on the property and the midblock walkway connects to an existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or publicly accessible public space and exceeds all the required dimensions of Subsection 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet. This option allows for additional height in return for exceeding the midblock walkway requirements; or 48 b. The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified in Chapter 21A.52 of this title; or c. The property where the building is located exceeds the minimum requirement for ground floor uses identified in chapter 21A.37 (Design Standards) of this title, specifically: (1) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use Only), the requirement must be increased to 100%. This option requires that the entire ground floor use of a building consists of retail good establishments, retail service establishments or restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art galleries, motion picture theaters, performing art facilities or similar uses that encourages walk-in traffic through an active use. Vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement; or (2) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased to 85% and the visual interest requirement must be increased to 15%. This option requires an increased percentage of ground floor space to be used for an active use, and an increased percentage of the building to provide visual interest; d. The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a building that is 50 years or older, or a building that is a nationally recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum of 50 years. e. The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant in the favor of the city shall be recorded against the open space portion of the property. The space shall be a minimum of 500 square feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy that covers at least 60% of the open space area. This option allows for additional height in return for the designation of open public open space. E. Special Controls Over the Main Street Retail Core: 1. Intent: Special controls shall apply to land located within the Main Street retail core area to preserve and enhance the viability of retail uses within the downtown area. The regulations of this subsection shall be in addition to the requirements of Subsections C and D of this section. 2. Area of Applicability: The controls established in this subsection shall apply to property developed or redeveloped after April 12, 1995, when located along any block face on the following streets: a. Main Street located within the D-1 District; 49 b. 100 South Street between West Temple Street and State Street; c. 200 South Street between West Temple Street and State Street; and d. 300 South Street between West Temple Street and State Street. 3. First Floor Retail Required: The first floor space of all buildings within this area shall be required to provide uses consisting of retail goods establishments, retail service establishments or restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art galleries, motion picture theaters or performing arts facilities. 4. Restrictions on Driveways: Driveways shall not be permitted along Main Street, but shall be permitted along other streets within the Main Street retail core area, provided they are located at least 80’ from the intersection of two street right of way lines. 21A.30.030: D-2 DOWNTOWN SUPPORT DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-2 Downtown Support District is to provide an area that fosters the development of a sustainable urban neighborhood that accommodates commercial, office, residential and other uses that relate to and support the Central Business District. Development within the D-2 Downtown Support District is intended to be less intensive than that of the Central Business District, with high lot coverage and buildings placed close to the sidewalk. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. Design standards are intended to promote pedestrian oriented development with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. B. Uses: Uses in the D-2 Downtown Support District, as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.30.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width shall be required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum permitted building height shall not exceed 120’ subject to the following review process: Buildings over 65’ in height are subject to design review according to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. E. Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yard: There is no minimum setback. The maximum setback is 10 feet. Buildings that contain ground floor residential uses shall have a front yard setback of a minimum of 8’ and a maximum setback no greater than 16’. A provided yard for any use shall be considered a landscaped yard and subject to the provisions of Chapter 21A.48 for required landscaped yards. a. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: 50 i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least 5’ in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. 2. Interior Side Yards: No Minimum side yard is required except a minimum of 10’ is required when the side yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted height of 35’ or less. 3. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required except a minimum of 10’ is required when the rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted height of 35’ or less. 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of Chapter 21A.48 of this title or the above standards, whichever is greater. F. Existing Vehicle Sales or Lease Lots: 1. Vehicle Display Area: The parking provided in the vehicle display area will not be counted as off street parking when computing maximum parking requirements and is not considered to be a surface parking lot when determining required setbacks in this section. 2. Design Standards: Structures associated with accessory uses such as, but not limited to, repair shops or vehicle washing do not need to meet required design standards and 51 may exceed the maximum front and corner side yard setbacks. These structures are required to have one of the following elements listed below: a. Durable materials, as defined in Subsection 21A.37.050.B; or b. Landscaping. Primary structures that contain sales floors and auto display areas must meet all design standards and setbacks. 3. Landscaping: A landscaped yard of at least 10’ in depth is required along any portion of the street frontage of the property that is not occupied by a permanent structure. All other landscaping requirements in Chapter 21A.48 remain applicable. 4. Multiple Buildings: Vehicle sales or lease lots may have multiple buildings on a parcel subject to all buildings being associated with the use of the lot as vehicles sales or lease. 21A.30.040: D-3 DOWNTOWN WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District is to provide for the reuse of existing warehouse buildings for multi-family and mixed use while also allowing for continued retail, office and warehouse uses within the district. The reuse of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings are to be done as multi-family residential or mixed use developments containing retail or office uses on the lower floors and residential on the upper floors. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to create a unique and sustainable downtown neighborhood with a strong emphasis on urban design, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, alternative forms of transportation and pedestrian orientation. B. Uses: Uses in the D-3 Downtown Warehouse/Residential District as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. C. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width shall be required. D. Yard Requirements: There are no minimum setbacks, except for buildings that contain ground floor residential uses in which case the front yard setback shall be a minimum of 8’ and no greater than 16’. A provided front yard for any use shall be considered a landscaped yard and subject to the provision of Chapter 21A.48 for required landscaped yards. The maximum front yard setback shall be eight feet for all other uses. 52 1. The yard must be designed with usability as a consideration. Development that implements the maximum yard is required to have at least one of the following elements: a. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or b. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or c. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least 5’ in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 2. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 3. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or b. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 4. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. E. Maximum Building Height: Buildings in the D3 zoning district shall comply with the following provisions: 1. The permitted building height shall not exceed 75’. 2. Buildings taller than 75’ but less than 180’ may be allowed subject to the following provisions: a. Approval is subject to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review: (1) Provided the additional height is supported by the applicable master plan. (2) The building includes at least one of the following five options: (A) Midblock walkway is provided on the property and the midblock walkway connects to an existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or publicly accessible public space and exceeds all the required dimensions of Subsection 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet. This option allows for additional height in return for exceeding the midblock walkway requirements; 53 (B) The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified in Chapter 21A.52 of this title; (C) The property where the building is located exceeds the minimum requirement for ground floor uses identified in Chapter 21A.37 (Design Standards) of this title, specifically: (i) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use Only), the requirement must be increased to 100%. This option requires that the entire ground floor use of a building consists of retail good establishments, retail service establishments or restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art galleries, motion picture theaters, performing art facilities or similar uses that encourages walk-in traffic through an active use. Vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement; or (ii) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased to 75% and the visual interest requirement must be increased to 25%. This option requires for an increased percentage of ground floor space to be used for an active use, and an increased percentage of the building to provide visual interest; (D) The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a building that is 50 years or older, or a building that is a nationally recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum of 50 years; or (E) The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant in the favor of the city shall be recorded against the open space portion of the property. The space shall be a minimum of 500 square feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy that covers at least 60% of the open space area. This option allows for additional height in return for the designation of open public open space. 21A.30.045: D-4 DOWNTOWN SECONDARY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the D-4 Secondary Central Business District is to foster an environment consistent with the area’s function as a housing, entertainment, cultural, convention, business, and retail section of the city that supports the Central Business District. Development is intended to support the regional venues in the district, 54 such as the Salt Palace Convention Center, and to be less intense than in the Central Business District. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities, and land use control, particularly in relation to retail commercial uses. B. Uses: Uses in the D-4 Secondary Central Business District as specified in Section 21A.33.050, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in Section 21A.30.010 of this chapter. In addition, all conditional uses in the D-4 District shall be subject to design evaluation and approval by the planning commission. C. Minimum Lot Size: No minimum lot area or lot width is required. D. Yard Requirements: 1. Front and Corner Side Yards: No minimum yards are required, however, a maximum front yard setback of eight feet is allowed. a. The yard must be designed with the usability as a consideration. Development that implements the maximum yard is required to have at least one of the following elements: i. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; ii. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or iii. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least 5’ in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. b. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. c. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansions, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: i. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or ii. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 55 d. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. 2. Interior Side Yards: No minimum side yard is required except a minimum of 10’ is required when the side yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted height of 35’ or less. 3. Rear Yard: No minimum rear yard is required except a minimum of 10’ is required when the rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted height of 35’ or less. E. Building Height: Buildings in the D-4 zoning district shall comply with the following provisions: 1. The permitted building height shall not exceed 75’. 2. Buildings taller than 75’ and up to 120’may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. a. Additional Height: Additional height may be authorized up to 120’ if the street facing facades contain ground floor commercial uses other than parking for at least 75% of the street facing facades according to Chapter 21A.37 and subject to approval through the design review process in Chapter 21A.59. b. Additional Permitted Height Location: Additional height greater than 120’ but not more than 375’ in height is permitted in the area bounded by: (1) The centerlines of South Temple, West Temple, 200 South, and 200 West Streets; and (2) Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 67, Plat ‘A’, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence along the south line of said Block 67, N89°54’02”W 283.86 feet; thence N00°04’50”E 38.59 feet; thence N10°46’51”W 238.70 feet; thence N24°45’15”W 62.98 feet; thence S89°54’02”E 355.45 feet to the east line of said Block 67; thence along said east line S00°06’35”W 330.14 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 102,339 square feet, or 2.349 acres, more or less. 56 3. Buildings in excess of 120’ up to 375’ may be authorized subject to the following provisions: a. Approval is subject to Chapter 21A.59 Design Review; b. Shall include a minimum stepback of five feet or other architectural feature that can deflect snow and ice from falling directly onto a sidewalk, midblock walkway, or other public space. The stepback may be located above the height of the first floor and below 120’ in height above the sidewalk or public space. Buildings that are clad in glass that totals less than 50% of the total wall surface area are exempt from this requirement; c. The additional height is supported by the applicable master plan; and d. The building includes at least one of the following five options: 1. Midblock walkway is provided on the property and the midblock walkway connects to an existing or planned street, midblock walkway, or publicly accessible public space and exceeds all the required dimensions of Section 21A.30.010.G by at least five feet. This option allows for additional height in return for exceeding the midblock walkway requirements; 2. The building is utilizing affordable housing incentives identified in chapter 21A.52 of this title; 3. The property where the building is located exceeds the minimum requirement for ground floor uses identified in Chapter 21A.37 (Design Standards) of this title, specifically: (1) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use Only), the requirement must be increased to 100%. This option 57 requires that the entire ground floor use of a building consists of retail good establishments, retail service establishments or restaurants, public service portions of businesses, department stores, art galleries, motion picture theaters, performing art facilities or similar uses that encourages walk-in traffic through an active use. Vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement.; or (2) For Subsection 21A.37.050.A.2 (Design Standards Defined, Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest), the ground floor use requirement must be increased to 75% and the visual interest requirement must be increased to 25%. This option requires for an increased percentage of ground floor space to be used for an active use, and an increased percentage of the building to provide visual interest; (D) The applicant provides a restrictive covenant on a historic building, a building that is 50 years or older, or a building that is a nationally recognized property, located outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District for the purpose of preserving the structure for a minimum of 50 years. (E) The proposal includes a privately owned, publicly accessible open space on the property or on another property within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. To qualify for this provision, a restrictive covenant in the favor of the city shall be recorded against the open space portion of the property. The space shall be a minimum of 500 square feet and include enough trees to provide a shade canopy that covers at least 60% of the open space area. This option allows for additional height in return for the designation of open public open space. e. Exception: The first 50’ of height shall not be set back from the street front more than five feet except that setbacks greater than five feet may be approved through the design review process or, has otherwise allowed by this code. SECTION 6. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.31. That Chapter 21A.30 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Gateway Districts), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 21A.31 GATEWAY DISTRICTS SECTION: 21A.31.010: General Provisions 21A.31.020: G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District 58 21A.31.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Statement of Intent: The G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District is intended to provide an urban setting for residential and commercial, developments, and implement the objectives of the Downtown Plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed use character of the area and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, and high density residential. B. Uses: Uses in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed District as specified in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in this section. C. Permitted Uses: The uses specified as permitted uses, in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title are permitted; provided, that they comply with all requirements of this chapter, the general standards set forth in Part IV of this title, and all other applicable requirements of this title. D. Conditional Uses: The uses specified as conditional uses in Section 21A.33.060, “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District”, of this title, shall be permitted in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District provided they are approved pursuant to the standards and procedures for conditional uses set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of this title. E. Midblock Walkways: As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to increase pedestrian connectivity and overall livability downtown through the creation of an intricate pedestrian network. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow building heights that exceed those of other districts in the city, the requirement for a midblock walkway is considered to be necessary to alleviate pedestrian impacts on the public sidewalks by dispersing future use of the public sidewalks. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within the Downtown zoning districts shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. 59 b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. Building encroachments into the midblock walkway are permitted if they include one or more of the following elements: (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of six feet and project no closer to the curb than three feet; (5) Skybridge: A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. Illustration of Regulation 21A.31.010.E2 Midblock Walkways 1 The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. F. Modifications of Standards: A modification to the provisions of this chapter may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 60 G. Midblock Street Development: Developments constructing midblock streets, either privately owned with a public easement or publicly dedicated, that are desired by an applicable master plan: 1. May transfer a portion or all of the above ground development square footage of the proposed new midblock street to other land within the proposed development. 2. May increase the height of the building on the remaining land within the development site to a height necessary to accommodate the development square footage of the proposed right of way that is being transferred. 3. Any proposal under this section shall be subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. H. Parking: 1. Belowground Parking Facilities: No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities. 2. Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots shall have a landscaped setback of at least 20’ and meet interior landscaped requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48 of this title. 3. Design Review Approval: A modification to the restrictions on parking lots and structures provisions of this section may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. Such conditional uses shall also be subject to urban design evaluation. 4. Parking structures shall conform to the requirements set forth in Chapter 21A.37 of this title. I. Outdoor Sales, Display and Storage: “Sales and display (outdoor)” and “storage and display (outdoor)”, is permitted for retail uses and the retail components of other permitted and conditional uses authorized in Section 21A.33.060 “Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District. These uses shall conform to the following: 1. Outdoor sales and display and outdoor storage may also be permitted when part of an authorized temporary use as established in Chapter 21A.42 of this title; 2. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not encroach into areas of required parking for longer than 30 days; 3. The outdoor permanent sales or display of merchandise shall not be located in any required yard area within the lot when the lot abuts a residential zoning district; 4. The outdoor sales or display of merchandise shall not include the use of banners, pennants or strings of pennants. 61 21A.31.020: G-MU GATEWAY-MIXED USE DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District is intended to implement the objectives of the adopted Downtown Plan and encourage the mixture of residential, commercial and assembly uses within an urban neighborhood atmosphere. The 200 South corridor is intended to encourage commercial development on an urban scale and the 500 West corridor is intended to be a primary residential corridor from North Temple to 400 South. Development in this district is intended to create an urban neighborhood that provides employment and economic development opportunities that are oriented toward the pedestrian with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. The standards are intended to achieve established objectives for urban and historic design, pedestrian amenities and land use regulation. B. Special Provisions: 1. Commercial Uses, 200 South: All buildings fronting 200 South shall have commercial uses that may include retail goods/service establishments, offices, restaurants, art galleries, motion picture theaters or performing arts facilities shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. The facades of such first floor shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 2. Residential Units, 500 West: Buildings fronting on 500 West shall be required to have residential units occupying a minimum of 50% of the structure’s gross square footage. C. Building Height: The minimum building height shall be 75’ The maximum building height shall not exceed 180’. 1. Design Review: A modification to building height over ninety feet (90’) in height shall only be allowed if approved through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59 of this title, and subject to compliance to the applicable master plan. D. All buildings shall be designed with a base that is differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base shall be between one and three stories in height, be visible from pedestrian view, and appropriately scaled to the surrounding contiguous historic buildings. The base shall include fenestration that distinguishes the lower from upper floors. Insets and/or projections are encouraged. The ground floor of all new buildings shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 16’. E. Yard Requirements: No minimum setback requirements. A maximum setback of 10’ is allowed for up to 30% of the building facade. 62 1. If provided, the yard must include one of the following elements: a. Seating at a ratio of at least one bench for every 500 square feet of yard space; or b. Landscaping that includes an increase of at least 25% in the total number of trees required to be planted on the site; or c. Awning or a similar form of weather protection that covers at least 5’ in width and length from all street-facing building entrances. 2. Regardless of the setback provided, doors shall be setback a minimum distance to allow the door to operate without swinging into a right of way or midblock walkway. 3. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement to accommodate a wider sidewalk if the adjacent public sidewalk is less than 15’ wide and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than 50% if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture, or b. The addition reduces the extent of the noncompliance of the existing building. 4. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. 5. Ground floor residential uses shall have a minimum setback of 10’. This setback shall be incorporated into a private yard for the ground floor units. SECTION 7. Amending the Text of Section 21A.33.050. That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.33.050: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS: Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 63 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site P P P P4 Alcohol: Bar establishment (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Bar establishment (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Brewpub (indoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Brewpub (outdoor) P6 P6 P6 P6 Tavern (indoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Tavern (outdoor) P6 C6 C6 P6 Animal, veterinary office P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height C C C C Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P14,18 P18 P18 P18 Bed and breakfast P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P Bio-medical facility P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 P17,18 Blood donation center P Bus line station/terminal P7 P7 P7 P7 Bus line yard and repair facility P Car wash P3 Check cashing/payday loan business P5 Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P18 P18 P18 P18 Community garden P P P P Convention center P Crematorium P P P Daycare center, adult P P P P Daycare center, child P P P P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P12 P12 P12 P12 64 Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P12 P12 P12 P12 Dwelling: Artists’ loft/studio P P P P Assisted living facility (large) P P P P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate care facility (large) C C C C Congregate care facility (small) P P P P Group home (large) C C Group home (small) P P P P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) C C Residential support (small) C C Exhibition hall P Farmers’ market P Financial institution P P P P Financial institution with drive- through facility P8 P8 Funeral home P P P Gas station P P7 P7 Government facility C C C C Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P7 P7 Heliport, accessory C C C Home occupation P13 P13 P13 P13 Homeless resource center C15 C15 Homeless shelter C15 C15 Hotel/motel P P P P Industrial assembly C18 C18 Laboratory, medical related P18 P18 P18 P18 Laundry, commercial P18 Library P P P P Limousine service P Mixed use development P P P P 65 Mobile food business (operation in the public right of way) P P P P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P Mobile food court P P P P Municipal services uses including Ccity utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P Museum P P P P Office P P P P Office, publishing company P P P P Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P7 P7 P7 P7 Park P P P P Parking, commercial C19 P19 C19 C19 Parking, off site P19 P19 P19 P19 Performing arts production facility P P P P Place of worship P11 P11 P11 P11 Radio, television station P P P Railroad, passenger station P P P P Reception center P P P P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Restaurant P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P8 Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Retail service establishment, upholstery shop P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P K - 12 private P P K - 12 public P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P 66 Small brewery C18 Social service mission and charity dining hall C C Stadium C C C Storage, self P16 P P Store: Department P P P Fashion oriented department P2 Mass merchandising P P P Pawnshop P Specialty P P P Superstore and hypermarket P Studio, art P P P P Technology facility P18 P18 P18 P18 Theater, live performance P9 P9 P9 P9 Theater, movie P P P P Utility, buildings or structure P1 P1 P1 P1 Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 P1 P1 Vehicle: Automobile repair (major) P P7 P7 Automobile repair (minor) P P7 P7 Automobile sales/rental and service P10 P P10 Vending cart, private property P P P P Vending cart, public property Warehouse P18 Warehouse, accessory P P Wholesale distribution P18 Wireless telecommunications facility (see Section 21A.40.090, Table 21A.40.090.E of this title) Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Subsection 21A.02.050.B of this title. 2. Uses allowed only within the boundaries and subject to the provisions of the Downtown Main Street Core Overlay District (Section 21A.34.110 of this title). 67 3. A car wash located within 165 feet (including streets) of a residential use shall not be allowed. 4. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a design review (Chapter 21A.59 of this title). 5. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 6. Subject to conformance with the provisions in Section 21A.36.300, “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 7. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. 8. Subject to conformance to the provisions in Section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive- through use regulations. 9. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 10. Must be located in a fully enclosed building and entirely indoors. 11. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place of worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 12. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 13. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 14. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 15. Subject to conformance with the provisions of Section 21A.36.350 of this title. 16. Limited to basement/below ground levels only. Not allowed on the ground or upper levels of the building, with the exception of associated public leasing/office space. 17. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 18. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 19. Parking lots, garages or parking structures, proposed as the only principal use on a property that has frontage on a public street that would result in a building demolition are prohibited subject to the provisions of Subsection 21A.30.010.F.3. SECTION 8. Amending the Text of Section 21A.37.020. That Section 21A.37.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Applicability), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.020: APPLICABILITY: 68 The design standards identified in this chapter apply to all properties in the zoning districts listed in Section 21A.37.060 of this chapter pursuant to the following: A. Change in Use: A change in use shall be exempt from this chapter, provided that it does not result in alterations of existing design elements regulated by the standards of this chapter. B. Additions: When an addition to an existing structure is made, only the addition is subject to this chapter, provided that no existing design element regulated by these standards is altered in other portions of the existing structure. C. Repair, Maintenance or Alterations: Structures may be repaired, maintained or altered, except that no such work shall create a noncompliance or increase the degree of an existing noncompliance. If a design element of an existing structure complies with this chapter, the design element shall not be altered such that the structure becomes noncompliant. D. Certificate of Appropriateness: All new construction, additions, exterior building work, structure work, and site work on property in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site remains subject to a certificate of appropriateness as required in Subsection 21A.34.020.E of this title. SECTION 9. Amending the Text of Section 21A.37.040. That Section 21A.37.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Modifications of Design Standards), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.040: MODIFICATIONS OF DESIGN STANDARDS: The planning director and/or planning commission may modify any of the design standards identified in this chapter subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59, “Design Review”, of this title. The applicant must demonstrate that the modification meets the intent for the specific design standards requested to be modified, the standards for design review and any adopted design guidelines that may apply. A. The planning director may approve, approve with modifications, deny or refer to the planning commission modifications to specific design standards when proposed as new construction, an addition or modification to the exterior of an existing structure, or a modification to an existing structure as authorized in Section 21A.59.040, Table 21A.59.040 or when authorized in the specific zoning district. 69 1. The director shall approve a request to modify a design standard if the director finds that the proposal complies with the purpose of the individual zoning district, the purpose of the individual design standards that are applicable to the project, the proposed modification is compatible with the development pattern of other buildings on the block face or on the block face on the opposite side of the street, and the project is compliant with the applicable design standards (Sections 21A.37.050 and 21A.37.060). 2. The director may approve a request to modify a design standard with conditions or modifications to the design if the director determines a modification is necessary to: a. Comply with the purpose of the base zoning district; b. Comply with the purpose of the applicable design standards of the base zoning; c. Achieve compatibility with the development pattern of other buildings on the block face or on the block face on the opposite side of the street; d. Achieve the applicable design review objectives; or e. Encourage the reuse of existing buildings when a modification to a noncomplying building results in the building becoming closer to complying with a specific design standard. 3. The director shall deny a request to modify a design standard if the design does not comply with the purpose of the base zoning district, the purpose of the applicable design standards or the applicable design review objectives and no modifications or conditions of approval can be applied that would make the design comply. 4. The director may forward a request to modify a design standard to the planning commission if the director finds that the request for modification is greater than allowed by this chapter, a person receiving notice of the proposed modification can demonstrate that the request will negatively impact their property, or at the request of the applicant if the director is required to deny the request as provided in this section. B. For properties subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the historic landmark commission may modify any of the design standards in this chapter as part of the review of the standards in Section 21A.34.020 of this title. SECTION 10. Amending the Text of Section 21A.37.050. That Section 21A.37.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Defined), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED: 70 The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further explain the standard; however, in cases where a conflict exists between the definition and the graphic, the definition shall take precedence. The table that follows (Section 21A.37.060) highlights the connection between each design standard and the zoning districts. It identifies whether a standard is required or not. Standards that are required are identified by an X or a number referencing the applicable standard. If there is a specific detail for the standard, it will also be identified in the table. A. Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest: This standard’s purpose is to increase the amount of active uses and/or visual interest on the ground floor of a building. Active uses are those that support the vibrancy and usability of the public realm adjacent to a building, and encourage walk-in traffic. There are two options for achieving this, one dealing solely with the amount of ground floor use, and the other combining a lesser amount of ground floor use with increased visual interest in the building facade’s design. The majority of the ground level facade of a building shall be placed parallel, and not at an angle, to the street. 1. Ground Floor Use Only: This option requires that a portion of the length of any street-facing building façade on the ground floor of a new principal building include active uses allowed in the zoning district other than parking. Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning commission. Unless other uses are specifically required by this title, residential uses may count towards the ground floor use requirement. The ground floor of all new buildings shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 16’ The ground floor use shall not consist of spaces that discourage walk-in traffic, such as a residential mailroom, common room, back of house functions, or private business offices associated with an active use. Allowed uses shall occupy a minimum percentage of the length of the street facing facade according to Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All portions of such ground floor spaces shall extend a minimum of 25’ into the building. Parking may be located behind these spaces. a. For single-family attached uses, the required use depth may be reduced to ten feet (10’). b. The TSA (Transit Station Area), R-MU-35 (Residential Mixed-Use), R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed-Use), FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood), FB-UN3 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood), FBUN-SC (Form Based Urban Neighborhood Special Corridor Core), FBUN-SE (Form Based Urban Neighborhood Special Corridor Edge), CSHBD (Sugar House Business District) 71 are not subject to the 16’ minimum floor to ceiling height required by this section. A zoning district that has a similar requirement, that requirement shall apply. c. For single-family or two-family uses, garages occupying up to 50% of the length of the ground floor building facade are exempt from this requirement. d. For all other uses, vehicle entry and exit ways necessary for access to parking are exempt from this requirement. Such accessways shall not exceed 30’ in width. Individual dwelling unit garages do not qualify for this exemption. e. Outdoor space may count for up to 25% of the required ground floor use requirement when the outdoor space is within a required or provided front or corner side yard setback if the outdoor space includes outdoor dining space, an outdoor recreation use, fenced off areas for pets, patio space with seating, or other similar use. The amount of outdoor space shall be calculated on a linear foot for linear foot basis. f. Areas such as kitchens, storage, bicycle parking, and other areas that are not accessible to customers shall not be counted towards the requirement for ground floor use and visual interest. 2. Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest: This option allows for some flexibility in the amount of required ground floor use, but in return requires additional design requirements for the purpose of creating increased visual interest and pedestrian activity where the lower levels of buildings face streets or sidewalks. This option identifies a required percentage of ground floor space that must be an active use, and the percentage of the building which must provide visual interest. An applicant utilizing this option must proceed through the design review process, Chapter 21A.59), for review of the project for determination of the project’s compliance with those standards, and in addition, whether the design contributes to increased visual interest through a combination of increased building material variety, architectural features, facade changes, art, and colors; and, increased pedestrian activity through permeability between the building and the adjacent public realm using niches, bays, gateways, porches, colonnades, stairs or other similar features to facilitate pedestrian interaction with the building. \ Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.A.2 Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest 72 B. Building Materials: 1. All buildings which have been altered over 75% on the exterior facade shall comply with the material requirements detailed below. Buildings older than 50 years are exempt from this requirement if alterations are consistent with the existing architecture. 2. For the purpose of the requirements below, a durable material is defined as any material that has a manufacturer’s warranty of a minimum of 20 years or is a natural material such as stone or wood provided the wood is treated and maintained for exterior use. 3. Ground Floor Building Materials: Other than windows and doors, a minimum amount of the ground floor facade’s wall area of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, fiber cement board or other material that includes a minimum manufacturer warranty of 20 years from color fading, weather, and local climate induced degradation of the material. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the ground floor facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the ground floor of a structure. 4. Upper Floor Building Materials: Floors above the ground floor level shall include durable materials on a minimum amount of any street facing building facade of those 1 Contribute to increased visual interest through a combination of increased building material variety, architectural features, facade changes, art, and colors. 2 Contribute to increased pedestrian activity through a clear visual relationship between the building and the adjacent public realm using niches, bays, gateways, porches, colonnades, stairs or other similar features. 73 additional floors according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Windows and doors are not included in that minimum amount. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board or other material that includes a minimum manufacturer warranty of 20 years from color fading, weather, and local climate induced degradation of the material. C. Glass: 1. Ground Floor Glass: The ground floor building elevation of all new buildings facing a street, and all new ground floor additions facing a street, shall have a minimum percentage of glass, as calculated between three feet and eight feet above grade according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. All ground floor glass shall allow unhampered and unobstructed visibility into the building for a depth of at least five feet, excluding any glass etching and window signs when installed and permitted in accordance with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title. The planning director may approve a modification to ground floor glass requirements if the planning director finds: a. The requirement would negatively affect the historic character of an existing building; b. The requirement would negatively affect the structural stability of an existing building; or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses that face the street, in which case the specified minimum glass requirement may be reduced by 15%. 74 2. Upper Floor Glass: Above the first floor of any multi-story building, the surface area of the facade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum percentage of glass according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. a. Reflective Glass: The maximum percentage of reflective glass, defined as glass with a coating that creates a mirror-like appearance, is allowed according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, on both the ground floor and upper floor of buildings. D. Building Entrances: A building entrance is defined as an entrance to a building that includes a door and entry feature such as a recess or canopy that provides customers with direct access to the use. For the purpose of this provision, an operable building entrance shall be open and accessible during the hours that the business is open and comply with applicable ADA standards. At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for every street facing facade. Additional operable building entrances shall be required, at a minimum, at each specified length of street facing building facade according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The center of each additional entrance shall be located within six feet either direction of the specified location. Each ground floor nonresidential leasable space facing a street shall have an Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.C.1 Ground Floor Glass (References the measurements in Table D, D-1) 1 The ground floor building elevation of all new buildings facing a street, and all new ground floor additions facing a street, shall have a minimum percentage of glass as indicated in the associated tables in this chapter, between three feet and eight feet above grade. 75% 75 operable entrance facing that street and a walkway to the nearest sidewalk. Corner entrances, when facing a street and located at approximately a 45° angle to the two adjacent building facades (chamfered corner), may count as an entrance for both of the adjacent facades. E. Maximum Length of Blank Wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade shall be as specified according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are acceptable methods to create variety and scale. This shall include architectural features such as bay windows, recessed or projected entrances, windows, balconies, cornices, columns, or other similar architectural features. The architectural feature shall be either recessed a minimum of 12” or projected a minimum of 12”. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.D Building Entrances (References the measurements in Table D, D-1) 1 At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for every street facing facade. Additional operable building entrances shall be required, at a minimum distance as indicated in the associated tables in this chapter. 76 F. Maximum Length of Street Facing Facades: This requirement sets the maximum length of a single street facing façade of a structure. The purpose of this is to have building massing that better responds to human scale to create a walkable pedestrian environment. No street facing building wall may be longer than specified along a street line according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. A minimum of 20’ is required between separate buildings when multiple buildings are placed on a single parcel according to Subsection 21A.36.010.B, “One Principal Building Per Lot”, of this title. The space between buildings shall include a pedestrian walkway at least five feet wide. G. Upper Floor Stepback: 1. The upper floor stepback for street facing facades is dependent on the height of the building according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. For buildings that are between 78’ to 104’, or between 6 and 8 stories, a minimum stepback of 10’ is required at least 25’ above grade. For buildings above 105’, or 8 stories, the step back shall be a minimum of 15’ from the property line. The stepback Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.E Maximum Length of Blank Wall (References the measurements in Table D, Downtown Districts) 1 The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade shall be limited to the specified measurement indicated in the associated table in this chapter. 2 The architectural feature shall be either recessed a minimum of 12” or projected a minimum of 12”. 77 shall appear after the first two to five floors. In addition to these provisions, 20% of the entire building façade can meet the street at the lot line with no stepback. An alternative to this street facing facade stepback requirement may be utilized for buildings limited to 45’ or less in height by the zoning ordinance: those buildings may provide a 4’ minimum depth canopy, roof structure, or balcony that extends from the face of the building toward the street at a height of between 12’ and 15’ above the adjacent sidewalk. Such extension(s) shall extend horizontally parallel to the street for a minimum of 50% of the face of the building and may encroach into a setback as permitted per Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. 2. Stepbacks are required for full floors above the height, according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, measured from average finished grade that have facades facing single- or two-family residential districts with a permitted height that is 35’ or less, a public trail or public open space. The purpose of this Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.G1 Upper Floor Stepback 1 For buildings that are between 78’ to 104’, or between 6 and 8 stories, a minimum stepback of 10’ is required at least 25’ above grade. The stepback shall appear after the first 26’ to 65’, or 2 to 5 floors. In addition to these provisions, 20% of the entire building façade can meet the street at the lot line with no stepback. 2 For buildings above 104’, or 8 stories, the stepback shall be a minimum of 15’ from the property line. The stepback shall appear after the first 26’ to 65’, or 2 to 5 floors. In addition to these provisions, 20% of the entire building façade can meet the street at the lot line with no stepback. 78 provision is to reduce the impact that buildings over a certain height have on abutting properties when the abutting properties have a permitted height that is 35’ or less. 3. For street facing facades the first full floor, and all additional floors, above thirty feet (30’) in height from average finished grade shall be stepped back a minimum horizontal distance from the front line of building, according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. An alternative to this street facing facade step back requirement may be utilized for buildings limited to forty five feet (45’) or less in height by the zoning ordinance: those buildings may provide a four foot (4’) minimum depth canopy, roof structure, or balcony that extends from the face of the building toward the street at a height of between twelve feet (12’) and fifteen feet (15’) above the adjacent sidewalk. Such extension(s) shall extend horizontally parallel to the street for a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the face of the building and may encroach into a setback as permitted per Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. 4. Floors rising above thirty feet (30’) in height shall be stepped back fifteen (15) horizontal feet from the building foundation at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a public street, public trail, or public open space. This stepback does not apply to buildings that have balconies on floors rising above thirty feet (30’) in height. H. Exterior Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed down to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall not strobe, flash or flicker. I. Parking Lot Lighting: If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, any poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to 16’ in height and the globe must be shielded and the lighting directed down to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties or into upper level residential units in multi-story buildings. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. J. Screening of Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment for a building shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of such impact-minimizing siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in Section 21A.36.020, Table 21A.36.020.B, “Obstructions in Required Yards”, of this title. K. Screening of Service Areas: Service areas, loading docks, refuse containers, utility meters, and similar areas shall be fully screened from public view. All screening enclosures viewable from the street shall be either incorporated into the building architecture or shall incorporate building materials and detailing compatible with the building being served. Waste and loading facilities are prohibited from being located on street-facing facades and shall be co-located and screened when possible. Exceptions to 79 this requirement may be approved by the planning director when the service provides power or some form of utilities in and around the surrounding area. Exemptions may also be approved through the site plan review process when a permit applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to accommodate these activities on the block interior. If such activities are permitted adjacent to a public street, a visual screening design approved by the planning director shall be required. All screening devices shall be a minimum of one foot higher than the object being screened, and in the case of fences and/or masonry walls the height shall not exceed eight feet. Dumpsters must be located a minimum of 25’ from any building on an adjacent lot that contains a residential dwelling or be located inside of an enclosed building or structure. L. Ground Floor Residential Entrances for Dwellings with Individual Unit Entries: For the zoning districts listed in Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter, all attached dwellings including attached single-family dwellings, townhomes, row houses, multi-family developments with ground floor uses, and other similar housing types located on the ground floor shall have a primary entrance facing the street for each unit adjacent to a street. Units may have a primary entrance located on a courtyard, midblock walkway, or other similar area if the street facing facades also have a primary entrance. M. Parking Garages or Structures: The following standards shall apply to parking garages or structures whether stand alone or incorporated into a building: 1. Parking structures shall have an external skin designed to improve visual character when adjacent to a public street or other public space. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels; live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, decorative photovoltaic panels or match the building materials and character of the principal use. The planning director may approve other decorative materials not listed if the materials are in keeping with the decorative nature of the parking structure. 2. Facade elements shall align to parking levels and there shall be no sloped surfaces visible from a public street, public trail or public open space. 3. Internal circulation must be designed such that parking surfaces are level (or without any slopes) along all primary facades. All ramping between levels need to be placed along the secondary facade or to the center of the structure. Parking structures shall be designed to conceal the view of all parked cars and drive ramps from public spaces. 4. Elevator and stairs shall be highlighted architecturally so visitors can easily access these entry points both internally and externally. 80 5. Signage and wayfinding shall be integrated with the architecture of the parking structure and be architecturally compatible with the design. The entrances of public parking structures shall be clearly signed from public streets. 6. Interior garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are a good strategy to control light levels on site while improving energy efficiency. 7. Where a driveway crosses a public sidewalk, the driveway shall be a different color, texture, or paving material than the sidewalk to warn drivers of the possibility of pedestrians in the area. 8. The ground floor of all parking structures shall be wrapped along all street frontages with habitable space that is occupied by a use that is allowed in the zone as a permitted or conditional use. 9. Parking structures shall be designed to minimize vehicle noise and odors on the public realm. Venting and fan locations shall not be located next to public spaces and shall be located as far as possible from adjacent residential land uses. 10. If the parking structure is adjacent to a midblock walkway, pedestrian oriented elements shall be provided. These may include, but are not limited to seating and vegetation. N. Residential Character in RB District: 1. All roofs shall be pitched and of a hip or gable design except additions or expansions to existing buildings may be of the same roof design as the original building; 2. The remodeling of residential buildings for retail or office use shall be allowed only if the residential character of the exterior is maintained; 3. The front building elevation shall contain not more than 50% glass; 4. Signs shall conform with special sign regulations of Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, of this title; 5. Building orientation shall be to the front or corner side yard; and 6. Building additions shall consist of materials, color and exterior building design consistent with the existing structure, unless the entire structure is resurfaced. O. Primary Entrance Design in SNB District: Primary entrance design shall consist of at least two of the following design elements at the primary entrance, so that the primary entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting street. 1. Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, canopies, or awnings. 2. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscape or seating. 3. Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, or decorative pedestal lights. 81 4. A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches or architectural or decorative columns. 5. Recessed entrances that include a minimum stepback of two feet from the primary facade and that include glass on the sidewalls. P. Streetscape Standards: These standards are required for landscaping that is within the public right of way. This is defined as the space between the private property line and the back of the curb. 1. Tree Canopy Coverage: No tree canopy shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. The defined percentage represents the canopy coverage at maturity. At installation, a minimum of 20% of all trees shall have a minimum caliper of 3”. 2. Minimum Vegetation Standards: The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than the specified amount according to Chapter 21A.48. The vegetation shall be planted in the public right of way. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.1 Tree Canopy Coverage 1 No tree canopy coverage shall cover less than the specified percentage according to Section 21A.37.060, Table 21A.37.060 of this chapter. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.2 Minimum Vegetation Standards (References the measurements in Table D, Downtown Districts) 82 3. Street Trees: Street trees are required and subject to the regulations in Section 21A.48.080. In addition to those standards, for every new development, there shall be one street tree planted for every 30’ of street frontage. 4. Soil Volume: In order to promote street tree health and longevity, each tree shall have an adequate volume of soil. The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. The soil volume may be reduced if under ground utilities are present within the soil volume and the soil volume cannot be extended horizontally due to other obstructions or barriers. 1 The percentage of vegetation shall be no less than the specified percentage according to Chapter 21A.48. 2 Vegetation shall be planted in the public right of way. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.4 Soil Volume 1 The soil volume surrounding a tree shall be 750ft3 to 1,000ft3 per tree, provided that this area is exclusive of the soils volume calculation for adjacent trees. 83 5. Minimize Curb Cuts: As an effort to emphasize the public realm and encourage the safety of pedestrians, places where cars intersect the street shall be minimized. More specifically, curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. The sidewalk material shall continue at ground level of the curb cuts. 6. Overhead Cover: Overhead covers are required at building entrances to provide weather protection to pedestrians and may encroach into a required yard as indicated in this section or into a public right of way with an approved encroachment agreement with the City. These coverings are required to be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall also provide coverage with a minimum depth of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.5 Minimize Curb Cuts 1 Curb cuts are encouraged to be concentrated at midblock and alley locations. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.P.6 Overhead Cover 84 7. Streetscape Landscaping: All vegetation used along the streetscape must comply with the landscape requirements set forth in Chapter 21A.48. Q. Height Transitions: This measurement is applied to control the size and shape of the building envelope or portion thereof for such purposes as promoting transition in scale between buildings of different height, protecting access to sunlight, and/or limiting shadow and overlook on neighboring properties. A transition may be achieved by relating a building’s form to those that surround it through the following way. An angular plane of 45°, measured from the relevant property lines, should be used to provide a frame of reference for transition in scale from proposed high-rise buildings down to lower scale areas. The transition is required when development is directly adjacent to a zone with a height maximum of 35’ or less or adjacent to a local historic landmark site. These standards do not apply when a right of way separates the buildings. 1 The shade structure shall occur between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. The shade shall provide a minimum coverage of 6’ in width. The cover shall project no closer than 3’ to the curb. Illustration of Regulation 21A.37.050.Q Height Transitions 85 R. Horizontal articulation: Buildings shall be designed in such a way that they are appropriately scaled to the pedestrian at the street level. This scale is emphasized through authentic breaks in the façade. These breaks shall be articulated on the primary façade to the full height of the building to the cornice or to the full height of the building to the first horizontal setback. There may be a maximum spacing of 60’ for horizontal articulation. Horizontal articulation shall be achieved through one of the following architectural features: a. Bay windows: Bay windows shall be a minimum of two feet in depth and four feet in width; or b. Recessed entrances or windows: These shall be recessed a minimum of four feet in depth and six feet in width. Canopies or awnings are required at primary building entries; or c. Niches: Niches shall be a minimum of two feet in depth and four feet in width; or d. Openings for gates that are a minimum of four feet in width; or e. Porches measuring at least 48 square feet; or f. Colonnades that are a minimum of four feet in width. 1 An angular plane of 45°, measured from the relevant property lines, should be used to provide a frame of reference for transition in scale from proposed high-rise buildings down to lower scale areas. The transition is required when development is adjacent to a zone with a height maximum of 35’ or less or adjacent to a local historic landmark site. 86 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Section 21A.37.060. That Section 21A.37.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT: This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is checked (X), that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases where a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. 87 TABLE 21A.37.060 A. Residential Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RMF-3 0 RMF-3 5 RMF-4 5 RMF-7 5 RB R-MU-35 R-MU-45 R-M U RO Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050B.3) 80 80 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 40 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 10 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) 88 Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Residential character in RB District (21A.37.050.N) X B. Commercial Districts: Standard (Code Section) District SNB CN CB CS CC CSHB D CG1 TSA Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 802 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 60/25 70/20 60/25 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 80 70 90 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 60 60 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40 40 40 40 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 25 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 40 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X X X X X 40 40 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 15 15 20 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.2 and 21A.37.050.G.3) 15 X Façade height for required stepback (21A.37.050.G.2) 30 Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X X X X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X X X 89 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X Primary entrance design SNB District (21A.37.050.O) X Tree canopy coverage (%)(21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Minimum vegetation standards (%) (21A.37.050.P.2) X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent buildings (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. These standards only apply to the portion of the CG district within the boundaries of north of 900 S, south of 200 S, west 300 W and east of I-15. 2. Maximum width of the entrance shall be 35’ if the additional 20% is used for an entrance to a parking structure. 90 C. Manufacturing Districts: Standard (Code Section) District M-1 M-2 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) 91 Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) D. Downtown Districts: Standard (Code Section) District D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 90 80 80 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 80/10 70/20 70/20 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 80 701 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 50 701 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 60 60 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 0 0 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 50 50 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 40 60 60 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 20 20 20 20 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 200 150 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X 92 Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X X X X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 40 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) X X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) X X X X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X X Notes: 1. In the D-3 zoning district this percentage applies to all sides of the building, not just the front or street facing facade. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 93 E. Gateway Districts: Standard (Code Section) District G-MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 80 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) 70/20 Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) 50 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 60 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 0 Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 50 Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 40 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 150 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G.1) X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X1 Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X1 Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) 94 Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X2 Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) X Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X Notes: 1. Sidewalks and street lamps installed in the public right-of- way shall be of the type specified in the sidewalk/street lighting policy document adopted by the city. 2. Parking structures shall be located behind principal buildings. This requirement may be modified so that structures may be located at least 15’ from front and corner side lot lines if a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the ground floor adjacent to a sidewalk is used for retail goods/service establishments, office and/or restaurant space to encourage pedestrian activity. The facades of the ground floor shall be designed to be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. 95 F. Special Purpose Districts: Standard (Code Section) District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 PL PL-2 I UI OS NOS MH EI MU Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.1) Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.2) Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 40-70 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) X Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 96 Upper floor stepback (feet) (21A.37.050.G) Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K) X Ground floor residential entrances (21A.37.050.L) Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) Soil Volume (21A.37.050.P.4) Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) 97 Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) 98 G. Form Based Districts: Standard (Code Section) District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 70 70 70 70 70 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 70 70 70 70 70 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 601 601 601 601 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 15 15 15 15 15 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 75 75 75 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 30 30 30 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G.4) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X 99 Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X2 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X X X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X Notes: 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 3. For buildings with street facing facades over 100' in length, a minimum of 30% of the façade length shall be an “active use” as defined in Subsection 21A.37.050.A.1. Except for the rowhouse building form, residential units shall not count as an “active use” toward the 30% minimum. 100 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Section 21A.44.060. That Section 21A.44.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.44.060: PARKING LOCATION AND DESIGN: All required parking areas shall be located and designed in accordance with the standards in this Chapter 21A.44: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading and the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. Modifications to the standards of this Section 21A.44.060 may be granted through the design review process, subject to conformance with the standards and procedures of Chapter 21A.59: Design Review. A. Generally: 1. Parking Located on Same Lot as Use or Building Served: All parking spaces required to serve buildings or uses erected or established after the effective date of this ordinance shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, unless otherwise allowed pursuant to Subsection 21A.44.060.A.4, “Off-Site Parking Permitted”. 2. Biodetention and Landscape Islands in General and Neighborhood Center Contexts: For parking lots with one hundred (100) or more parking spaces in the General Context and Neighborhood Center Context areas, parking lot islands or biodetention areas shall be provided on the interior of the parking lot to help direct traffic flow and to provide landscaped areas within such lots. 3. Parking Location and Setbacks: All parking shall comply with the parking restrictions within yards pursuant to Table 21A.44.060-A, “Parking Location and Setback Requirements“. TABLE 21A.44.060-A: PARKING LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: N = parking prohibited between lot line and front line of the principal building Zoning District Front Lot Line Corner Side Lot Line Interior Side Lot Line Rear Lot Line GENERAL CONTEXT Residential (FR Districts, RB, RMF, RO) FR N Parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city standards is exempt 6 ft. R-1, R-2, SR-1, 0 ft. 101 SR-2 from this restriction. 0 ft. RMF-30 N 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RMF-35, RMF- 45, RMF-75, RO 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district. Limited to 1 side yard except for single- family attached lots. Commercial and Manufacturing (CC, CS, CG, M-1, M-2, SNB) CC 15 ft. 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CS 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district CG N. See also Subsection 21A.26.070.I M-1 15 ft. M-2 0 ft.; or 50 ft. when abutting any residential district Special Purpose Districts A 0 ft. 0 ft. AG, AG-2, AG- 5, AG-20 N BP 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district EI 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 102 FP 20 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. I 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any residential district MH 0 ft. OS 30 ft. 10 ft. PL 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any residential district PL-2 20 ft. RP 30 ft. 8 ft.; or 30 ft. when abutting any residential district NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CONTEXT CB , CN, SNB N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district R-MU-35, R- MU-45 Surface Parking: N Parking Structures: 45’ or located behind principal building Limited to 1 side yard, 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district RB, SR-3, FB- UN1, FB-SE N 0 ft. URBAN CENTER CONTEXT CSHBD1 N 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any residential district CSHBD2 0 ft.; or 7 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district D-2 Surface Parking: N Surface parking must be located behind the principal structure and comply with other requirements of Subsection 0 ft. 103 21A.30.010.F Parking Structures: N MU Surface Parking: 25 ft. or located behind principal structure Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; limited to 1 side yard 0 ft. TSA-T See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 0 ft. TRANSIT CONTEXT D-1 See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.1 D-3 D-4 See Subsections 21A.44.060.B.1, 21A.30.010.F and 21A.31.010.H 0 ft. G-MU FB-UN2, FB- UN3, FB-SC N TSA-C See Subsection 21A.44.060.B.2 R-MU Surface Parking: 30 ft. Parking Structures: 45 ft. or located behind principal structure 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district Surface parking at least 30 ft. from front lot line. 0 ft.; or 10 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district UI 0 ft; Hospitals: 30 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 0 ft.; or 15 ft. when abutting any 1-2 family residential district; Hospitals: 10 ft. 104 4. Off-Site Parking Permitted: When allowed as either a permitted or conditional use per Chapter 21A.33, “Land Use Tables”, off-site parking facilities may be used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and shall comply with the following standards: a. Maximum Distance of Off-Site Parking: Off-site parking shall be located according to the distance established in Table 21A.44.060-B, “Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking“ (measured in a straight line from the property boundary of the principal use for which the parking serves to the closest point of the parking area). Table 21A.44.060-B: Maximum Distances for Off-Site Parking: Context Maximum Distance to Off-Site Parking Neighborhood Center 600 ft. General Legal Nonconforming Use in Residential District Urban Center 1,200 ft. Transit 1,000 ft. b. Documentation Required: (1) The owners of record involved in an off-site parking arrangement shall submit written documentation of the continued availability of the off-site parking arrangement to the planning director for review. (2) The planning director shall approve the off-site parking arrangement if the director determines the location meets the standards of this section. No zoning or use approval shall be issued until the director has approved the off-site parking arrangement and the documentation has been recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. (3) If the off-site parking arrangement is later terminated or modified and the planning director determines that the termination or modification has resulted in traffic congestion, overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, or threats to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle safety, the property owners of the uses for which the off-site parking was provided may be held in violation of this chapter. 105 5. Circulation Plan Required: Any application for a building permit shall include a site plan, drawn to scale, and fully dimensioned, showing any off street parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this title. A tabulation of the number of off street vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, and stacking spaces required by this chapter shall appear in a conspicuous place on the plan. 6. Driveways and Access: a. Compliance with Other Adopted Regulations: (1) Parking lots shall be designed in compliance with applicable city codes, ordinances, and standards, including but not limited to Title 12 of this code: Vehicles and Traffic and the Off Street Parking Standards Manual to the maximum degree practicable, with respect to: (a) Minimum distances between curb cuts; (b) Proximity of curb cuts to intersections; (c) Provisions for shared driveways; (d) Location, quantity and design of landscaped islands; and (e) Design of parking lot interior circulation system. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.a(1) above, relocation of a driveway for a single-family, two-family, or twin home residence in any zoning district shall only be required when the residence is replaced, and shall not be required when the residence is expanded or renovated in compliance with the city code. b. Access Standards: Access to all parking facilities shall comply with the following standards: (1) To the maximum extent practicable, all off street parking facilities shall be designed with vehicular access to a street or alley that will least interfere with automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic movement. (2) Parking facilities in excess of five (5) spaces that access a public street shall be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward direction. (3) Parking facilities on lots with less than one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage shall have only one curb cut, and lots with one hundred feet (100’) of street frontage or more shall be limited to two curb cuts, unless the transportation director determines that additional curb cuts are necessary to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety or to comply with the fire code. 106 Public safety uses shall be exempt from limitations on curb cuts. (4) All vehicular access roads/driveways shall be surfaced as required in accordance with Subsection 21A.44.060.A.8, “Surface Materials”. 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 five 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) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width“. TABLE 21A.44.060-C: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH: Zoning District Minimum Driveway Width (in front and corner side yard) Maximum Driveway Width* (in front and corner side yard) SR-1, SR-2 and SR-3 8 ft. 22 ft. MH 8 ft. 16 ft. Other Residential Zoning Districts 8 ft. 30 ft. M-1 and M-2 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 50 ft. Other Non-Residential Zoning Districts 12 ft. single lane and 24 ft. for two-way 30 ft. * Maximum width is for all driveways combined when more than one driveway is provided (3) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two or more properties share one 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. 107 (4) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 7. Minimum Dimensional Standards: All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 8. Surface Materials: All parking spaces shall comply with the standards for surfacing of access, driving, and parking surfacing in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 9. Grading and Stormwater Management: All surface parking areas shall comply with city grading and stormwater management standards and shall be reviewed for best management practices by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Refer to the Salt Lake City Stormwater Master Plan, Storm Drainage Manual, and Green Infrastructure Toolbox for additional information. 10. Sight Distance Triangles: All driveways and intersections shall comply with the sight distance triangle standards as defined in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. 11. Landscaping and Screening: All parking areas and facilities shall comply with the landscaping and screening standards in Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”. 12. Lighting: Where a parking area or parking lot is illuminated, the light source shall be shielded so that the light source is not directly visible from any abutting property or abutting private or public street. 13. Signs: All signs in parking areas or related to parking facilities shall comply with Chapter 21A.46, “Signs”, and applicable provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 14. Pedestrian Walkways: a. Surface parking lots with between twenty-five (25) and one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk through the parking lot to the primary entrance of the principal building. Pedestrian walkways shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. b. Parking lots with more than one hundred (100) parking spaces shall provide: (1) One or more grade-separated pedestrian walkway(s), at least five feet (5’) in width, and located in an area that is not a driving surface, leading from the farthest row of parking spaces to the primary entrance of the principal building. 108 (2) Vehicles shall not overhang the pedestrian walkway(s). (3) Where the walkway(s) crosses a drive aisle, pedestrian walkway(s) shall be identified by a change in color, material, surface texture, or grade elevation from surrounding driving surfaces. (4) One pedestrian walkway meeting these standards shall be provided for each one hundred (100) parking spaces provided on site or part thereof, after the first one hundred (100) parking spaces. 15. Parking Garages: The following standards shall apply to all above-ground parking garages except those located in the FB zones subject to Subsection 21A.27.030.C.4, whether freestanding or incorporated into a building: a. Each façade or a parking garage adjacent to a public street or public space shall have an external skin designed to conceal the view of all parked cars. Examples include heavy gauge metal screen, precast concrete panels, live green or landscaped walls, laminated or safety glass, or decorative photovoltaic panels. b. No horizontal length of the parking garage façade shall extend longer than 40 feet without the inclusion of architectural elements such as decorative grillwork, louvers, translucent screens, alternating building materials, and other external features to avoid visual monotony. Facade elements shall align with parking levels. c. Internal circulation shall allow parking surfaces to be level (without any slope) along each parking garage facade adjacent to a public street or public space. All ramps between levels shall be located along building facades that are not adjacent to a public street or public space, or shall be located internally so that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or public spaces. d. The location of elevators and stairs shall be highlighted through the use of architectural features or changes in façade colors, textures, or materials so that visitors can easily identify these entry points. e. Interior parking garage lighting shall not produce glaring sources toward adjacent properties while providing safe and adequate lighting levels. The use of sensor dimmable LEDs and white stained ceilings are recommended to control light levels on-site while improving energy efficiency. f. In the Urban Center Context and Transit Context areas, the street-level facades of all parking garages shall be designed to meet applicable building code standards for habitable space to allow at least one permitted or conditional use, other than parking, to be located where the parking garage is located. 109 g. Vent and fan locations shall not be located on parking garage facades facing public streets or public spaces, or adjacent to residential uses, to the greatest extent practicable. 16. Tandem Parking: Where more than one parking space is required to be provided for a residential dwelling unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking spaces, provided that: a. No more than two required spaces may be included in the tandem parking layout; and b. Each set of two tandem parking spaces shall be designated for a specific residential unit. 17. Cross-Access Between Adjacent Uses: The transportation director may require that access to one or more lots be through shared access points or cross-access through adjacent parcels when the transportation director determines that individual access to abutting parcels or limited distance between access points will create traffic safety hazards due to traffic levels on adjacent streets or nearby intersections. Such a determination shall be consistent with requirements of state law regarding property access from public streets. Required cross- access agreements shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office. B. Zone Specific Location and Design Standards: 1. D-1, D-3, D-4, and G-MU Zoning Districts: The following regulations shall apply to surface or above-ground parking facilities. No special design and setback restrictions shall apply to below-ground parking facilities. a. Above-ground parking facilities located within the block corner areas and on Main Street, shall be located behind principal buildings and: (1) All above-ground parking facilities that front a street shall contain uses other than parking along the entire length of the building façade and along all stories or levels of the building. (2) Vehicle access to parking shall be located to the side of the building or as far from the street corner as possible unless further restricted by this title. b. Parking garages shall meet the following: (1) Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or corner side lot line. The facades of such first floors shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area. (2) Levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side lot line 110 shall have floors and/or facades that are horizontal, not sloped. (3) Landscape Requirements: Surface parking lots, where allowed shall have a minimum landscaped setback of fifteen feet (15’) and shall meet interior parking lot landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 21A.48, “Landscaping and Buffers”. 2. TSA Transit Station Area District: New uses and development or redevelopment within the TSA Transit Station Area District shall comply with the following standards. a. Surface Parking on Corner Properties: On corner properties, surface parking lots shall be located behind principal buildings or at least sixty feet (60’) from the intersection of the front and corner side lot lines. b. Surface Parking in the Core Area: Surface parking lots in the core area are required to be located behind or to the side of the principal building. (1) When located to the side of a building, the parking lot shall be: (a) Set back a minimum of thirty feet (30’) from a property line adjacent to a public street. The area between the parking lot and the property line adjacent to a public street shall be landscaped or activated with outdoor dining, plazas, or similar features; (b) Screened with a landscaped hedge or wall that is at least thirty-six inches (36”) above grade and no taller than forty-two inches (42”) above grade. Landscaping berms are not permitted; and (c) No wider than what is required for two rows of parking and one drive aisle as provided in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual. (2) Unless a second driveway is necessary to comply with the fire code, a maximum of one driveway and drive aisle shall be permitted per street frontage. The access point shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet (100’) from the intersection of the front and corner side lot lines. If the front or corner side lot line is less than one hundred feet (100’) in length, then the edge of the drive approach shall be located within twenty feet (20’) of the side or rear property line. c. Surface Parking in the Transition Area: (1) Surface parking lots in the transition area are required to be located behind the principal building or to the side of a principal building. (2) When located to the side of a principal building, the parking lot shall be: 111 (a) Set back so that no portion of the parking area (other than the driveway) shall be closer to the street than the front wall setback of the building. In cases where the front wall of the building is located within five feet (5’) of a property line adjacent to a street, the parking lot shall be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’). The space between the parking lot and the property line adjacent to a street shall be landscaped or activated with outdoor dining, plazas, or similar features; and (b) Screened with a landscaped hedge or wall that is at least thirty-six inches (36”) above grade and no taller than forty-two inches (42”) above grade. Landscaped berms are not permitted. d. Off street parking for police services are exempt from landscape setback dimensions when off street parking is necessary for a police substation located in an existing building. This exemption permits parking for emergency vehicles when the landscape setback also fulfills any requirement for open space area on the property. The extent of the exemption shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the necessary parking. If the police substation use vacates the space, the landscaping that was removed, if any, shall be restored in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations in place at the time the use ceases. C. Recreational Vehicle Parking: 1. Generally: a. Recreational vehicle parking spaces shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, required off street vehicle parking spaces. b. Recreational vehicles shall not be used for storage of goods, materials, or equipment other than those that are customarily associated with the recreational vehicle. c. All recreational vehicles shall be stored in a safe and secure manner. Any tie downs, tarpaulins, or ropes shall be secured from flapping in windy conditions. d. Recreational vehicles shall not be occupied as a dwelling while parked on the property. e. Recreational vehicle parking is permitted in any enclosed structure conforming to building code and zoning requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. f. Recreational vehicle parking outside of an approved enclosed structure shall be permitted for each residence and shall be limited to one motor home or travel trailer and a total of two recreational vehicles of any type. 112 g. Recreational vehicle parking outside of an enclosed structure shall comply with the standards in this section. 2. Front Yard Parking: Recreational vehicle parking is prohibited in any required or provided front yard. 3. Rear Yard Parking: Recreational vehicles may be parked in the rear yard when they are on a hard surfaced pad compliant with surfacing standards in the Off Street Parking Standards Manual and with access provided by either a hard surfaced driveway, hard surfaced drive strips or an access drive constructed of turf block materials with an irrigation system. 4. Side Yard Parking: Recreational vehicle parking in side yards shall be allowed only when topographical factors, the existence of mature trees, or the existence of properly permitted and constructed structures prohibit access to the rear yard. The existence of a fence or other structure that is not part of a building shall not constitute a lack of rear yard access. Any recreational vehicle parking area in a side yard shall: a. Be on a hard surface compliant with the Off Street Parking Standards Manual; b. Be accessed via a driveway compliant with driveway standards of this chapter; c. Not obstruct access to other required parking for the use. SECTION 13. Amending the Text of Chapter 21A.59. That Chapter 21A.59 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Review), shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 21A.59 DESIGN REVIEW SECTION: 21A.59.010: Purpose Statement 21A.59.020: Authority 21A.59.030: Design Review Process 21A.59.040: Scope of Modifications Authorized 21A.59.045: Design Review Standards Applicability 21A.59.050: Standards for Design Review 21A.59.060: Time Limit on Approved Applications for Design Review 21A.59.070: Effect of Approval of Applications for Design Review 21A.59.080: Modifications to Approved Design Review Plans 21A.59.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 113 The purpose of the design review chapter is to: a) establish a process and standards of review for minor modifications to applicable design standards, and b) ensure high quality outcomes for larger developments that have a significant impact on the city. The intent of the process to review applications for minor modifications to applicable design standards is to allow some flexibility in how the design standards are administered by recognizing that this title cannot anticipate all development issues that may arise. The intent of the process to review larger developments is to verify new developments are compatible with their surroundings, impacts to public infrastructure and public spaces are addressed, and that new development helps achieve development goals outlined in the adopted master plans of the city as identified in the purpose statements of each zoning district. 21A.59.020: AUTHORITY: Design review shall be required pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for developments and alternate building and site design features as specified within individual zoning districts before building permits may be issued. A. Administrative Review: The planning director may approve, approve with modifications, deny or refer to the planning commission modifications to specific design standards when proposed as new construction, an addition or modification to the exterior of an existing structure, or a modification to an existing structure as authorized in Section 21A.59.040, Table 21A.59.040 of this chapter or when authorized in the specific zoning district. 1. The director shall approve a request to modify a design standard if the director finds that the proposal complies with the purpose of the individual zoning district, the purpose of the individual design standards that are applicable to the project, the proposed modification is compatible with the development pattern of other buildings on the block face or on the block face on the opposite side of the street, and the project is compliant with the applicable design review objectives (Section 21A.59.050 of this chapter). 2. The director may approve a request to modify a design standard with conditions or modifications to the design if the director determines a modification is necessary to comply with the purpose of the base zoning district, the purpose of the applicable design standards of the base zoning, to achieve compatibility with the development pattern of other buildings on the block face or on the block face on the opposite side of the street, or to achieve the applicable design review objectives. 3. The director shall deny a request to modify a design standard if the design does not comply with the purpose of the base zoning district, the purpose of the applicable design standards or the applicable design review objectives and no modifications or conditions of approval can be applied that would make the design comply. 4. The director may forward a request to modify a design standard to the planning commission if the director finds that the request for modification is greater than allowed by this chapter, a person receiving notice of the proposed modification can 114 demonstrate that the request will negatively impact their property, or at the request of the applicant if the director is required to deny the request as provided in this section. B. Planning Commission Review: The following types of applications shall be reviewed by the planning commission. If an application for design review is not listed below, it shall be eligible for administrative review as outlined in Subsection A of this section: 1. All projects where planning commission review is required in the specific zoning district. 2. All projects that include a request for additional building height or a reduction to a minimum height requirement; 3. All projects that request additional square footage when authorized in the specific zoning district; 4. All projects that have applied for a modification of base zoning design standards but could not be approved administratively because they exceed limits identified in Section 21A.59.040, Table 21A.59.040 of this chapter. 5. Projects in the TSA Transit Station Area District that have a development score that requires planning commission review and approval. C. Planning Commission Decisions: When reviewing design review applications, the planning commission may take any of the following actions: 1. The commission shall approve a project if it finds that the proposal complies with the purpose of the zoning district and applicable overlay district(s), the purpose of the individual design standards that are applicable to the project, and the project is compliant with the applicable design review objectives found in this chapter. 2. The commission may approve a project with conditions or modifications to the design if it determines a modification is necessary to comply with the purpose of the base zoning district, the purpose of the applicable design standards of the base zoning, or the applicable design review objectives. 3. The commission shall deny the design of a project if the design does not comply with the purpose of the base zoning district, the purpose of the applicable design standards or the applicable design review objectives and no modifications or conditions of approval can be applied that would make the design comply. D. H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Modifications to design standards for properties within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District are subject to the processes and applicable standards outlined in Section 21A.34.020 of this title and not this chapter. 21A.59.030: DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS: A. Presubmittal Meeting: A presubmittal meeting with planning staff is recommended prior to submitting an application for design review to ensure a detailed understanding of the application submission requirements and design review process. 115 B. Complete Application: The design review application is considered complete when it includes all of the following: 1. All of the application information required for site plan review as identified in Chapter 21A.58 of this title. 2. Photos showing the facades of adjacent development, trees on the site, general streetscape character, and views to and from the site. 3. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the individual zoning district in written narrative and graphic images. 4. Demonstration of compliance with the purpose of the applicable design standards of the individual zoning district in written narrative, graphic images, and relevant calculations. 5. Demonstration of compliance with the applicable design review objectives (Section 21A.59.060 of this chapter) in written narrative, graphics, images, and relevant calculations. 6. The zoning administrator may waive a submittal requirement if it is not necessary in order to determine if a request for a modification to a design standard complies with the standards of review. C. Public Notification and Engagement: 1. Notice of Application for Administrative Review: Prior to the approval of an administrative decision for a modification to a specific design standard, the Pplanning director shall provide written notice as provided in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. 2. Required Notice for Planning Commission Review: a. Applications subject to planning commission review of this chapter are subject to notification requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. b. Any required public hearing is subject to the public hearing notice requirements found in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. 21A.59.040: SCOPE OF MODIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED: A. The authority of the planning director through the design review process shall be limited to modification of the specific element referenced within each zoning district. For planning director review, the design standards of the applicable zoning district (see Chapter 21A.37, “Design Standards”, of this title), may be modified according to the following table. TABLE 21A.59.040 116 Design Standards Primary Modification Allowed Secondary Modification Allowed A. Ground Floor Use and Visual Interest: 1. Ground floor use only Length: 10% Depth: 20% 2. Ground floor use and visual interest planning commission only B. Building Materials: 1. Ground floor building materials planning commission only 2. Upper floor building materials planning commission only C. Glass: 1. Ground floor glass 10% 2. Upper floor glass 10% D. Building Entrances 10% E. Maximum Length of Blank Wall 10% F. Maximum Length of Street- Facing Facades 10% G. Upper Floor Stepback: 1. For street facing facades 20% 2. For facades facing single- or two- family residential districts planning commission only B. The planning commission may consider modifications that exceed allowances listed in this section or any other design standard modification authorized in the base zoning district or Chapter 21A.37 of this title. 21A.59.045: DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABILITY: A. Design Review applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review standards of Section 21A.59.050, as follows: 1. General Modification Requests: Applications to modify a design standard in Chapter 21A.37, or other zoning standard specifically authorized for modification through design review, shall be reviewed for compliance with the design review standards that are directly related to the purpose of the associated regulation requested for modification. 117 2. Additional Height or Square Footage Requests: Applications required to go through design review due to a height or square footage regulation shall be reviewed for compliance with all design review standards. 3. Transit Station Area Requests: For properties in a Transit Station Area District, applications required to go through design review due to not meeting the minimum points for administrative approval shall be reviewed for compliance with all design review standards. 4. All Other Requests: Any application not covered by Subsections 1 through 3 above, shall be subject to review for compliance with all design review standards. B. Exception: For those applications required to be reviewed against all design review standards, if an application complies with a standard in the base zoning district or with an applicable requirement in Chapter 21A.37 of this title, and that standard is directly related to a standard found in this section, the planning commission shall find that application complies with the specific standard for design review found in this section. 1. If there is no directly related zoning district standard or applicable requirement in Chapter 21A.37 of this title related to the design review standard, then the design review standard applies, and the commission shall not by default make the above finding. C. Alternatives: An applicant may propose an alternative to a standard for design review provided the proposal is consistent with the intent of the standard for design review. 21A.59.050: STANDARDS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: A. Any new development shall comply with the intent of the purpose statement of the zoning district and specific design regulations found within the zoning district in which the project is located as well as the city’s adopted “urban design element” and adopted master plan policies and design guidelines governing the specific area of the proposed development. B. Development shall be primarily oriented to the sidewalk, not an interior courtyard or parking lot. 1. Primary entrances shall face the public sidewalk (secondary entrances can face a parking lot). 2. Building(s) shall be sited close to the public sidewalk, following and responding to the desired development patterns of the neighborhood. 3. Parking shall be located within, behind, or to the side of buildings. C. Building facades shall include detailing and glass in sufficient quantities to facilitate pedestrian interest and interaction. 118 1. Locate active ground floor uses at or near the public sidewalk. 2. Maximize transparency of the street facing facades by prohibiting covering the ground floor glass with reflective treatments, interior walls, and other similar features that prevent passers-by from seeing inside of the building for non-residential uses. 3. Use or reinterpret traditional storefront elements like sign bands, clerestory glazing, articulation, and architectural detail at window transitions. 4. Locate outdoor dining patios, courtyards, plazas, habitable landscaped yards, and open spaces so that they have a direct visual connection to the street and outdoor spaces. D. Large building masses shall be divided into heights and sizes that relate to human scale. 1. Relate building scale and massing to the size and scale of existing and anticipated buildings, such as alignments with established cornice heights, building massing, step-backs and vertical emphasis. 2. Modulate the design of a larger building using a series of vertical or horizontal emphases to equate with the scale (heights and widths) of the buildings in the context and reduce the visual width or height. 3. Include secondary elements such as balconies, porches, vertical bays, belt courses, fenestration and window reveals. 4. Reflect the scale and solid-to-void ratio of windows and doors of the established character of the neighborhood or that which is desired in the master plan. E. Building facades that exceed a combined contiguous building length of two hundred feet (200’) shall include: 1. Changes in vertical plane (breaks in facade); 2. Material changes; 3. Massing changes; 4. A minimum of 80% of the ground floor must be used for active, publicly accessible uses. Active uses are those that promote an active pedestrian environment through inclusion of uses that capture the attention of a passer-by. This includes retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or commission; and 5. Stepback must be a minimum of 10’ from the base of the building. This allows the base to be the primary defining element for the site and the adjacent public realm, reducing wind impacts, and opening sky views. The maximum height of the base of a proposed building should be equal to the width of the right of way if allowed in the zoning district to provide sufficient enclosure for the street without overwhelming the street. The minimum height of the base must be at least two stories. 119 A building over 200’ in width shall include necessary separation from property lines to minimize the impact of shadows and development rights of adjacent properties. F. If provided, privately-owned public spaces shall include at least three of the six following elements: 1. At least one sitting space for each 250 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16” in height and 30” in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30”; 2. A mixture of areas that provide seasonal shade; 3. Trees in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 800 square feet, at least 2” caliper when planted; 4. Water features or public art; 5. Outdoor dining areas; and 6. Other amenities not listed above that provide a public benefit. G. Building height shall be modified to relate to human scale and minimize negative impacts. In downtown and in the CSHBD Sugar House Business District, building height shall contribute to a distinctive city skyline. 1. Human scale: a. Utilize stepbacks to design a building that relate to the height and scale of adjacent and nearby buildings, or where identified, goals for future scale defined in adopted master plans. b. The minimum stepback for any building located in a zoning district that does not contain an upper level stepback provision shall be 10’. This stepback is only required for applications requesting additional height when authorized in the underlying zoning district. The stepback shall be applied to the first full floor of the building that is seeking the request for additional height. c. For buildings more than three stories or buildings with vertical mixed use, compose the design of a building with distinct base, to reduce the sense of apparent height. 2. Negative impacts: All buildings seeking additional height as authorized in the underlying zoning district shall be subject to the following standards: a. Modulate taller buildings vertically and horizontally so that it steps up or down to its neighbors. b. Minimize shadow impacts of building height on the public realm and semi-public spaces by varying building massing. Demonstrate impact from shadows due to building height for the portions of the building that are subject to the request for additional height. 120 c. Modify tall buildings to minimize wind impacts on public and private spaces, such as the inclusion of a wind break above the first level of the building. d. Design and orient to prevent snow, ice, or water from falling directly onto a public sidewalk, public space, neighboring property, or directly onto the walkway leading to the building entrance. 3. Cornices and rooflines: a. Cohesiveness: Shape and define rooflines to be cohesive with the building’s overall form and composition. The roofline and architectural detailing, including cornices, shall be complimentary to the structure’s scale, material, color, and form and create a change in plane of at least 6 inches, a change in material, utilizing at least one visible sloping plan along a minimum of 50% of the roofline on building elevations facing a street, or a change in material orientation to define the roof line of the building. b. Green Roof and Roof Deck: Include a green roof and/or accessible roof deck to support a more visually compelling roof landscape and reduce solar gain, air pollution, and the amount of water entering the stormwater system. H. Parking and on site circulation shall be provided with an emphasis on making safe pedestrian connections to the sidewalk, transit facilities, or midblock walkway. Parking is encouraged to be behind the principal building and away from pedestrian walkways. Parking lots and structures shall be setback a minimum of 25’ from required midblock pedestrian access locations or as required in the underlying zoning district if the underlying zoning requires a larger setback. I. Waste and recycling containers, mechanical equipment, storage areas, and loading docks shall be fully screened from public view and, for buildings with only one street-facing frontage, are prohibited from being located along street-facing facades. They shall incorporate building materials and detailing compatible with the building being served and shall be co-located with driveways unless prohibited by the presence of a street tree, public infrastructure, or public facility within the right of way. Service uses may be located within the structure. (See Subsection 21A.37.050.K of this title.) J. Signage shall emphasize the pedestrian/mass transit orientation. 1. Define specific spaces for signage that are integral to building design, such as commercial sign bands framed by a material change, columns for blade signs, or other clearly articulated band on the face of the building. 2. Coordinate signage locations with appropriate lighting, awnings, and other projections. 3. Coordinate sign location with landscaping to avoid conflicts. 121 K. Lighting shall support pedestrian comfort and safety, neighborhood image, and dark sky goals. 1. Provide street lights as indicated in the Salt Lake City Lighting Master Plan. 2. Outdoor lighting should be designed for low-level illumination and to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties and uplighting directly to the sky. 3. Coordinate lighting with architecture, signage, and pedestrian circulation to accentuate significant building features, improve sign legibility, and support pedestrian comfort and safety. L. Streetscape improvements shall be provided as follows: 1. One street tree chosen from the street tree list consistent with the city’s urban forestry guidelines and, with the approval of the city’s urban forester, shall be placed for every 30’ of property frontage on a street. Existing street trees removed as the result of a development project shall be replaced by the developer with trees approved by the city’s urban forester. 2. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to differentiate privately-owned public spaces from public spaces. Hardscape for public sidewalks shall follow applicable design standards. Permitted materials for privately-owned public spaces shall meet the following standards: a. Use materials that are durable (withstand wear, pressure, damage), require a minimum of maintenance, and are easily repairable or replaceable should damage or defacement occur. b. Where practical, as in lower-traffic areas, use materials that allow rainwater to infiltrate into the ground and recharge the water table. c. Limit contribution to urban heat island effect by limiting use of dark materials and incorporating materials with a high Solar- Reflective Index (SRI). d. Utilize materials and designs that have an identifiable relationship to the character of the site, the neighborhood, or Salt Lake City. e. Use materials (like textured ground surfaces) and features (like ramps and seating at key resting points) to support access and comfort for people of all abilities. f. Asphalt shall be limited to vehicle drive aisles. 21A.59.060: TIME LIMIT ON APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: No design review approval shall be valid for a period longer than one year from the date of approval unless a building permit is issued or a complete building plans and building permit applications have been submitted to the Division of Building Services and Licensing. An extension of one year may be granted by the entity that approved the application. Extension requests must be submitted prior to the expiration of the design review approval. 122 21A.59.070: EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: A. The approval of a design review application shall authorize the preparation, filing and processing of applications for any permits or approval that may be required by the city, including, but not limited to, a building permit. B. Following the approval of a design review application, any future alteration to the property, building or site shall comply with the approved design review application unless a modification is approved subject to the process outlined in this chapter. 21A.59.080: MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PLANS: A. Minor Modifications: The planning director may authorize minor modifications to approved design review applications as listed below. 1. Dimensional requirements that are necessary in order to comply with adopted building codes, fire codes, or engineering standards. The modification is limited to the minimum amount necessary to comply with the applicable building code, fire codes, or engineering standard. 2. Minor changes to building materials provided the modification is limited to the dimension of the material, color of material, or texture of material. Changes to a different material shall not be considered a minor modification. 3. Modifications other than those listed in Subsections 1 and 2 that comply with an applicable standard in this Title provided the standard was not subject to a requested modification as part of this process or any other process authorized by this title and does not conflict with a specific condition of approval or a finding associated with the approval. B. Other Modifications: Any other modifications not listed in Subsection A of this section shall be processed as follows: 1. If the proposed modification does not require a change to a condition of approval or a finding that was identified in a staff report or record of decision the matter may be reviewed by the planning commission, or in the case of administrative approvals, by the planning director, as a reconsideration of that specific modification subject to a public hearing for planning commission decisions or a notice of application for administrative approvals. 2. Any other modification shall require a new application and be subject to all required processes and standards. 123 SECTION 14. Amending the Text of Subsection 21A.27.050.D (Contingent on Adoption of the FB-UN3 District). That, if Subsection 21A.27.050.D of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-UN1, FB-UN2, and FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) is adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance, that subsection shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 zone are listed in the below tables of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. 124 GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 125 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature. 126 SECTION 15. 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 _______________________. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. M W Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 127 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney April 17, 2023 RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2023 (A Resolution in Support and Approval of Adding “Jake” to the Name of the “Senator Garn Greeting Room” at the Salt Lake City International Airport) WHEREAS, the Mayor previously notified the Salt Lake City Council of a proposal to name a major City asset, the greeting room at the Salt Lake City International Airport (“Airport”), after Senator Garn as the “Senator Garn Greeting Room”; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted Resolution No. 12 of 2023 in support of and approving the naming pursuant to Salt Lake City Code 3.65; and WHEREAS, the family of Senator Garn requested an update to the name to include “Jake,” so that the City asset would be named the “Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room”; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council support the minor alteration of the name; and WHEREAS, the proposed name aligns with the renaming standards set forth under City Code 3.65.060(D); and WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the renaming proposal and desires to express its support and approval of renaming the greeting room at the Airport as the “Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room.” THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. Having reviewed the renaming proposal for the greeting room at the Salt Lake City International Airport, and for the reasons expressed herein, hereby expresses support and approval for renaming the greeting room as the “Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room.” 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: ___________________________ Senior City Attorney RESOLUTION - In support and approval of adding Jake to the Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room at the Airportv.2 Final Audit Report 2023-07-06 Created:2023-07-06 By:Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAM0xfN7xCgRFxgXtU2Cnl4cZqviTSyxZB "RESOLUTION - In support and approval of adding Jake to the Senator Jake Garn Greeting Room at the Airportv.2" History Document created by Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) 2023-07-06 - 8:58:11 PM GMT Document emailed to Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-07-06 - 8:58:28 PM GMT Email viewed by Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) 2023-07-06 - 9:00:48 PM GMT Document e-signed by Megan DePaulis (megan.depaulis@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-07-06 - 9:00:56 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-07-06 - 9:00:56 PM GMT ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/12/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/12/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/12/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity and Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity and Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Michael “Ryan” Hogan member of the Racial Equity and Policing Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 12, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Racial Equity and Policing Commission Michael "Ryan" Hogan to be appointed for a two year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, December 20, 2025. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/30/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/30/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/30/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kerri Nakamura member of the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 30, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board Kerri Nakamura to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/12/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/12/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/12/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Library Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Library Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Sarah Reale member of the Library Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 12, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership re-appointment for: Library Board. Sarah Reale to be appointed for a three year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/14/2023 10:54 Lonny Kapelushnik Please Help/D4 Morning Councilmember Valdemoros, I’m hoping you can help my fiancé and I out with an issue in the district. We live right near the Walgreens at the corner of 500E and 400S. They have an issue with loiterers so to solve this they play loud organ music to make it undesirable to loiter. Unfortunately it has the added effect of making it undesirable to live here. After months where we can’t sit on our balcony, can’t open our windows and sometimes wake up or fall asleep to LOUD organ music, in addition to listening to it throughout the day, we’ve become uncomfortable in our own home and no longer want to live here. We’re not the only ones in the area that feel this way. When my fiancé spoke with Walgreens they say they do it because the police won’t remove the loiterers and their staff feels unsafe. When I spoke with the police they say they wouldn't do anything about the noise because the music was louder on other days, even though it is against the cities noise ordinance. At this point we’re unsure what we can do, but if there is anything you can do to help we’d greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Lonny Kapelushnik 6/14/2023 10:57 Emilee Davis Traffic Police/D4 Dear Ana, I live at REDACTED, SLC. I’ve lived here for nearly three years and there are many pros and cons to living downtown. Today, I’m making a case for the need for traffic police downtown. I live and work downtown and love to access the city by foot. I walk whenever possible … to the grocery store, restaurants, outdoor festivals and activities, shopping, and trails and parks. I think that’s one of the perks to living downtown. However, the downside to accessing the city by foot is that the city can be unfriendly to pedestrians. I’m writing this an hour after almost being hit by a car turning left as I crossed the street in the crosswalk. This happens on a weekly basis - almost being hit by a car as I walk in a crosswalk. In fact, I was hit by a car last summer. The driver admitted to being intoxicated, on prescription medications, and yet he was not ticketed when I reported the accident to the police. I have the license plate of a motorcycle that sped through a crosswalk on State Street last week and almost hit the pedestrians walking through. I’m REALLY frustrated with the driving culture here and would love to see downtown Salt Lake City be more friendly to and safe for pedestrians. I think one of the best ways to do that is to add traffic police to some of the busiest intersections. Thanks in advance for your time. Emilie Davis 6/14/2023 12:39 Susan Klinker Mayor's Budget Dear Ana, I am reaching out to request your support for the Mayor' Budget, especially sustainability & air quality initiatives and additional staff to monitor air quality. Local geography & climate pose unique challenges for our city. Our weather is becoming more volatile & dust storms from the drying lake bed and West Desert are becoming increasingly concerning. Monitoring and addressing solutions is one of the most important issues of our time. I also hope you will support affordable housing initiatives that provide equitable opportunities for all. Thanks for your service and contribution to forging the path forward for our community. Sincerely, Susan 6/14/2023 15:07 Anonymous Constituent Utility Increase Your rate keeps going up and up and yet we still have a bad service. You need to keep it low, We can't afford it 6/15/2023 9:10 John Hinckley Beacon Drive Pedestrain Walkway I received a postcard showing that the street I live on, REDACTED, in SLC, will be adding a Pedestrian Walkway 6-foot-wide, for children walking to the catwalk leading to Indian Hills Elementary School. I was very surprised at this decision for the following reasons – · There was no notice sent out that this Pedestrian Walkway was being considered and would seek input of those who live on Beacon Dr. · Only a handful of children use the Beacon Dr. catwalk on a daily basis during the school year · Indian Hills Elementary School has been in existence for about 65 years and to the best of my knowledge, there has never been an accident to a child or adult that uses the catwalk · This is another example of using taxpayer money to do something that is not necessary I’m asking that you reconsider this Pedestrian Walkway and use taxpayer monies in more needed areas. Thanks John Hinckley Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/15/2023 12:00 Kyannah Loyal Affordable Housing Dear Councilwoman, Petro I am a senior at East high in Salt Lake city, and I am writing to you as my personal city council representative to convey my concernment regarding the lack of affordable housing in Salt Lake. As you know, in early March of this year the average 30-year mortgage rate increased to 6.65%. And the higher the mortgage rate, the higher the housing market will be decreasing activity. Making it hard to find affordable housing, for both independents and dependents. It's critical for our city to take action by addressing this issue. One possible solution could be increasing funding towards affordable housing programs. This wouldn't only provide more resources for affordable housing options, but also stimulate the local economy creating jobs in the construction industry. I am hopeful you may consider this issue as you continue to help improve our city. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kyannah Loyal, 18yo 6/15/2023 14:38 John Clapp Funding requests Councilwoman Petro, As we envision the North temple as the entrance into the city, I just wanted to give some input in appropriating funding. We would feel very appreciative to consider the following areas to include money for Madsen Park. including new signage, small dog park, park benches-tables , new playground equipment. As the Folsom trail has been years in the making and now here. It needs funding appropriated for maintenance of the trail including regular maintenance of garbage removal, and cleanup on either side of the cement walkway. Additional lighting for crime prevention of the Euclid Neighborhood now considered in the Fairpark boundaries,and neighborhoods across N. Temple on the Northside of the Trax line to the N. temple quadrant ( perhaps like what was done on 800 block between N.Temple and So. Temple, utilizing poles that already are in place). The North Temple quadrant funded for trash and recycle bins placed along both sides of N. Temple including maintenance to help the new residents moving in , which will also enhance economic development along the North Temple quadrant. Fencing in city owned property to reduce danger with indigent walking across many tracks lines, burning large fires and adding petty crimes to the adjoining neighborhoods. This is an area that has to be constantly abated and is just off the grid with little overwatch. The area is between 600 W. and approx 800 West and between South Temple and 200 So. Thankyou for your consideration. John Clapp Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/20/2023 8:29 Patrick De Freitas N/A Hello Councilwoman, Thank you for your presentation to the ECCC meeting on Thursday. It was very helpful to get some background on the current decisions and considerations of the City Council. A couple of things emerged for me during the ECCC meeting. This email is the first of two, since they’re slightly different topics. The presentation by the architect for the Office Max project reminded me how often big construction projects like his simply take over the pedestrian sidewalks with minimal consideration given to actual pedestrians. I’m sure you’ve observed how often such projects just offer a sign saying “Sidewalk closed. Use other side.” This is, to put it mildly, not at all helpful. Many people, as I’m certain you’ve also seen, simply walk in the street to get around the construction obstruction. Dangerous. The City’s Guidelines for Pedestrian Accessibility During Construction simply do not go far enough. Here’s what they currently say: Where existing pedestrian routes are blocked or detoured, information should be provided about alternate routes that are useable by pedestrians with disabilities, particularly those who have visual disabilities. This must include access to temporary bus stops, reasonably safe travel across intersections, and other routing issues. What’s missing in the Guidelines (are they even enforceable?) is any reasonable attempt to facilitate continuous same-side pedestrian access. Something like this, for example: a shed roof walkway or Jersey barriers There are examples of both types of safe access in our downtown but they’re a rarity. Such safety features are standard in many cities. From my rather cursory online look, these standards are mostly required in denser cities. But there’s no reason it couldn’t happen here. And Salt Lake City is definitely getting more dense — especially your district! Yes, of course, builders are reluctant to do anything that’ll increase their expenses or slow construction, but, in my analysis, there are compelling safety issues that override their concerns. Thanks for your time and attention, Patrick de Freitas 6/20/2023 8:35 Patrick De Freitas Bird Friendly Construction Hello again, Councilwoman, The other thing I was reminded of during the ECCC meeting is that there is currently no consideration given to bird-friendly construction in Salt Lake City. What’s that? Perhaps the simplest thing to do is link to a fairly recent article from the American Bird Conservancy. https://abcbirds.org/news/new-york-city-passes-countrys-most-wide-ranging-bird-friendly-building- legislation/ You’ll see from this article that glass collisions are a major reason bird populations have declined in the US over the last 50 years. The ABC estimates that about 1 billion birds die every year colliding with glass. That’s an astonishing number. Making future construction in Salt Lake City more bird friendly would definitely be a good thing for the survival of the bird species that migrate along the Wasatch Front. Thanks again for your time and attention, Patrick de Freitas 6/20/2023 8:40 Bethann Schwarz Our Lady of Lourdes Ana, I’m a neighbor of judge and our lady of Lourdes and I attended church at OLOL parish for years. The sale of this beautiful neighborhood school property will alter the landscape of our neighborhood. While the University of Utah is a positive and important school for the city, student housing at the Judge space would not be good. This neighborhood already has many ‘homes’ that rent to students- and it would be difficult for the neighborhood to absorb more. No prejudice against students, but the yard parties, the careless yard care, and temporary nature of their connection makes a difference. Many connections between long term neighbors exist now and we like it that way. Tearing down a beautiful church would be a mistake. If a developer from California wants to build condos on that space and would let the church remain part of the community, that might be a better fit for the neighborhood. But- housing that is lease only- no option to buy, is also a mistake. People ought to be able to own their own homes. The impact on the neighborhood would be better if each unit were sold so the buyer becomes a vested neighbor rather than a temporary tenant. We will miss neighborhood schools. The children coming and going are a positive for our neighborhood. These particular schools are good neighbors and students are respectful. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/20/2023 10:46 Margaret Holloway Camps . The problem of little camps everywhere is there already are little camps everywhere. The hill had 100 people. Not sure how many now..they just cleaned it up and it didn't make the news. You have the river people who don't want any rules. The spattering of tents in other places might go to the camp ground. But this lets the other cities again off the hook and will tell them just send your problem to slc. You state the other counties have to build resource centers . But if the campers don't want to go then what? The tents are not going anywhere. Margaret.6/21/2023 8:21 Meredith Chandler Lady of Lourdes Church Hi Ana- Appreciate your help and diligence so far in the Judge/Our Lady of Lourdes property planning. As a neighbor and parishioner, I'm writing you to ask for your continued support and consideration to keep Our Lady of Lourdes intact. SLC has suffered enough exploitation over the years, and it would be a shame to add such a historic and hopeful pillar of our community to that list. In such tough times, our community needs more beacons of hope and service, not more businesses or skyscraper housing units, don't you think? Please keep our wonderful church, its parishioners, and our endless love for our community in your thoughts as you continue this planning process. Thank you, Meredith Chandler 6/21/2023 8:25 Cathleen Zick Lady of Lordes Church Dear Esther and Ana, Thank you so much for the information you shared last Thursday at the Douglas Neighborhood Meeting. It was educational and very helpful. I am writing with feedback on the update you provided regarding the pending sale of Judge Memorial High School and Our Lady of Lourdes Church. My spouse and I have viewed the high school and church to be good neighbors for 37 years we have lived in our home. So, we are sad to see the Catholic Diocese sell the property. From my perspective, there are two issues associated with the pending sale that would affect the quality of life in our neighborhood. The first is the impact that more mid-rise housing would have on the character, traffic, and turnover in our neighborhood. The building of a large mid-rise apartment complex on the property would likely have implications for turnover of residential properties in the immediate vicinity and an exodus of owner-occupied homes. Given the close proximity of our home to the University of Utah, I am well aware of how student-oriented housing can impact a neighborhood. My spouse and I support the university’s current plan to expand student housing in to the Research Park area where it wouldn’t push out or change the character of a residential neighborhood. If the University moves forward with that plan, I do not see the need to also establish a student-focused housing area on the Judge property and I would NOT be supportive of any changes in the zoning that would allow a student-focused mid-rise apartment complex. The second issue is the potential loss of Our Lady of Lourdes Church with the sale of the land. As a historic neighborhood building, it would be a shame to have it demolished. The fact that the Catholic Diocese is open to the church being repurposed, is promising. It would be lovely to have it repurposed in a way that enriched the community (e.g., a city library branch, a coffee shop), if possible. Thank you, Cathleen Zick 6/21/2023 8:29 Cece Holt Lady of Lordes Church Ms Valdemoros, I was unable to attend the ECC meeting last week because I am out of town. I definitely think it is important to keep our Lady of Lourdes Parish as a church. I am also concerned about how multilevel building where the fact that wonderful neighborhood. Thanks for all your efforts Cece Holt 6/21/2023 16:19 Parley's Mine Proposition A constituent called the Council office to voice their opposition to the Parley's Mine Proposition. They requested that the City also voice opposition. 6/23/2023 16:23 Ana Bullor Monthly fee increase Hi, I'm calling to leave a note that I'm opposed to the proposed monthly fee increase because of how much our taxes increased this past year. and I believed that should be covered in those taxes increased. I think the CMs should be reconsidered while also the knowledge that picks up the trash services is accepted and really well managed. Bye6/27/2023 9:28 Anonymous Constituent 12 Foot Tall Fence This constituent wants to build a 12 foot tall fence in his back yard for his privacy. He is frustrated that he cannot and wants to complain to the council because he said the ordinance was passed in the last 2 years but it was passed in 2011. Planning told him he could apply for a variance. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 6/27/2023 9:35 Cassy Dobro Homelessness in SLC This constituent just moved here from Colorado and called with some questions about homelessness, She was last here 12 years ago and she asks why we still have homelessness after 12 years. She also asks what our process is for getting people help. We let her know about the heart team, The SLC app, Det Stewart, and additional resources.6/27/2023 16:34 Luie Boss Concern Neighbor - Homeless It's been 5 months now this is going back to the same homeless people doing the same thing It's there a violation law for people with repeat offence Loitering????? . Exposing themselves naked . Putting garbage 🗑 everywhere > It's bad when everytime you past by here Consistanly you must explain your child 🚸 why are naked people Come on we could do this better6/27/2023 16:42 Todd Ridgeway Tiny Home Hello, I'd like to call to leave a comment and would like to contact back regarding Tiny Home village, Low- income housing. Why would Salt Lake City decide to allow people to move in to leave in SLC more since we don't have enough water that's going to cause the Great Salt Lake to dry and then the toxic chemical will effect all the people. I would like to discuss this and I live in D3 Thank you. 6/29/2023 16:27 John Mitchell city budjet Dear Council Members, I am aware that the city plans to construct "traffic calming" measures soon, but wouldn't it be better to first repair the streets that we now travel on? Whatever the cause, winter weather or longstanding neglect, our streets are in terrible shape. Let me exaggerate a bit to make a point, traveling on them is akin to riding a bucking bronco. I am also concerned that when one so severely restricts the flow of traffic that it will create angry drivers. I am already avoiding driving on state street because of the new flashing red light crosswalks that seem to always be occupied by slow walking pedestrians. the stop and go is just to much. Is it the city's goal to eliminate automobile use? If it is, then people will stop coming to the city. Salt Lake City is a long way from reaching the population critical mass point that will cause people to leave their cars home and use public transportation. The streets are wide enough to accommodate everyone. Why restrict the life out of them? Respectfully, John Mitchell SLC resident 6/29/2023 16:39 Anonymous Constituent Campground I want to comment on the homeless campground. you guys missed the concept that you are putting them in the church parking lot. it means you are spreading them out in the neighborhood and I need them to get out of the neighborhood. please! 6/29/2023 16:42 Fred Lowe Animal problems My concern is I need the city to do something with the squirrels through out the city. They are every where and they are ruin all the fruit trees. Do something about it. thank you. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/3/2023 8:45 Bernie Hart You name the place...you bring your data...I'll bring mine Robert, Anosognosia. The word came up in a conversation with Rocky Anderson about homelessness. He, like Mayor Mendenhall, has put forth a number of models they would like to bring to Salt Lake City, but a brief google search shows that most of the cities these programs are in have a higher rate of homeless than SLC and the programs themself, though effective with the populations they work with, have had little impact on chronicle homelessness The Haven for Hope in San Antonio only works with people who are able to advocate for themselves. This excludes the high percentage of homeless individuals you mentioned in your piece dealing with mental health and addiction issues. He and the current Mayor are also fans of Switchpoint, First Step Housing and The Otherside Academy, all institutions that are very successful, but screen entry into their programs. They are not open entry, low bar housing efforts. But here comes the hard part. All of us want the media to support our particular perspective on the issue of homelessness in hopes of more funding or more say at the table. I am now going to work hard to piss you off because if getting you upset and publicly challenging your point of view might actually get you to dig a little deeper before you write your next article, everyone in the homeless community will benefit. Anosognosia is a reference used to describe people in the mental health system who refuse to admit they have a problem. They pretend their perceptions of reality are real and maybe they are, but if they are, the rest of us are crazy. Could be...because.. advocating for anything without actually knowing if what you are advocating for works is a form of anosognosia or Institutionalized Ignorance. There is absolutely no data available to support the idea that our mental health programs actually work with more than a very small portion of those who enter the system. Nope none...but here you are advocating for spending more and more on something we/you don't know works. Institutionalized Ignorance or anosognosia at its most harmful level. But I believe there is a cure for the condition and that comes from doing research and asking for hard data that supports any claim of success, especially when dealing with the most vulnerable people in our community. Your view that not spending money to help this population is morally wrong is correct....but to advocate for spending more money on programs that may not work is not only wrong, but from my perspective in working with the homeless....will actually do way more harm than good. Time for your A game. I am calling BS on your perspective. Care to try and prove me wrong. When and where? Bernie Hart 7/3/2023 11:29 Jesse Glines Old Water Park/D2 Alejandro, What a lot of us are calling the area is the "crackhead koa" and it is out of control. My kids are up for the summer and I cannot in good conscience let them use either park nearby or even walk to the river. Between the needles and other garbage it is just an unsafe, disgusting area that could be so beautiful. I am more than willing to be a part of a permanent fix for this area. As long as it is not a clean up and then let the crackheads destroy it again situation. Please help! Sincerely, Jesse Glines Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/5/2023 12:17 John Clapp Area of Concern/D2 Detective Oliver, Councilman Puy, I'm going to continue to raise awareness of the severity of the issue on 800 west and South temple. These groups of drug dealers are creating significant problems. This is from Brittany Reese ( owner of Sugar Space) She posted anonymously on our facebook page... "We have called the police four times this week from having someone bang on doors in the middle of night to someone hopping our house fence and stealing my son's skateboard and other items. We have had people hanging out on business property for hours at a time rummaging through the parking lot and stealing thousands of dollars from the construction site next to us. These are nightly occurrences that seem to be getting worse." Bill Cocker of the Red Iguana 2 is also reporting to me significant problems for his customers Here is a brief msg. of his regarding problems with a house next to Red Iguana 2. ( All which is in proximity to the criminal encampment near Folsom on 800 West.) (Kenny is the owner/ developer of a boarded up home on south temple next to red Iguana) Bill Cocker wrote " Kenny, hope all is well with you. I’m passing on an email from John Clapp that I received June 5th regarding the house located next to Red Iguana 2 at 846 W. South Temple. I inspected the front yard & front of house a day ago myself and have attached pictures here of the very concerning circumstances both he and now I have confirmed regarding the current lack of security of your property and the risk to both of our restaurant and our neighborhood. This is the West Front Porch & Door. The Plywood, that was covering the door has been removed. People were shooting up on this porch. I remind you that half the customers that come to Red Iguana 2 walk in from the auxiliary parking lot or from street parking right past the front porch of this house, seeing people camping, shooting up on the porches and defecating in the driveway there. The East Front porch chain link has been completely detached from the house and is useless as is. The front door is fully accessible and from the looks of it, anyone can walk across that porch and down the east side of the house into the back yard as well. Additionally, the lock on the East front door has been under attack and will eventually be forced open. This should not continue as the encampments in the area are creating havoc. Yes, there are some ideas ...this area needs immediate help , and should be a priority. The City, UPRR, UTA or whomever should jointly be meeting quickly to mitigate this area which is going to get worse. Coordinate fencing ASAP ,and Abate these groups frequently and follow up days later to make sure they don't return. If allowed to continue longer, it will take months to stop the migration of people, cars and open drug deals on 800 west and South Temple. I have a pretty good pulse of this area, and I forecast this will begin to undermine and impact the N. Temple area. John Clapp 7/5/2023 15:53 Syd Smoot SLC ADUs Hi there, I just learned about the new ADU updates in Salt Lake City and was wondering how the city is planning to use the “$1 million to incentivize the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) City-wide.” Has it been specified how the city may use the funding or will there be a waitlist to receive funding? Any additional information would be much appreciated. Here is a link to the article I’m referring to: https://housing-slcgov.hub.arcgis.com Thank you and talk to you soon! Best, Syd 7/6/2023 10:24 Robyn CAMPBELL (EXTERNAL) City Council opening seat district 7 Attention City Council members, I would like you to highly consider and I would highly recommend Molly Jones for the opening to fill the district 7 seat. Molly would do an amazing job, she is vivacious, highly motivated and excels at everything she does. She would be an excellent asset to the city council and great representation to our community. Please consider her and let her have a chance to represent our community. Sincerly, Robyn Campbell Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/6/2023 11:30 Barbara Gandy Pygmalion Theatre Company - a Note of Thanks . Dear City Council Members: This letter is to offer sincere thanks for your support of the arts in Utah during your time in office. Our theatre company, Pygmalion Theatre Company, has been the benefactor of grant money from Salt Lake Arts Council, Utah Arts & Museums, and ZAP. Be assured that the grants directly support our shows, and without it, we would likely be unable to survive. There is such a bounty of cultural and arts events in Utah, and we are proud to be part of this vibrant community. I hope you are proud too, and will continue to support not only Pygmalion, but the broader arts community with much needed funds. Most sincerely, Barbara Gandy Member, Board of Trustees Pygmalion Theatre Co. 7/6/2023 15:31 Robyn CAMPBELL City Council opening seat district 7 Attention City Council members, I would like you to highly consider and I would highly recommend Molly Jones for the opening to fill the district 7 seat. Molly would do an amazing job, she is vivacious, highly motivated and excels at everything she does. She would be an excellent asset to the city council and great representation to our community. Please consider her and let her have a chance to represent our community. Sincerly, Robyn Campbell7/6/2023 15:32 Marc Cronan Granary District Hello, Given the current and future expected growth of the Granary district, I was wondering if any consideration has been given to reactivating the abandoned railroad tracks along 400 West, say from 600 South to the Ballpark Trax station, with something like the Sugarhouse Trolley? Seems like it would be a good way for people to get around in that area and patronize the local businesses/breweries, etc... Thanks, Marc Cronan7/7/2023 14:21 Molly Jones - D7 City Council Hello, This email is to express our support for Molly Jones to fill the vacant seat in D7 that Amy Fowler previously held. Molly specifically sought out the Chamber's input on a variety of business and community matters, where she: • Expressed a sincere interest in aligning SH businesses and community • An eagerness to provide direction and leadership for the future development of Sugar House • Dedication to being a voice for the Chamber and the SH Community Council Further, as a business owner in Sugar House, she has a bond with the area that other candidates do not. We hope these will be taken into consideration, and we appreciate your time. Thank you, Sugar House Chamber 7/10/2023 9:38 Scott Lyttle D7 Positions Hi Ana, I'd like to drop you a line and put in a good word for Molly Dooley Jones to take over the open District 7 City Council seat. I own Tea Zaanti located in the heart of Sugar House and live on 800 E in your District. I also sit on the city's Business Advisor Board and the EDLF review committee. Molly is a resident and small business owner who really seems to understand the ongoing growth challenges that we face in Sugar House and I feel will properly represent our district. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Scott -- Scott Lyttle7/10/2023 9:40 Heidi Schubert D7 Position Dear Councilperson Mano, I want to sincerely thank you for spending some of your valuable time getting to know me and talking about aspects of District 7 and the council as a whole. I have really enjoyed this experience, value the education and appreciated knowing more about how the system works. With this knowledge I have decided against applying for the district 7 seat. I think I make a highly informed constituent and qualified candidate, but I don’t think have the background with the city to streamline the process of coming up to speed during the short appointment period, nor the political bravado to run for office in November. I would like to think that our discussion was not a waste of your time and hope to use this engagement as I step into other community endeavors. Thank you for your service. Heidi Schubert Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 9:45 Mark Flores (EXTERNAL) Urban Forestry Division / D5 . Councilmember Mano, I wanted to take a moment to praise our Urban Forestry employees. Last Monday, July 3, 2023, the evening rain and windstorm toppled a large branch from a parking strip tree in front of our neighbor’s home. The first branch hit a second large branch snapping it as well, with both branches and debris landing in our driveway, the street, and the sidewalk. We were able to clear the driveway, street, and sidewalk by pulling the branches onto our front yard, but it was still quite a mess. I contacted Urban Forestry after the July 4th holiday and within 24 hours the branches and debris were cleared from our yard as if nothing had ever happened. Someone from Urban Forestry even made the effort to leave a message confirming our address and letting us know she was sending someone out. Everyone at Urban Forestry did a great job representing the City and we are grateful for their efforts. MARK A. FLORES, 7/10/2023 10:48 Mark Lawrence Calling out the Supreme Court + Resolution Request / D5 Dear Councilman Mano, I’ve been visiting my favorite city in the world this past week, Berlin, Germany. It’s a huge city of millions, but rather than exploiting crowded conditions, the openness and breadth of the city’s layout embraces a feeling of individual acceptance. There is a place for anyone who takes time to make a stay of any kind in present day Berlin. The openness includes acceptance of and admonition against the worst crime of the Holocaust, dehumanizing classes of people, literally assigning these groups as subhuman, a matter of official state sanctioned discrimination and social policy. The National Socialists designed an efficient system that imprisoned and murdered these undesirables. The day before yesterday, I went out to a Holocaust Memorial called Platform 17, Grunewald Station. As soon as I recognized I had entered this memorial, I physically felt oppression fall over me like never before. On approach to the memorial stands a concrete sculpture. In negative relief, full sized human forms are cast in the wall. A simply inscribed plaque declares ‘This memorial admonishes that no matter the cost, what ever the circumstance, courage must be summoned to stand against any effort to demean any person in any way, by any means or measure, whatsoever.’ Quite possibly it was this charge that impressed on me the seriousness of this monument’s true purpose. More than 50,000 Berlin Jews were deported from this platform to the death camps of the Nazi System from 1942–1945. In the week before my visit, an extremist faction of our own United States Supreme Court declared in a hyped up case brought before them, class distinctions have constitutional standing as a matter of law. Specifically, Christians are protected from offering public services to LGBTQ people because of religious freedom blah, blah, blah…! It’s a ruling that flies in the face of equality under the law. Class distinction is not intended in our founding documents. Despite this stink of a ruling, it’s wrong. It endangers the lives of American Citizens every bit as earnestly as that plaque mentioned above warns against. Councilman Mano, let us speak out against this misguided crap. It is unworthy the heritage of our Republic’s ideals. It is most certainly individuals and their unalienable rights Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be making secure in this society. I ask that you discuss in our City Council a Resolution admonishing our Supreme Court to reverse this decision. They are outside our efforts for forging a more perfect Union. We, the people are entirely within our rights to call them out. If I can help in anyway, I feel compelled to respond. Respectfully, Mark L Lawrence 7/10/2023 10:58 Leigh Lrochmal homeless emcampments 300 E is inundated with homeless camps. They ae openly using drugs and deficating not only in the bushes but on the sidewalk a well. They are even bolcking the sidewalk. I have contacted the police several times but it isn't really their job. This is your job to clean up residential streets. Also do something aboit the abandoned buildings owned by city. Either sell them or tear them down. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 12:44 Marjorie Mccloy Foothills Public Lands/D5 Dear Mr. Mano, After the well-intentioned but poorly enacted trail contraction in the Foothills a could of years ago, the City halted new construction and added contingency clauses and benchmarks for this project in the 2022-2023 budget. This resulted in better preparation and increased accountability of Public Lands actions in the Foothills. I am urging you to carry these items over into the 2023-2024 budget. We must spend wisely to protect the Foothills that make our City so special. Thank you, Marjorie McCloy 7/10/2023 16:25 Troy Adair District 7 Seat: Aimee Horman!I think Aimee Horman would be great for the vacant District 7 seat! She has been actively engaged in her community for many years. For example leading a walking school bus to teach and help children to be active, healthy, and safe as they walked to school. She serves as a board member for the Sugar House Farmer’s Market. In her work as the Jordan River Commission Events and Volunteer Manager she is wonderful at engaging, interacting with, and teaching diverse people with different backgrounds and outlooks. In that position she is a passionate, knowledgeable and active advocate for the health of our natural environment and world. And I know she is also passionate, knowledgeable, and active in her community as well. I know the residents of district 7 would be well served by her! Thanks, Troy Adair 7/10/2023 16:27 Alissa Owens Aimee Horton I support Aimee Horton. She is competent, bright, thoughtful. She has the skills to be diplomatic and get the job done. Alissa Owen 7/10/2023 16:28 Jason Esplin Aimee Horman for D7 I live in District 6, but wholeheartedly endorse Aimee Horman for the vacant seat in district 7. Aimee is a powerful force in all the communities I’ve known her in, from when we went to high school together, to volunteering at arts festival, to just being a solid neighbor. Thanks, Jason Esplin 7/10/2023 16:29 T Denny SLC Council District 7 - Aimee Horman I've been asked about who I would support for City Council. I have never felt more comfortable to say I support Aimee Horman. When you’re looking for specific characteristics in a leader amongst those for me is having a great character/leader, having compassion, is a great relationship builder/strong communicator, smart, fearless, visionary… I can go on and on. Aimee is all of those and more. She’s amazing and would make a GREAT SLC Council. T Denny7/10/2023 16:30 Kali Mellus Aimee Horman for Distric 7 My name is Kali Mellus and I've worked with Aimee Horman many times over the past 10 years on a variety of projects and I can't think of a better person to represent District 7 for SLC. She has always been dependable, pragmatic, thoughtful and inclusive. District 7 would be quite fortunate to have her. My best, - Kali Mellus 7/10/2023 16:31 Becky Modderman Aimee Horman for SLC Council Hello, As a long time resident, Aimee knows the area better than anyone I know. She cares about the community and takes care to improve it every chance she gets. She would be the best candidate for the District 7 vacancy. Thanks, Becky Modderman 7/10/2023 16:32 Liz Beebe Aimee Horman for District 7 Aimee Horman builds communities. There is not a better choice out there District 7. From her work in a local elementary school, on the Jordan River, and in her community she is a go-getter. Liz Beebe District 5 7/10/2023 16:33 Emily S Yeargin Aimee Horman for District 7 Council Member Good Afternoon, I am writing in show of support of Aimee Horman for the vacant Council Member position for SLC District 7. I have known Aimee since middle school and think she would do an excellent job in that role. Aimee is a very smart, open-minded, inclusive, community-centric person who has always been loved by all. She is warm and engaging with a wonderful sense of humor. She cares deeply about her community and the rights of those within it. I would love to see her be able to bring her talents and care to the constituents of District 7. Best regards, Emily Yeargin 7/10/2023 16:34 Erik Mikkelsen Support for Aimee Horman Hello Council, I have been neighbors with Aimee Horman for the last 5 years and have lived in the community for 10 years. I’ve been impressed with her passion for our community, ability to bring people together and deep knowledge of how the community operates. I think Aimee would be an excellent candidate for city council and has my support. Thanks Erik Mikkelsen Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 16:35 Jillian Helbling Appointment for District 7 - Aimee Horman Hi, I’m from District 7 and support Aimee Horman for the appointment to my district. She’s always been involved within the community ever since I first met her in the Nibley Park PTO. She’s somebody that cares about the community and truly is a part of it. She is the perfect person for the district! Jillian Helbling 7/10/2023 16:37 Moriah Jackson District 7 appointment recommendation To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my enthusiast support for Aimee Horman for the vacant District 7 City Council seat. Not only is Aimee a genuine soul with fantastic communication and organizational skills, but she's also a thoughtful, collaborative, and constructive team player who expresses sound judgement and integrity in all her actions. Aimee is incredible—her skills, extensive history of civic engagement, and unparalleled commitment to serve and improve her community make her absolutely the best candidate for the role! Sincerely, Moriah Jackson, colleague and friend to Aimee Horman 7/10/2023 16:37 Elizabeth Moffat Ammie Horman This is Betty Moffat, I live in Sugar House District 7. I worked with Ammie for several years. Ammie is committed to making our community a better place to live. She was instrumental in developing and maintaining a school community garden, providing tutoring for students as well as donating her time as a Girl Scout leader. She is an intelligent woman will unique ideas that would benefit the community council. Thank you.7/10/2023 16:38 Christopher Porter Aimee Horman for District 7!Hello, My family was very excited to learn that Aimee Horman intended to go for the vacant city council seat. She is constantly working quietly behind the scenes to improve her community. She is not afraid to get her hands dirty and do the work. Aimee is reliable, kind, intelligent, and dedicated. These attributes would make her an excellent addition to city council. Thank you, Christopher Porter 7/10/2023 16:39 Joseph Arrigo Aimee Horman District 7 counsel seat Aimee Horman is one of the most civically and community conscious individuals I know. She is respected in many community circles as an organizer has community activism. She will be a fantastic voice on the counsel. Joseph C. Arrigo 7/10/2023 16:43 Brooke Yardley-Stewart Aimee Bateman Horman To whom it may concern, I believe that Aimee is the best choice for the vacant seat in District 7. I have known Aimee for 8 years and have always known her to be very invested in bettering the neighborhood and community. I live in and operate a business in the district, and think she would do a great job representing the people that live here. Thank you for your time. -- Brooke Stewart7/10/2023 16:45 Dayna McKee Support for Aimee Horman for D7 Good morning, I would like to express my support for Aimee Horman for the vacant District 7 city council seat. Aimee is immersed in our community and has a great understanding of the community needs of District 7. She has extensive experience working across government agencies and the community and would be a great asset to the council. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dayna McKee District 7 resident 7/10/2023 16:46 Mark Wolf Amie Horman I’m in full support of Ms. Horman running for council office, I worked with Amie at Guadalupe schools, and she was always so attentive to listen to staff, students, parents and all involved in decision making processes. She would be a big asset to the district 7 council. 7/10/2023 16:47 Anthony Stewart Aimee Horman for District 7 Council Seat To whom it may concern, I believe that Aimee is the best choice for the vacant seat in District 7. I have known Aimee for 8 years and have always known her to be very invested in bettering the neighborhood and community. I live in and operate a business in the district, and think she would do a great job representing the people that live here. Thank you for your time. Anthony Stewart Este Pizza Sugarhouse 7/10/2023 16:49 Sophanna Taylor Aimee Horman Aimee Horman would be a good candidate for SLC council because of her strong commitment to community engagement and her passion for addressing local issues. Her track record of actively listening to constituents and advocating for their concerns demonstrates her dedication to serving the community's best interests. With her collaborative approach, experience, and forward-thinking ideas, Aimee Horman can contribute positively to the growth and development of the city, making her an excellent choice for SLC council. Sophanna Taylor Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 16:50 Karen Lao Support for Aimee Hormon, district 7 I am pleased to write in support of Aimee Hormon for district 7. I live in the district and I am a neighbor of Aimee’s. Aimee has always demonstrated exemplary effectiveness in recognizing what our community needs and reaching out to others for input and organizing. I trust Aimee’s vision and priorities for solving our community’s most urgent matters. Karen Lao7/10/2023 16:51 Alisa Haws Aimee Horman for City council I have lived in District 7 for more than 15 years and have known Aimee Horman for more than 10 years. She is a dedicated citizen of our city and state who cares deeply for people and for our community. She would be an excellent City Council member. Alisa Haws 7/10/2023 16:52 Andrea Matlin D7 Aimee Horman Dear SLC Council, I’m writing to express my deep support of Aimee Horman’s application to represent SLC’s District 7. I’ve known Aimee most of my life. When we were in high school she and her family welcomed me into their home to live with them while I lacked support from my own family. Obviously Aimee and her family’s generosity had a tremendous impact on my life. As a bonus, Aimee and I have remained close friends for 35 years. And, our paths have crossed professionally — specifically in my work at the Natural History Museum of Utah and Aimee’s impactful work with the Jordan River Commission. In both her professional and personal life — Aimee is an employee, neighbor, and friend you can count on. If I were to describe Aimee with one word, that word would be tenacious. If there’s a problem, Aimee has the reputation to roll up her sleeves and fix it, without relenting. She knows that her strength comes from relying on not just her own strengths, but the strengths of others. From teaching at the Guadalupe School to creating community gardens to engaging with and organizing thousands of volunteers to forward the mission of the Jordan River Commission — Aimee has nothing short of a magic about her when it comes to encouraging community engagement and developing relationships. I can’t think of a better fit to represent D7, and it’ll certainly be difficult to find someone with deeper roots and a deeper passion in and about the community than Aimee. Sincerely, Andrea Matlin 84103 7/10/2023 16:53 Jennifer Nelson D7 Amiee Horman To who it may concern, As a member of district 7 I am happy to support a new representative. The best person who I would like to represent me and my neighbors on the SL city council is Aimee Horman. Aimee has boundless energy and creative ideas. She is excellent at including everyone involved and generating excitement for whatever task is ahead of her. I know she will work hard for district 7. Sincerely, Jennifer Nelson7/10/2023 16:55 Paul Matlin Aimee Horman D7 I recommend Aimee Horman to represent SLC’s District 7 without any reservations. Paul Matlin 7/10/2023 16:57 Mark Morris D7 Council Vacancy: Support for Aimee Horman Dear SLC Council members- I'd like to provide my whole-hearted support for Aimee Horman as you consider appointing a new member to fill the role of council representative for District 7. I first met Aimee years ago as a neighbor, working with a small group to organize the Sugar House community garden. It became clear immediately that Aimee had a wide network of friends and acquaintances that she could rally when needed to bring about change in our neighborhood. She was absolutely responsible for the success of the project, for raising money and in-kind donations, engaging with the city, and even rallying volunteers for the hard labor of building a community garden. The project could not have happened without her experience and personal commitment to the neighborhood. Later, Aimee was particularly helpful with another Sugar House project I was involved with, creating a temporary public plaza at 'Sugarmont Plaza'. Once again, Aimee was able to conjure up a group of community volunteers when needed, making the entire project seemingly effortless to install. Since then, I've crossed paths with Aimee in her role working with the Jordan River Commission and its efforts to support and preserve an essential asset of our city. As a business and property owner in District 7, I would absolutely support Aimee as a well-qualified and committed candidate as you consider filling the position on your council. I think Aimee's understanding of our community, her commitment to Salt Lake City, and her understanding of the issues we face together will prove a great asset to the council. Thanks! Mark Morris Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 16:58 Aimee Dunsmore Support for Aimee Horman I’m writing to share my support for Aimee Horman’s bid to be appointed as a council member representing District 7, which is my neighborhood. Aimee has been a longtime resident and stalwart supporter of our neighborhood, consistently working to better it and make it a great place to live. She cares deeply about Sugarhouse and Salt Lake City. She is dedicated, passionate, and and puts in the work. I would be honored to say she represents me on the Salt Lake City Council and hope you will strongly consider her candidacy. Sincerely, Aimee Dunsmore7/10/2023 16:58 Aubrey Atkinson District 7 Vacancy - Aimee Horman As a member of the District 7 community I endorse Aimee Horman to fill the recent vacancy on our city council. I have known Aimee for over 10 years and have witnessed her advocacy, kindness and concern for her community in a variety of ways including her involvement in education, neighborhood connections, outdoor/nature conservation, safety and inclusion. Aimee Horman would be a welcomed asset to our District 7 Council. Regards, Aubrey Atkinson7/10/2023 17:06 Ashley Babbitt Regarding Aimee Horman Dear SLC City Council & Mayor, I’ve lived in District 7 for the best of 17 years, from living as a student at Westminster to residing as a neighbor of Sugar House. I can tell you that Aimee Horman is the best person to represent our district, as I’ve worked with her on the Utah Arts Festival and known her for 15+ years. She’s one of the most level-headed leaders in the face of crisis and stress and also one of the best champions of equitable community with an incredible track record. Thanks for your time, Ashley L. Babbitt 7/10/2023 17:07 Daphne Perry Amy Horman district 7 council I would like to endorse Aimee Horman for district 7 councilman. She really is a natural born leader, and has the best interest of our neighborhood and district at heart. She fought very hard to keep condos out of the boys and girls club tennis courts (so that hopefully the BGC can expand) and will fight to reduce traffic with solutions that are best for our district. Daphne Perry7/10/2023 17:08 Shannon Quinn Dunlop Aimee Horman Good evening council, I was born and raised in SLC. I am a family nurse practitioner caring for those in our community. I have known Aimee Horman for 20+ years. In all the time I have known her she is always caring for those around her and always looking for ways to better her community. She is the perfect choice for community council. We would be lucky to have her represent us. Thank you, Shannon Quinn Dunlop, MSN, APRN, FNP-C Family Nurse Practitioner7/10/2023 17:09 Holley Spinazza Aimee Horman To whom it may concern, My name is Holley Spinazza, a sugarhouse community member and Im writing this to show our support of Aimee for the vacant seat in District 7. We think she would be outstanding in this position and she is smart, determined and would represent all of the community with integrity and honesty. Thank you for your time and consideration.7/10/2023 17:10 Maree Lewis Aimee Horman I am so excited to see Aimee seeking the open seat. I have never seen anyone so involved in the betterment of her community. Aimee will be a huge asset and is meant for this position!! 7/10/2023 17:12 David Foster Aimee Horman I feel believe Aimee Horman would be an excellent choice for the District 7 council vacancy. She’s been involved in Sugar House for decades and has always been dedicated to the betterment of her community. As a district 7 resident, she would have my full support. Best regards, David Foster 7/10/2023 17:35 Jerome Battle Aimee Horman Aimee Horman has served as a passionate and dedicated president of her local school Parent Teacher Organization and the chair of the School Community Council. In addition to being highly organized and committed, Aimee is an advocate for equity, diversity, and inclusion. 7/10/2023 17:35 Danni Marie Aimee Horman Just wanted to put in a few words for Aimee Horman who is running for District 7. She has my vote as she is one of the most empathetic, efficient, competent, and knowledgeable people I know! She has my full trust to do the best for our district and city. -Danni Marie 7/10/2023 17:36 Moira Rampton Aimee Horman Hello, I am proud to recommend Aimee Horman for the position of Council woman for District 7. I have known Aimee for more than 25 years. We have been coworkers as well as friends. Aimee has so many talents that it would take too long to list, but she is a very capable person who would do very well in this position. She is a person who gets things done! When she says she will do something she can be depended on to follow through. She has worked in her neighborhood to start a community garden and other projects. She is not afraid to take on responsibilities and support and serve others. I am proud to know and call Aimee a friend. Thank you, Moira Rampton Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 17:37 Tyler Fonarow Aimee Horman I'd like to offer my support for Aimee Horman to be appointed to the vacant District 7 seat for City Council. Aimee's an SLC and District 7 native, a Highland High grad in the 90s. She trained and served as a dedicated and talented SLC district elementary school teacher and has equally been committed to environmental protection and social equity on on the City's west side as the program manager for the Jordan River Commission. Aimee's no-nonsense approach is focused on getting things done. She has few to no political ambitions which is why she is a great candidate to serve. She loves Salt Lake City and will be a honest, fresh, and smart perspective to the City Council. Best, Tyler Fonarow 7/10/2023 17:39 Amanda Moore Aimee Horman Hello, My name is Amanda Moore and I live in district 6. I am writing to endorse Aimee Horman for the open seat in district 7. Even though I live in 6 I feel like my family and I spend a great deal of time in the Sugarhouse area. I believe Aimee would be a great representative of district 7. She is a long time resident that lives in close proximity to Fairmont Park. This gives her first hand experience with issues regarding the unhoused and the neighborhood. She was active at Nibley Park school (where my daughter went) and is an amazing working mom. She cares deeply for her community and has excellent vision for the future. I sincerely hope you will seriously consider her for the job. Amanda Moore 7/10/2023 17:39 Jan Robertson Vacant Seat in District 7 I have known Amy Horman for nearly 20 years. She would be an excellent choice to fill the vacancy in District 7. Amy is a hard working, energetic, and intelligent woman who knows how to get things done. She is a neighborhood “organizer” who has created and implemented inspiring projects. She gets along with many personality types and has a good sense of humor! I enthusiastically endorse her for this position! 7/10/2023 17:40 Mary Roberts Aimee Horman District 7 I am writing in support of Aimee Horman in District 7. I live in this district and have been a neighbor of Aimee's for more than 15 years. Aimee always does an amazing job reaching out to our community and organizing based on people's input. I trust that Aimee will be an excellent representative for our district. 7/10/2023 17:41 Alicen Bringard District 7 Hello, I think Aimee Horman is the best candidate for the SLC Council district 7 as she is an advocate for her community and has tremendous determination and leadership. I am fully in support of Aimee! Alicen Bringard (Sugarhouse resident) 7/10/2023 17:42 Libby Snethen District 7 Hi Council staff, I’m Libby, a resident of Sugar House. I’m writing to support Aimee Horman as the new District 7 Council member. I’ve worked with Aimee a lot and she has been amazing in every capacity. Her presence is inviting and informative, and her passion to make Salt Lake City better is contagious. Thank you, Libby Snethen 7/10/2023 17:43 Mccall Cannon Support for Aimee Horman for District Seven Representative District Seven Council, I am writing to recommend Aimee Horman to fill the vacancy on the City Council in district seven. Aimee is uniquely situated to serve in this capacity due to her decades long commitment and involvement with her community. She has spearheaded and contributed to various community projects such as building a community garden at Nibley Park Elementary school. Aimee has consistently demonstrated her leadership skills with her innate ability to motivate and connect with those around her. She can effectively communicate and collaborate with diverse groups and has forged strong partnerships with many organizations. She effectively rallies and coordinates volunteer groups with her work on the Jordan River Commission to great success. I wholeheartedly recommend and support Aimee Horman for this position due to her years of experience and commitment to community. Sincerely, McCall Cannon 7/10/2023 17:44 Abi Bateman Aimee Horman for district 7 Aimee Horman is the perfect candidate for district 7! She has been a community advocate for as long as I have known her (30 plus years!) She’s been involved in everything from community gardens to art festivals, always with a desire to find those areas that need attention and delivering solutions. Not only does she listen, she always has creative solutions to add to any situation. She has always been an advocate for the more vulnerable among us. I adore this woman and like I said, she is the perfect candidate for district 7. Best regards, Abi Bateman Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/10/2023 17:44 Krista Kear Aimee Horman for district 7 I am in district 7 and think Aimee Horman is the best candidate for the SLC Council seat. Aimee is and has been very involved in her community in all aspects. She is thoughtful, considerate, extremely hard working and will represent and listen to all in her district. I cannot think of a better person. Krista Kear Rocky Mountain River Tours7/10/2023 17:45 Josiah Helbling Aimee Horman for district 7 Hello, I am from district 7. I support Aimee Horman’s appointment for district 7. I have known her for almost a decade and she has always put in so much work for our community. I can’t imagine a better person for the job! Thank you for your time, Josiah Helbling 7/10/2023 17:46 Mariah Mellus Aimee Horman for District 7 I’m writing you today in support of Aimee Horman for District 7 for the Salt Lake City Council. I have known Aimee for over 20 years and she has always been a person I look to for an open dialogue about how we can make our city better. She is brilliant, yet not pompous, she is honest, considerate, forthright, compassionate and fearless. I have watched Aimee be a leader in ever facet of her life, as s parent, a friend, in her neighborhood, her volunteer work, ever job she’s ever had, school community councils, Girl Scout troop leader, and the list goes on and on. The council and Salt Lake City would be lucky to have her working to make our city the best it can be for all its citizens. Please for the sake of our city consider her for this open position, I know you will not regret putting Aimee on your team. Sincerely, Mariah Mann Mellus Concerned and Engaged Citizen7/10/2023 17:46 Derek Mellus Aimee Horman for District 7 Esteemed SLC Council members, I’d like to send a brief email in support of Aimee Horman for the District 7 vacancy. I’ve known Aimee for 25 years and she’s someone who would represent the District well. Derek Mellus 7/10/2023 17:47 Sonya Erickson Molly Jones for District 7 Hello, I support Molly Jones for District 7 and am proud to endorse her candidacy. As a neighbor, I have had the privilege of witnessing her dedication to our community firsthand. As a fellow small business owner in Sugar House, I truly believe Molly's understanding of our community's needs sets her apart. Molly's experience as a small business owner brings a unique perspective to the table. She comprehends the challenges we face and has demonstrated a deep commitment to addressing them. With her thoughtful and organized approach, I am confident that she will be an exceptional planner for Sugar House. In summary, Molly Jones has my endorsement for District 7. Our community deserves a representative who will work tirelessly for our best interests, and I firmly believe Molly is the right person for the job. Best regards, Sonya 7/11/2023 9:10 Larry Wright Petitions/D4 Dear Ana Valdemoros My name is Larry Wright land I live 2 houses west of the property seeking the petition. This request to amend the Sugar House Neighborhood Plan and the zoning map for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East is a perfect example of Spot Zoning. Spot zoning is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adapted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners. The proposed map amendment lacks consistency with the zoning within the neighborhood. SR-3 zoning is not located within the area and differs significantly from the existing and established single-family residential zoning district. The Salt Lake City Staff report and the Planning commission both have sent a negative recommendation to the City Council. I agree with this recommendation to deny the amendment of the Sugar House Neighborhood Plan zoning map, and change the property zoning from R-1/7000 to SR-3 in order to change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The amendments are sought to relieve what the applicant considers an unforeseen hardship. The City has ruled (July 19th 1999, September 9th 2020, and Appeal September 18th 2020) that this parcel is part of the property at 1572 East Blaine Avenue. In 2014 the current owner had to purchase the two parcels together, as did every previous purchaser dating back to 1985. That should have been a red flag to the current owner. In other words, any hardship could not have been unforeseen. The garage sits on two properties, which suggests that the city has considered this one property since the garage was built in 1985. This is consistent with the 5 properties to the west that are similarly narrow and deep. The challenge to build at 1782 South 1600 East has never been an unforeseen hardship. Thanks, Larry Wright Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/11/2023 9:56 Paul Petersen 1782 S 1600 E. - PLNPCM202201138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 No one in the neighborhood believes this is a good idea. The only access to the property is a small driveway that is shared by 4 neighbors. There is no direct access to the sewer line on 1600 East, so they will have to dig up the small driveway and the road to gain access. This is also a developer trying to make this happen, she does not live in the neighborhood and does not care, she just wants to build another house to rent out, bringing more people and more traffic to our nice little neighborhood. I have been living in my house for over 15 years and most of neighbors are the same we help make up why Sugarhouse is great neighborhood. None of believe changing the master plan to allow this house to be built is a good a idea and none of can see a benefit to us if it does happen. Please share my email with the Council and we are also getting tired of this fight, she has tried numerous times to get this to go through and she keeps getting denied, hopefully this is the last fight. Thanks, Paul Petersen 7/11/2023 10:20 Hanim Sappington Aimee Horman Hello, I am writing to express my confidence in Aimee Horman as the best choice to fill the SLC Council's vacant seat in District 7. I have known Aimee for over 13 years--we have shared many experiences, both joyful and purposeful, as we have raised our children right down the street from each other. It is through these experiences that I have come to trust and just, really like this phenomenal woman. She is ambitious, creative, diligent and full of positive energy which she employs toward truly good causes everywhere she finds herself. I know she will be an incredible asset to the SLC Council and hope she has the opportunity to prove it. Thank you, Hanim Sappington 7/11/2023 10:21 Stephen and shelly Hamilton Aimee Horman To whom it may concern. We are writing you to share how Aiemee Horman would be the best choice for District 7 city council. Ms. Horman advocates for her community at many levels. She has actively engaged to help smart growth in her neighborhood. She Supports conservation of our lands and waters in Utah. Airmee is a strong listener and collaborator and will help Salt Lake City council make strong decisions to support constituents in District 7 and Utah. Sincerely, Stephen and Shelly Hamilton 7/11/2023 10:48 Anthony Wright 1782 South 1600 East I am writing in favor of the applicants rezone request for 1782 South 1600 East. The parcel being requested for rezone is a distinct parcel in County records and should be treated as such and not aggregated with the adjacent parcel. One of the most important rights associated with property ownership is the ability to adapt or develop it for some profitable or desirable use. The buildable box of the parcel is just over 1000 square feet and does not lend itself to a large-scale development; however, as an individual parcel, the owner should have the right to develop a small independent residential structure. The current zoning of r1-7000 makes this parcel undevelopable under current city restrictions. While I understand the neighbors’ concerns that they like having the open space next to their backyards, this land currently has a structure on it and, this proposed rezone would meet the stated city objectives of gentil infill development. If the reasonable ask of a rezone is not granted, The applicant could just do a lot consolidation, build as big of an ADU as possible on the parcel in leu of an independent single family home and expand the adjacent structure to its minimum setbacks. Adding and building on the land is not the question as this is possible with or without the rezone; however, the rezone would allow a development that makes more sense and would have a lesser impact than the consolidation of the parcels. Again, due to the small nature of the parcel, a large development is not possible. An independent single-family home is. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 7/11/2023 12:36 Angela Morgan Tents/Rvs in Church, business parking lots.The City Council continues to put off finding a designated location for a sanctioned homeless encampment, as they have promised to do for three years now. Instead they have set aside $500,000 to be given to churches, businesses and other entities to help them put up to ten tents and rv’s on these properties. Some churches, businesses will look at this as a money grab opportunity, if not given a firm set of requirements when their kind and generous hearts, willingness to ‘help the homeless’ is presented to them in this manner. Homeless encampments in our neighborhoods will be detrimental to those living in the areas and quality of life and safety for those families. In permitting this action the city is breaking it’s own ordinances, specifically, No Tents shall be erected for longer than ten days on private property. So far the City has failed in having any requirements for these grantees in setting up homeless encampments. The City needs to make sure requirements include: Assuring the grantees have informed their insurance company they will permit tents, rv’s, etc and require added liability insurance. The grantees should be required to inform their neighbors within a 5 block area, in writing, of their intention of setting up encampments on their property. have a 24 hour contact person for neighbors should an emergency or situation arise. be required to provide adequate bathroom facilities, access to running water and adequate security on the property that will be hosting homeless tents and rvs. They should limit the size of the tents/rvs, and number of people allowed in each. Instead of following through, finding a designated area for one or two larger sanctioned homeless camps, as they have been promising, the City is shirking it’s responsibility and placing it upon our neighborhoods. There is no reason why a larger sanctioned camp area couldn’t be placed where the Tiny Home Village has been designated. The City owns 22 acres on Victory Road, another 39 acress at 1 E 700 North, and another 54 acres behind Ensign Vista Drive. You need to quit delaying a sanctioned camping area, stop dumping your responsibilities on neighborhoods and parks and start addressing this problem instead of kicking the can down the road. 7/11/2023 15:26 Suzanne Stensaas (EXTERNAL) Support for Molly Jones for interim council member for District 7, Salt Lake City have met and spoken with Molly for over an hour and she has a varied and diverse background which should help her get up to speed on city issues. She has a bachelor’s degree in political science, has worked as a teacher with immigrants teaching ESL, worked at forming city policy in Berkeley, and most of all is enthusiastic and is willing to devote full time. She wants to stay in touch with our community and she lives in it. Her energy and time should make her an excellent interim choice and we can she what she can do in the few trial month before the election. Sincerely, Suzanne Stensaas, resident district 7 since 1968! Suzanne S. Stensaas