Loading...
07/18/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION   July 18, 2023 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 or 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 10:52:20 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items   1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 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   ​​​​​​ 2.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow- up ~ 2:15 p.m.  75 min The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023; Tuesday, July 11, 2023; and Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 and Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023   ​​​​​​ 3.Ordinances: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning Text Amendment ~ 3:30 p.m.  10 min. The Council will receive an update on an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict (FB- UN3). As well as an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District) to the fleet block property between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Street. Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings. It also has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply regulations to future developments such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses. The regulations are intended to support the block’s redevelopment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2019- 00277 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - TBD Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD   ​​​​​​ 4.Informational: Fleet Block Zoning and Disposition Strategy Update ~ 3:40 p.m.  30 min. The Council will receive an update on the status and disposition strategy related to the Fleet Block, an 8.75-acres of City-owned property located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, this property was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the Fleet function was moved to a facility farther to the west, the City has conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the City. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a   ​​​​​​ 5.Tentative Break ~ 4:10 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: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment ~ 4:30 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 South 1600 East. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). The applicant is also seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7. Petitioner: Blaine Properties LLC, FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 8, 2023   ​​​​​​ 7.Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment ~ 4:50 p.m.  30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposal would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023   ​​​​​​ 8.Ordinance: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment ~ 5:20 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle. The proposal would amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at streets, alleys, and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. Currently the code does not include intersections of alleys and streets, and alleys and sidewalks. The proposed amendment will add these intersections with alleys and add standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023   ​​​​​​ 9.Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Spencer Lawson ~ 5:40 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Spencer Lawson prior to considering appointment to the Cultural Core Finance Committee for a term ending July 18, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023   ​​​​​​ 10.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Anne Olsen ~ 5:45 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Anne Olsen prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023   ​​​​​​ 11.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Emina Alibegovic ~ 5:50 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Emina Alibegovic prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023   ​​​​​​ 12.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Justin Neville ~ 5:55 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Justin Neville prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023   ​​​​​​ Standing Items   13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair   Report of Chair and Vice Chair.    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.    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.    CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative Updates July 18, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPlanningSlc.gov/planning www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments •Extended public feedback! •Subdivision Code Updates •Engagement starting end of July •Community Benefit Requirements •Petition has been initiated Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canArts Council saltlakearts.org West Side Art Project www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Iconic Public artwork on the West Side of the City •Engagement continues •Partners in the Park •Mestizo Arts and Activism Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPublic Lands slc.gov/parks/ www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Miller Park •Findings of engagement posted •Budget and project alignment coming •Taufer and Richmond Park •Potluck August 25th from 6-8 to report findings •Steenblik, Donner Trail, Liberty Park Playground & Madsen Park •engagement continues •Making the Emerald Ribbon •Allen Park – allenparkslc.org Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Location Date Time Rose Park Neighborhood Center July 19 11am – 12:45pm Chillin' with a Cop at Cloud Nine Creamery July 21 7pm – 8:30pm Riverside Park (Partners in the Park)July 25 6pm – 8pm Liberty Park (near the playground)July 28 2pm – 4:30pm July Community Office Hours Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Fleet Block- Art Healing Comment Form Visit www.slc.gov/feedback/ click on the "FLEET BLOCK ART HEALING COMMENT FORM" to tell us what you think of this process that engaged the families related to the individuals depicted on the murals! Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canJuly Events These events are a collection of City Sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events. Event Date Location East Bench Ice Cream Social 7/19 Donner Trail Park – East Side Main Street (Alleyways Amplified Fashion Show)7/21 Eccles Theater Lobby Summer Film Series at Liberty Park -- Blueback 7/21 Liberty Park Sugar House Rocks Concert Series 7/21 Monument Plaza in Sugar House Sabores de Mi Patria/Flavors of My Homeland Workshop Series 7/21 Wasatch Community Garden's Campus Downtown Farmers Market 7/22 Pioneer Park Feria Ambiental:Para celebrar la semana de conservacion Latina (Latino Conservation Week Fair)7/22 Three Creeks Confluence The Cookout '23 7/23 Fairmont Park Drone Show 7/24 Liberty Park Partners in the Park 7/25 Riverside Park Summer Film Series at Liberty Park – Fire of Love 7/28 Liberty Park Second Annual Community on the Green 7/28 Forest Dale Golf Course Downtown Farmers Market 7/29 Pioneer Park African Festival 7/29 Liberty Park Back-to-School Fair: The Urban Indian Center of Salt Lake City 7/29 The Urban Indian Center of Salt Lake Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canJuly Events These events are a collection of City Sponsored, ACE, and publicly permitted events. The Uniting Communities Pow Wow, hosted by the Native American Chamber of Commerce will be held on July 24th right after the Days of 47 Parade and immediately before the Salt Lake City Drone Show on the Southeast side of Liberty Park. Revamped a whole new community event funded by the Mayor’s Office ACE Grant! None of these opportunities could have happened without the Urban Indian Center if SL, the U of U’s American Indian Resource Center, Raising Ancestral Winds, Sacred Circle, PANDOS, and Utah Din’e Bikeyah ! Homeless Resource Center Utilization •July 10th -14th HRCs:98.7% Rapid Intervention/ EIM •EIM- Jordan River North End/ Day-Riverside •62 HEART-tracked camps •RIT locations: o VOA Outreach Engagement: 7 o RIT Site Rehabilitations: 11 (+15) Resource Fair: •Friday July 14th- @ Pioneer Park Food Justice Coalition, Ruff Haven, SLCo Health Dept, Wasatch Comm Garden, Utah Health Policy Project, SLC Justice Court, 3rd District, WVC Justice Court, SLCO Kayak Court -Friday July 21st- Jordan River Homelessness Update for more information contact: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake -valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Policy and Budget Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: FY 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Staff Note: The Council previously approved holding a CIP public hearing on July 18 and August 8 which have been publicly advertised. The Council is tentatively scheduled to continue discussing CIP project-specific funding on July 18, August 8, and vote on August 15. MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to August 8. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE:FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ANNUAL BUDGET BOOK: Pages 67-68 and 143 – 154 CIP BUDGET BOOK PAGES: - 5-12 shows a summary table of proposed projects and funding sources - 13-15 lists CIP projects not recommended for funding - 19-23 identify existing bonds paid from CIP (does not include General Obligation bonds) and other ongoing obligations - 27-53 has project specific pages for the recommended General Fund CIP projects - 57-108 has project specific pages for enterprise fund capital projects (Airport, Golf, and Public Utilities) NEW INFORMATION The Council added a total of $1,258,815 to the FY2024 CIP budget above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. This funding is from two sources: $644,126 Funding Our Future limited to the five critical need areas, and $614,689 recaptured from capital projects older than three years which are basically General Fund dollars available to any CIP project. As a reminder, the five Funding Our Future categories are: improved street conditions (sidewalk-to-sidewalk), greater housing opportunities, better public transit services, public safety (fire, police, social workers, and 911 dispatch), and parks maintenance. Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,214,126. Of this amount, $496,412 could come from impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding funding to CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are recommended for funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order and updated since the first briefing. Project Timeline: Budget Hearings: May 16 & June 6, 2023 1st Briefing: June 6, 2023 2nd Briefing: July 11, 2023 3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 18, 2023 4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Note: The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project specific funding is approved by September 1. Page | 2 Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety -$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees (second phase listed below) -Council Member Petro expressed interest in only funding the $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs pending available funding -The project could be partially funded in two or three phases: o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the other two phases (at any time) Council Member Wharton: Project #57 requesting $210,000 for Ensign Peak Nature Park Access and Security Improvements -The project would install new lighting, an access gate and fence at the popular trailhead, and landscaping around the entrance -The nature park has experienced on and off nuisance (traffic, noise, littering, trespassing) and criminal activity (fires, public intoxication, firearm discharges) for several years particularly late at night -The project appears ineligible for parks impact fees Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground -$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees -Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements -The project is 10% eligible for transportation impact fees which is $49,412 -The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the Council for adoption -The project could be split into phases which would increase the total cost. Individual cost estimates by intersections and potential phase are: o Phase 1: ▪2600 East / Foothill Drive: $110,000 ▪Westminster / Foothill Drive: $20,000 ▪Laurelhurst / Foothill Drive: $85,000 o Phase 2: ▪Blaine + 2500 E / Foothill Drive: $170,000 ▪Bryan / Foothill Drive: $110,000 Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 -Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street -An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding -The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study Project #1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Council staff asked the Administration how does the proposed Library Plaza structural assessment and visioning project relate to the already funded 200 East Green Loop designs and study, the Washington Square Master Plan, and the several studies already done about the plaza (2002 Library Square Block Plan, 2017 Evaluating Library Square Urban Land Institute Report, 2018 GSBS Architects Library Square Study, and others)? The Administration’s response is copied below for reference. “This March, a planning and design consultant, Wenk Associates, was hired by the inter-departmental City team to work on studying the Green Loop, including more detailed planning and schematic (preliminary) design for the 200 East leg (South Temple to 900 South). Assessing land uses, utilities, transportation, demographics, future development, and other information will help the City understand the possibilities for a drastically different design for the street, including more green space and necessary utilities. This also considers the impacts and feasibility of a “festival street” between 400 South and 500 South. Final documents will form the Page | 3 basis of federal grant applications that the City will submit in April 2024. The Green Loop project will target the Right of Way, as opposed to the Library Plaza CIP application which includes the public space within the block. The submitted CIP application for this funding cycle is intended to provide a vision, plan and conceptual design for Library Plaza ($125,000 of a larger $190,000 Library Plaza application). If funded, this process will identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza and revitalizing the space as a site for large public events, as originally intended. Solutions will mitigate barriers to access and enjoyment, including direct sunlight, lack of shade, urban heat island effect, and protection from the elements. With Salt Lake City being a potential candidate for the 2030 or 2034 Olympics, reimagining and retrofitting this space will be critical if Library Plaza and adjacent civic sites are intended to be used to host significant events and accommodate additional capacity. It is critical that these studies, plans, and schematic designs of 200 East and Library Plaza be completed before the City can confidently understand the need for and costs of additional design and construction of these sites.” Policy Question: ➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the City’s policy goal is to advance the concept of a Civic Campus by further connecting the two sides of 200 East between 400 S and 500 S (Washington Square and Library Plaza). Previous Councils discussed and funded studies to look at changing this one-block section of 200 East to facilitate public events and the Civic Campus concept. Project #60 Maintenance of City-owned Property The Council approved $700,000 for this use in the last annual budget of which $598,685 remains available. Another $700,000 was requested of which $200,000 (the base ongoing funding) was approved as part of the annual budget adoption on June 13. The Administration provided the following list of five projects with high- level cost estimates (FY2023 remaining funds and FY2024 requested funds). The Public Services Department is conducting a facility assessment which may recommend projects to use these funds. Policy Question: ➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether some of the $500,000 requested in FY2024 could be used for other CIP projects since the FY2023 remaining appropriation of $598,685 is enough to cover the cost estimates of the five items listed below. $100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB): (Note this building is also called the Northwest Pipeline Building at 315 E 200 S) The Administration is planning projects that will improve the safety and security of the building and surrounding property while the property is being prepared for redevelopment. These improvements include repair to an existing gate, a new motorized gate to access Magnolia parking, improvements to the park strip, ongoing landscape maintenance and cleanup (including biowaste cleanup), and car towing and disposal. These expenses are anticipated to cost up to $100,000. $200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study: (Note the Council may consider this item as a separate project since the scope is beyond maintenance of city- owned property) The Administration would like to utilize a portion of these funds to issue an RFP for a consultant to develop a Disposition and Development Strategy for a suite of City-owned parcels, with the intent of planning for future space needs, identifying surplus property for future municipal purposes, and identifying property for revenue generation. This effort, anticipated to be as much as $200,000, is somewhat outside of the scope of the approved use of funding and may require a scope adjustment. $100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building Leased by Odyssey House: This project was awarded $500,000 in CIP funding for structural repairs. Public Services is working on a site assessment in order to identify improvements and develop bids. Based on the condition of the building, it is believed that the necessary improvements may require an additional $100,000+ to bring the building up to health, safety, and welfare standards. Odyssey House has abandoned operations in one section of the building due to safety issues and is still operating its programming in the other section on a limited basis. $100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties: The Administration would like to utilize a portion of the funding for maintenance of not only vacant city-owned property but for property that is leased to a third-party (vacant from city municipal function). Projects include replacement of a disintegrating fence at the Salt Lake Acting Company building, anticipated to be up to $15,000. In addition, improvements are needed to the Memorial House building that are the responsibility of the City Page | 4 pursuant to the lease, including items such as HVAC replacement, repair of windows and doors, repair of water damage, etc. These repairs could cost up to $75,000. $50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety Building (PSB): The Administration is planning to use up to $50,000 to prepare Fleet Block and the former PSB for redevelopment. Funds will be used for surveys, title work, appraisals, subdivision of property, etc. Project #61 Urban Trails Maintenance (Note this is proposed to be a new ongoing annual maintenance line item) The Administration provided the following description of this new line item. “These funds will be used for repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow removal, debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom Trail. Short description: These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round.” Surplus Land Fund Updated Balance During the review of capital accounts older than three years, the Finance Department identified a few old property management accounts with land sale proceeds that should have been returned to the Surplus Land Fund because that was the original source for the unused funds. The Surplus Land Funds new balance is $5,128,676 after these proceeds are transferred. CIP Debt Load Projections through FY2027 The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available funding through FY2027. Pay as you go projects reflect new capital projects. The chart shows relatively stable debt load projections using approximately 55% of the annual General Fund transfer to CIP. An important caveat to note is the chart assumes 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues are transferred into CIP annually. The FY2023 budget hit the 9% transfer goal but the City has typically been closer to 7% over the past 15 years. The FY2024 budget transferred 7.1% of ongoing General Fund revenues into CIP (after including the Council’s $1.2 million above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget) which means less funding is available to go to new projects. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase. Page | 5  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves debt payments and ongoing obligations as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive process where residents, local organizations, and City departments submit project applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations which this year are identical to the advisory board’s except one project; $150,000 for Westside Art was proposed after the CDCIP board completed their deliberations. The Council considers both sets of funding recommendations and ultimately decides project specific funding. Funding for capital improvements sometimes occurs in midyear budget amendments but the annual CIP process is the Council’s largest annual opportunity to fund large public construction projects. This report provides an overview of the proposed overall budget for FY2024, projects of Council Member interest not recommended for funding, policy questions, and further details in the Additional Info section and attachments. Overview of the FY2024 CIP Proposed Budget The total FY2024 CIP budget is $39.3 million which is $7.4 million (16%) less than last year. FY2023 was a record year for CIP with nearly $47 million total funding plus the $67.5 Million Sales Tax Bond and $85 million Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond. The proposed FY2024 CIP budget is closer to the City’s typical total CIP funding level in recent years. However, the General Fund transfer to CIP (first row in the table below) is 6.8% of ongoing revenues which is slightly below the 7% seen in most budget years (last year was a record at 9%). An additional $851,814 would be needed to reach the 7% level for FY2024. Most of the lower total CIP funding is caused by removal of $3.7 million in one-time funds used in FY2023 to replace hand held radio equipment and the shift of $1.8 million from Funding Our Future for parks from CIP (as it was in the FY2023 budget) to personnel costs. The Administration indicates that ongoing funding spent on vehicles this year for those personnel could be added to CIP again next year. The table below details funding sources for CIP by fiscal year. See Attachment 5 for an overview of the major CIP Funding Sources. Other highlights include: $10.3 Million Unrestricted Funds – $10,287,935 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available). This does not include the Funding Our Future source which the Council has restricted to five critical need areas. $1.4 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the smallest amount since FY2017. There are over $20.7 million of impact fees available to spend across the four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See Additional info section for more. It’s worth noting the Council sometimes approves significant amounts of impact fees for capital expenses in midyear budget amendments so CIP is not the only relevant budget opening. $300,000 Decrease for County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding source three years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue line items, this one has experienced significant growth in recent years but is projects to slightly decrease in FY2024. $10.9 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $10,901,526 (44%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However, it should be noted that $4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond for which the Council has not approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY2024 projects if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year Page | 6 Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor The total cost to fully fund the four projects listed below is $2,514,126. Of this amount, $747,000 could come from parks impact fees which is itemized by project below. The Council could fund these projects by adding funding to CIP above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects that are recommended for funding. Projects are listed in district numerical order: Council Member Petro: Project #21 is $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety -$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees -The project could be partially funded in two or three phases: o $565,000 for the trail reconstruction as the first phase o $235,000 for irrigation and tree planting as the second phase o $30,000 for two solar feedback speed limit signs which could be done independently from the other two phases (at any time) and potentially with funding from the temporary traffic calming intervention funding in the Transportation Division’s base budget Council Member Puy: Project #18 requesting $500,000 for Madsen Park Improvements -$300,000 is eligible from park impact fees -CDCIP Board said if additional funding is available, then this project is their next highest priority -Madsen Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Valdemoros: Project #22 requesting $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground -$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees -Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be reimagined with funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond Council Member Dugan: Project #46 requesting $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements -Some elements might be partially eligible for transportation impact fees -The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy but this was not brought to the Council for adoption -A request has been submitted to the Administration for phasing options Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 $ C h an g e % C h an g e Ge ne r al Fund 1 5 ,1 2 6 ,884$ 2 5 ,2 3 1 ,4 3 1$ 2 1 ,1 89 ,4 6 1$ (4 ,0 4 1 ,9 7 0 )$ -1 6 % Fu nd ing Our Futu r e *3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,6 2 6 ,87 5$ (1 ,4 7 3 ,1 2 5 )$ -2 9 % Cla ss C 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 7 % I m p a c t Fe e s**8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 4 ,1 5 9 ,7 5 5$ 2 ,9 6 8,85 0$ (1 ,1 9 0 ,9 0 5 )$ -2 9 % CDBG 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 7 2 2 ,0 0 0$ -$ (7 2 2 ,0 0 0 )$ ONE-TI ME Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o u nts***2 5 2 ,2 7 1$ 1 5 2 ,6 6 0$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sale s Ta x 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 8,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 7 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0$ (3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -4 % Su r p lu s Land Fund 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ -$ -$ ONE-TI ME Sm it h's Naming Rig h t s Re v e nue 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (4 ,0 0 0 )$ -3 % SLC Sp o r ts Co mple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 0 ,5 0 0$ 1 ,9 9 5$ 1 % Me m o r ial Ho use Re nt Re v e nue 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 5 0 ,0 0 0$ (1 8,5 5 4 )$ -2 7 % TOTA L 3 6 ,0 2 7 ,1 3 1$ 4 6 ,7 3 6 ,9 0 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (7 ,4 0 1 ,2 1 9 )$ -1 6 % TOTA L w ith o u t ONE-TI ME 3 5 ,2 5 2 ,86 0$ 4 5 ,86 2 ,2 4 5$ 3 9 ,3 3 5 ,6 86$ (6,5 2 6 ,5 5 9 )$ -1 4 % *I nc lu d e s % to CI P "o ff t h e to p" av aila b le t o a ny pro je c t , a nd fu nding fo r t ra nsit , a nd pub lic rig h t o f w ay infra st ru c ture . A ls o , fu nd ing so urc e is o ng o ing b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h ange t h e u se c a te go rie s in t h e fu ture **Th e re a re fo ur im p a c t fe e ty pe s: fire , p a rks, po lic e a nd st re e ts ***I nc lu de s re c ap t u re d fu nds fro m m u lt ip le funding so u rc e s No t e : Th e re 's a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re duc tio n no t se pa rate d o u t in t h e ta b le ab o v e fo r FY 2 0 2 2 C I P Fu n din g So u rc e s A do pt e d 2 0 2 1-2 2 A do p t e d 2 0 2 2 -2 3 Pro p o se d 2 0 2 3 -2 4 FY 2 0 2 3 t o FY 2 0 2 4 Page | 7 -Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement, and designs of traffic calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street -An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive additional funding -The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with remaining funds from Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study Simplified Funding Log and Project Scores from CDCIP Resident Advisory Board (See Attachment 4 for the simplified funding log) The CDCIP Board scored each CIP application which serves as a general guide to help inform funding decisions but is not meant to be strictly adhered to. The Board recommends that if additional funding were available, then project #18 Madsen Park Improvements be prioritized. The log also includes a social vulnerability index developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) using 16 factors to rank Census Tracts. The next column shows scores from the Sustainability Department where 10 is the highest (best) possible. Then the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails or PNUT Board scores are shown where 1 is the highest (best) possible. The last column on the sight side shows current pavement conditions for public right of way (streets, alleys, curb & gutter, and sidewalks) where applicable. Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years (Attachment 6 – Pending at time of publishing this staff report) The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) states that remaining funds should be considered for recapture from completed projects and unfinished projects that are older than three years unless there has been significant progress. The table in Attachment 6 is the staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP projects. Most of the 128 projects received General Fund dollars or impact fees. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the other sources like Class C, CDBG, impact fees, and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential funding to recapture will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Capital Asset Plan Early Policy Check-in Briefing – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing for an early policy check-in about the guiding priorities and framework for developing the Capital Asset Plan (five-year CIP plan). The Non-departmental budget has a $350,000 transfer to IMS for Capital Asset Planning software to facilitate development and periodic updating of the plan. See Attachment 7 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics, and requests from a briefing in 2019. 2.Livable Streets (Traffic Calming) Program Funding Level – The Council may wish to discuss the funding level and pace of implementing the Livable Streets Program. See Attachment 9 with information from the Transportation Division including first year accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones. The Division anticipates completing six or seven zones (neighborhoods) at the proposed funding level of $1.35 million in FY2024 combined with the $2 million from FY2023 CIP. An additional $9 million would be needed to fully fund the remaining 18 high need zones (red, orange, and yellow on the color-coded map assuming an average cost of $500,000 per zone). 3.Combine Two Separate $150,000 Appropriations for Westside Art – The Council may wish to continue the discussion from the RDA FY2024 budget overview about whether to combine two separate $150,000 appropriations proposed for new art on the Westside. One appropriation is proposed in CIP and the other is proposed in the RDA 9-Line Project Area. 4.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for the maximum amounts a project may receive, which hasn’t been updated since 2004 (see section 11 of Attachment 1). 5.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Page | 8 Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings in recent years that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. 6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic-by-topic email requests to consolidated monthly reports. Council Members could then more quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Definition of a CIP Project As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment 1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from projects that finished under budget or were not pursued. Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 8) Cost estimates will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and August. The current version was last updated in July 2022. Cost estimates for various types of projects are based on actual costs from recent years. The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The three categories of project cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. Inflation and supply chain constraints have continued to impact the City’s capital projects so the costs shown in the current version are likely more expensive now. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate increases. The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer-term trends. Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type This chart was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log since FY2017, and whether the application is come a constituent or internal to a City department. The FY2024 CIP cycle has 59 project requests which is about average over the time shown in the chart. FY2021 had the fewest with 19 project requests only from departments (it was intentionally an “abbreviated CIP cycle” per the Administration at the time). FY2023 had the most with 90 project requests. 10 13 19 14 0 24 41 29 67 37 35 40 19 50 49 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2022 FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY) Constituent Departmental Page | 9 Surplus Land Fund The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $2,374,127 and another $2,195,130 is proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6. If approved, then the total available balance would be $4,569,257. The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property. The funds are one-time because the property can only be sold once. Cost Overrun Account The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $823,081 and another $100,000 is proposed in FY2023 Budget Amendment #6 as a reimbursement to the account. The FY2024 CIP budget includes $247,571 of additional funding. If the two appropriations are approved, then the total available balance would be $1,170,652. The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act on a budget amendment which typically takes a few months. 1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks (New annual report is pending from the Arts Council) The Administration stated the annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal year and planned for the next will be transmitted to the Council in July or August. This timing is after the annual budget is adopted so the amount of funding available in CIP overall allows the 1.5% to be calculated and inform how those funds would be used. Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP funding for art. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to maintenance (as opposed to new artworks). This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces and counting. The collection is expected to continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking The Council approved several million dollars of impact fee projects in the past few years. The table below is current as of April 24, 2023, and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #6 of FY2023. Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $2,728,850 of parks impact fees and $240,000 of transportation impact fees. The total amount of the four impact fee types is $20,730,097. Impact fees must be encumbered within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the intervening six years. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $0 More than two years away - Parks $13,980,808 More than two years away - Police $1,339,030 More than two years away - Transportation $5,410,259 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Clarifying “Complete Streets” and “Livable Streets” Initiatives Page | 10 (See Attachment 9 for a Livable Streets Program update from the Transportation Division including first year accomplishments and maps of the highest need zones) There are two separate pots of funding – one for “complete streets” and another for “Livable Streets” – which are both under the CIP umbrella. The “complete streets” funding is intended to be used to ensure that major street reconstruction projects meet the standards defined in City Code Chapter 14.06, with elements like bike lanes (Complete Streets). The “Livable Streets” funding is intended to be used for neighborhood scale traffic calming projects as defined by the Livable Streets program presented to the Council in October 2021. This is separate from street reconstruction projects. The program ranked all 113 zones citywide across several variables including crash data, community assets, and resident socioeconomic factors. In August 2022, the Council provided policy guidance that a citywide needs-based equity approach should be used to prioritize zones based on the ranking. CIP Tracking Technology Improvements The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. A project dashboard is in development. Once complete, the Administration plans to make the dashboard publicly available. The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017 2. FY2024 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing 3. FY2024 Mayor’s Recommended CIP Budget Book Log 4. FY2024 Simplified CIP Funding Log by CDCIP Board Scores 5. Overview of CIP Major Funding Sources 6. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years 7. Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019 8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (last updated July 2022) 9. Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary and Updated Zone Map ACRONYMS CAP – Capital Asset Plan (a five-year CIP plan) CDBG – Community Development Block Grants CDC – Centers for Disease Control CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board CIP – Capital Improvement Program ESCO – Energy Service Company FTE – Full-time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GO Bond – General Obligation Bond IMS – Information Management Systems Department PSB – Public Safety Building RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017 (Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.) R 17-1 R 17-13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current practices; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds, Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement Program funds and other similar funding sources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software). Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project." 2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May. 3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration : a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital program period; b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one- year capital budget. 4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects that: a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies , establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding . 8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely manner. 9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor , and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above. 10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1) year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which reads as follows: a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still required. b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: 1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of $100,000 or less; ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo. c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees. d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval. e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening. However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting." 12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. 13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account. 14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold. 15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance, changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log. 16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible, capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the General Fund budget. 17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s) should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist. 18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects funding log should identify: a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's funding recommendations, b. The Administration's funding recommendations, c. The project name and a brief summary of the project, d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type, e. The project life expectancy, f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area, g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger project, h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded separately, 1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together, j. Timing for when a project will come on-line, k. Whether the project implements a master plan, 1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or sustainability goals, m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund, n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions, o. Communities served, p. Legal requirements/mandates, q. Whether public health and safety is affected, r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and t. Any partner organizations . Debt Management Policies 1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs. 2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings. 3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds. 4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating implications). 6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance. 7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry . 8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt. 9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule. 10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of emergency. 11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating debt financing options . 12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments. 13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the project. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of October , 2017. ATTEST : HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By 4 = ASL CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____ Salt Lake City App ed As To Form By: ~~~~~~~.P aysen Oldroyd Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Requested Funding: $190,000 Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls) visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues, followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain, retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increased usage in line with its original intent as a public event space. Salt Lake City is a potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and reimagining space within this site will be critical first steps if the City wants to use this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture between Public Lands and Facilities. 190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 190,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide Requested Funding: $900,000 This request will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices to address safety issues. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings -Crosswalks on Main Street are simply inadequate by modern standards; the Transportation Division has developed a phased improvement plan that began with a 2022 resurfacing project after which Main Street was restriped with one travel lane in each direction. Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks; about half will be done in 2023 with funds already allocated. This request is for construction funds for the remaining locations. 2. Glendale Park / 1700 South - Community engagement show an overwhelming desire from neighborhood residents to have a safer and more comfortable way to cross 1700 South, with residents repeatedly requesting a tunnel or bridge to cross this wide roadway carrying heavy truck traffic. This request is for funds to upgrade the existing crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian- activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south. 3. Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers, signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety. 270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ 270,000$ -$ 540,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 1 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 3 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements Requested Funding: $234,000 200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks. The area — between 1700 South and 2100 South — is home to a higher proportion of people with disabilities than any other Census tract in the state of Utah, yet a portion of it is inaccessible to people with disabilities. There is a 300 ft segment of 200 East that does not have sidewalks on the east side of the street between Garfield Ave and Coatsville Ave. Through discussions with City staff and the constituent applicant, we developed a solution that provides a continuous ADA accessible pathway on the west side of 200 East between Garfield Ave and 1700 South. This involves new curb ramps at Downington Ave/200 E and Garfield Ave/200 E), about 50 ft of sidewalk replacement, and pavement markings to formalize the crosswalks. Additionally, a crosswalk upgrades will be added at 200 East 1700 South, where there is a marked crosswalk near a high school, the Salt Lake Community College and the Tim and Brenda Huval daycare center on the north side of 1700 South. Driver cooperation is low at this crosswalk, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) will help to ensure compliance and a safer crossing. 234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 234,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments Requested Funding: $1,500,000 Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks, and trash cans. They also empty the trash cans! If accessibility is limited by bicycle and/or pedestrian connections to bus stops, these funds may be used to close those gaps. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million dollar projects; a portion of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds, providing match, and together creating the full project. In some cases, these funds were combined with other projects to maximize those investments, for example by mobilizing construction crews once for two or more related and co-located projects. This also serves to minimize construction disruption to the community. -$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ -$ 990,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 2 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 5 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide Requested Funding: $6,600,000 This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer intersections, placemaking, and street greening. • 2100 South (700 E to 1300 E) - This corridor in the heart of Sugarhouse has long needed reconstruction and represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make substantial upgrades to its central role in one of Salt Lake City's largest and most walkable business districts. This street currently does a poor job of serving all who use it. This funding would enable the City to complete a meaningful transformation of this critical roadway with complete streets improvements for all modes. • Virginia Street (11th Ave to South Temple) - This neighborhood road provides access between the Avenues and South Temple for people driving, walking, riding, or taking the bus. The road is missing sections of sidewalk on the west side, lacks bike lanes (more bicyclists use Virginia Street than other principal north-south streets in the Avenues), and has aging medians that the neighborhood has long desired to have removed (and replaced with more effective traffic calming). The requested funding would fill the gaps of missing sidewalk, improve bus stops, enhance pedestrian crossings, add uphill bike lane/downhill shared lane, and implement traffic calming. • Citywide corridor designs and restriping, primarily tied to Streets Division surface treatments and/or in preparation for reconstruction. -$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,293,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $750,000 This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation. -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 3 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 7 Livable Streets Implementation Requested Funding: $2,500,000 This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need. 250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 1,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 Neighborhood Byways Requested Funding: $800,000 Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking, bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway. Both of these projects are currently in conceptual design with significant community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant. 440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ 440,000$ -$ 360,000$ -$ -$ -$ 9 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $4,500,000 This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ 2,250,000$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 4 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 10 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion Requested Funding: $507,000 This park (Emery St and 800 S.) currently has a half court - which is used, frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it. Basketball, to an extent, is the glue that holds the youth in our neighborhood together. It creates bonds. Sees no color - just "mad skills"! This park has needed some TLC for a VERY long time. This year, we finally saw some improvements in the form of sprinkler repairs. Our volleyball court received some intense care to pull out weeds, and till the sand. Guess what? The youth and families are now converging for a game or two every other day. "If you build it, they will come," holds true over and over again as we start to see some overdue care on the Westside. Adding the full basketball court, along with the dual pickle ball and tennis court (underway by the Public Lands Dept.) to this Park, will bring it to the light it truly deserves. This project will fund the expansion of the court which includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing, signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting skills over the years). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project - it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long 253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$ 253,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 253,500$ 11 Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan Requested Funding: $200,000 This project will fund the development of a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the 33.5 acres of both Jordan Park and the International Peace Gardens. The CLR will outline site history, elements and features that contribute to the historic and cultural significance of the site, and recommendations to retain and enhance these values. The CLR will inform and be followed by a Master Plan for the site. The master plan will include potential recommendations for how and if Salt Lake City should expand the Peace Gardens and increase amenities and programming at Jordan Park. This funding will include robust community and stakeholder engagement, visioning for both sites, as well as implementation strategies and prioritization. Public Lands has received significant interest from stakeholders, cultural associations and organizations, and individuals to expand the Peace Gardens, which will require formal planning before proceeding with expansion. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 5 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 12 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet Requested Funding: $850,000 In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to replace the existing failing restroom. 202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 648,000$ 13 Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum Requested Funding: $850,000 At the urging and recommendation of Salt Lake City staff, this application comes to rectify a miscalculation by the city in estimating the cost of the 2023 CIP "Three Creeks West – Roadways" project, which calls for reconstructing about two blocks of 1300 South and 1000 West beside the Jordan River. This Council-approved project will install sanitary sewers, storm sewers, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, roadway reconstruction and all necessary infrastructure. None of this infrastructure exists in this residential neighborhood, established in the 1920s to 1950s. The oldest house on the roadway was built in 1925 and mine was built in 1939. Installing sanitary sewers will enable removal of failing septic systems that are leaching harmful E. coli into surface water, causing a health threat. This project is endorsed by the Glendale Community Council and residents of all 25 homes on the roadways. Staff tell me the 2023 city-generated estimate for this project fell short to cover costs, and $850,000 more is needed. The project was approved by the CIP citizen advisory board, Mayor Erin Mendenhall, and ratified in resolution by the City Council on Aug. 16, 2022. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $3,500,000 This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 6 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 15 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail Requested Funding: $1,700,000 Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The Village is very near, but not yet connected to, key resources including frequent transit service on Redwood Road; a new Transit Hub approximately 1/3 mile directly north at Orange Street and 500 South; and the existing 9-Line Trail (from Redwood Road to the University of Utah). A charter school, Wallace Stegner Academy, also west of Redwood Road, is an additional key destination to be served by these trails. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the 9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. This segment was not able to be developed during the initial trail construction due to a lack of easement from the property owner; a portion of the $500,000 request will be used to secure that easement as well as to construct the full width of trail. -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ 16 Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub Requested Funding: $459,000 The Public Lands Department has the opportunity to acquire the Rose Park Golf Course driving range from its Golf Division for the purpose of improving more equitably accessible public open space. This improvement would vastly expand green space in the Rose Park and Westpointe areas. This project would fund planning, community engagement, and conceptual design for the future driving range site as well as the existing Roots Disc Golf Course as one cohesive recreation hub. This hub would be the largest open space along the Jordan River within Salt Lake City. This funding would not include the acquisition costs of the driving range, only planning and conceptual design for that site. In addition, this project would fund design and construction of specific site improvements identified in the planning and engagement process at the Roots Disc Golf Course. This may include irrigation modifications, additional trees, building upgrades, and naturalized landscaping. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 7 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 17 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Requested Funding: $75,000 Restroom safety and vandalism present ongoing problems in city parks, especially the large, heavily used parks. Friends of Fairmont Park and other stakeholders have raised this issue with Parks officials for some time. Friends of Fairmont invited Parks to present ideas about restroom design on January 11, 2022 and dialogue occurred regarding new designs that could reduce vandalism. We have identified a key design flaw with how restrooms in the Parks are configured, and that if addressed, can significantly reduce (but sadly not eliminate) problems. The Fairmont Park Restroom Pilot CIP for 2022-23 proposes a (1) planning study to update planning guidance for parks restroom policy and practice, (2) conceptual design for a new restroom to be tested in Fairmont Park. It is expected that the new design strategy will reduce vandalism and maintenance costs and increase restroom uptime and safety. The intent is to benchmark a proposed new restroom configuration against the current design in other parks, to test the viability of this approach, developing best practice in park restroom management. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 Madsen Park Improvements Requested Funding: $500,000 This project seeks to improve Madsen Park by increasing activation through improving existing structures and adding new amenities in order to encourage more visitation. The surrounding area is planned to increase in population from apartments on and near North Temple. The improvements at the park would improve the quality of life for all area residents. Improvements include installation of new lighting, playground renewal, installation of a fenced dog park, benches, a small pavilion, seating and signage. Note that this park was selected a District Two location to receive funding from the voter-approved Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bond -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 19 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities Requested Funding: $855,000 This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored and the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts on the westside. This project would also complete associated amenities on site as funding is available such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access. Public Lands is funding the design of the courts which will be completed in early 2023. This funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other associated amenities. 438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$ 438,850$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 416,150$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 8 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 20 337 Park Development Requested Funding: $550,000 337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden, but has since been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since been sitting vacant. This potential pocket park needs significant development in order to add public land level of service to District 4. Funding would facilitate public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel. Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as possible. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 550,000$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 9 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements Requested Funding: $840,000 There is a great need for improvements along Rose Park Ln. This project would fund replacement of the failed trail, new and modified irrigation, and two solar feedback speed limit signs. The Urban Forestry division has committed to providing trees and installation at the new sites on Rose Park Lane. The trail work would allow for significantly more trees in this area and would contribute overall to a much more beautiful space. The entire stretch of Rose Park Ln is currently covered in weeds and highly neglected. Part of it was irrigated 4-5 years ago for the WestPointe run off ditch (large grassy area/detention basin at the corner of Rose Park Ln and 1700N), but this irrigation was never extended for the remainder of that stretch of road. This lane is highly visible from I-215 with large volumes of traffic going to the beautiful soccer fields just a few feet up the road. This has increased the traffic and speed of that traffic on Rose Park Ln. Safety is an issue as cars will continue to use highway speeds down that road upward of 60 MPH. I believe that fixing the trail, planting trees with irrigation, and erecting visible solar speed limit signs on Rose Park Ln would greatly improve community morale and safety for the families that walk with their children and pets, and bike and run on this trail. Adding trees and speed limit signs will also help in reducing air pollution, high summer heat and traffic noise. I recommend solar radar feedback speed limit signs to help slow down the traffic - one sign after the 2100N Exit just beyond the RAC entrance of the RAC, and the other sign at 1700N entrance. This area has been highly neglected for the last 17 years and continues to see more and more traffic with less and less help or attention in the way of beatification of a vital and thriving neighborhood -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 Richmond Park Community Playground Requested Funding: $530,000 This project will replace one of the oldest playgrounds in the city located at Richmond Park. Utilizing the existing playground space, this project would create two play areas to cater towards younger and older children. This playground would utilize larger equipment with more features to create more potential for play and a higher level of service. The playground will incorporate accessible design to be friendly and usable by a diversity of users of all abilities. This project also includes removal and replacement of safety surfacing throughout the playground site. The new community playground will provide an inviting and engaging place for the Central City community to play while supporting resident health and wellness. This community currently has the lowest level of park service in our city and will significantly benefit from increased amenities. This playground will further activate the park by adding in a place for children to play while adults utilize the community garden. Public Lands has over 70 playgrounds, and this project would address one of the highest needs in our system. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 10 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 23 Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study Requested Funding: $140,000 In summer 2022, City Council approved the rezone of four Public Lands parcels on Rose Park Lane to Open Space. This project seeks funding to conduct a planning, engagement, and conceptual design process on these four parcels, totaling approximately 3.6 acres, for a new park/open space. This will include evaluating different uses on site and conducting studies on completing the trail connection through the open space. There is currently no sidewalk through these parcels, and there are no other amenitized park spaces that directly service this neighborhood. This project would fund initial studies to better inform a next phase for design and construction of the open space. This project is closely connected to the application "Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements" which would complete landscaping and trail improvements on the trail leading to the open space. This project also builds on Public Land's current work to demolish the abandoned house on the property which is a very high priority for the Westpointe community. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24 Jefferson Park Improvements Requested Funding: $530,000 Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks”. The City and our residents have been discussing ways to improve the park for years. The City notes that our neighborhood is “underserved for parks and open space” and given the move to increase the density of housing in the area, we can only anticipate more stressors. It is time to preserve and improve what we already have. The park currently has a small, aging playground with two benches, a set of temporary soccer nets, and an off leash dog area. We request the following: Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the area’s crime, this is essential. Health improvements: Permanent, attractive garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of garbage (including clothing, needles and human waste), and to encourage responsible dog ownership. Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provide residents a place to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 530,000$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 11 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 25 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation Requested Funding: $414,000 This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation occurring in 2022 and early 2023. The first phase of implementation included these ten parks: Westpointe Park, Sunnyside Park, Pioneer Park, City Creek Park, Poplar Grove Park, Cottonwood Park, Rotary Glen/Donner Trail Park, Jordan Park, Riverside Park, Liberty Park. These parks were initially chosen because they are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations currently. Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands' regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan. While some of these parks are classified as Neighborhood Parks, their size and varying amenities necessitate the need for the addition of multiple signs that are not currently present in the park. 82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 82,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 26 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase Requested Funding: $497,000 1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability. This application is requesting funds to build a traffic circle at the intersection of 1000 West and 500 North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the study/design while supporting this application for construction funds. Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood. -$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 497,000$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 12 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements Requested Funding: $495,111 We are in need of many improvements in the area to make residents, workers and visitors feel safe and welcomed, and for ease of getting to work safely and efficiently. In addition, there is another emotional need that enhances people's sense of enjoyment and quality of life for both residents and visitors. These much needed enhancements include pedestrian safety improvements to include, but not limited to: 1. Pedestrian-scale, decorative lighting on 800 West from North Temple to dead end at approximately 150 South. 2. Potential for raised crosswalks, RRFB(s), or other enhanced pedestrian crossing features 3. ADA/sidewalk improvements as needed. The Secondary goal, which fulfills emotional needs of the community and quality of life, would be to activate park blocks, including but not limited to: 1. Amenities / improvements for southern three park blocks, which includes the two closest to Folsom Trail and the third (southern-most) at the dead end, which in theory has the lowest volume vehicle traffic, (between 800 W. from North Temple to dead end at approximately 150 S.). Park amenities could include: Benches, Bike racks, Interactive kids’ features, Climbable public artwork, Other public artwork (Arts Council has agreed to work with team and carry out City’s public art process for commission if any public artwork funding is awarded). These improvements to 800 West will make it feel welcoming, inclusive, and safe, especially after dark. These improvements will also support activating an arts centered, vibrant Westside neighborhood. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 28 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 Requested Funding: $250,000 This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary. -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 13 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 29 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension Requested Funding: $1,148,771 Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources (both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed, requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East. The call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been steadily increasing over the past five years. In fact, it recently came to the attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there. In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5 to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus. The three newest and most advanced trucks are too long to be housed in the apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. We have implemented the use of an older, shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new, smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4 years. There is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. 1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,148,771$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 Requested Funding: $1,700,000 Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing assets based on their criticality. 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 14 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 31 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program Requested Funding: $750,000 The Streets Division, part of Public Services will be the project sponsor and implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will deteriorate rapidly and soon require expensive reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost. These roads would also then be eligible for chip & slurry surface treatments a few years down the road. The combination of the Mill & Overlay program with chip and slurry surface treatments would put off the need for full depth reconstruction of eligible roads for many years to come, saving the City money and increasing the quality of City roadways. To carry out this pilot program Streets needs two additional pieces of equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine. These machines would also assist in other maintenance the division performs, as currently a cold milling machine is rented for four months each year (when available) at an annual cost of $70,000. -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ 32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 Requested Funding: $150,000 Design and construction of City staff recommendations on the project area’s six local streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street. Continued funding on partially funded CCIP, Sugar House Safe Side Streets, from FY 21/22. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has conducted a series of sessions with residents and worked with a contracted Fehr & Peers consultant team. A recommendations document with a draft traffic calming treatment design has been created and shared with residents. This CCIP request seeks to fill the funding gap between what has been awarded in previous years and what is required to complete the infrastructure recommended for implementation in the plan. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 15 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 33 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens Requested Funding: $325,000 The International Peace Gardens in District 2 receives hundreds of visitors per day but contains much tired and dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by stolen plaques and artwork everywhere remind visitors of theft and vandalism and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and botanic diversity. Specific projects are listed in the budget narrative and will be completed in priority order, if funded. Additionally, if funding is leveraged by other sources, this funding would be used to complete additional projects. The types of projects include: Security/GPS tracking chips for each asset, conservation and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space. 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 325,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 34 Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements Requested Funding: $361,073 Improved public access for intended non-consumptive nature users through 1) the installation of boulder manways at all three entrances, 2) complete removal of dysfunctional Preserve-long split-rail fencing, 3) complete removal of rock-filled gabion baskets at both pond-side access points, and 4) creation of sloped cracked gravel beaches at both pondside access points. Installation of low fencing to newly installed manways to help limit access to the Preserve at its two entrances at 1100 West. Installation of a low gate at its northwest entrance to allow for occasional needed operations and maintenance by authorized vehicles. Design and installation of a trash-rack in front of the wetland pond outlet to facilitate water exchange while still allowing in-and-out migration of Jordan River wildlife, especially fishes. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 16 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 35 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement Requested Funding: $400,000 Upgrade an aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection, with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City. The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads, and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948. -$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ -$ -$ 360,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ 36 Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation / Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation Requested Funding: $500,000 This project will explore different methods of transforming our medians, park strips, and non-active park spaces to reduce the amount of water use in these areas not used for active play. Our park strips, parks, and medians have a lot of grass in them and we would like to have a consultant look at some areas in the City and explore different alternatives to grass or different varieties of grass that will reduce our water consumption. We would then use project funding to be able to change several of these areas and help the City become a leader in transforming these types areas to a better use of water in the City. There are a lot of park strips in the City that are hard to irrigate, so let's try and turn them into something that saves water and is still user friendly. We could also look at areas to be more of a pollinator gardens to benefit the environment while being pleasing to the eye. We would like to research what would be sustaining in our environment while not being a burden on maintenance. It could be mulch, rock, different grasses the sky is the limit. Let us be the innovators and help the City overcome our water woes one park strip at a time. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 17 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 37 Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned Requested Funding: $242,823 Salt Lake City’s greenhouses located in Liberty (LPG) and Jordan (JPG) Parks are showing signs of aging requiring repair and renovation to ensure they continue to support the community’s horticultural, biodiversity, and conservation interests. Part 1 – Structural audits of both facilities are planned to identify the type and extent of repairs needed in order to ensure safe working conditions, compliance with statutory regulations, and enhancing the building’s life cycle by identifying both preventative and corrective actions to secure the properties. Part 2 – Examines to what degree the current structure and any proposed renovations support LPG’s and JPG’s mission statements. Part 2 includes a marketing study to identify a) options to extend mission statements to include innovative programs/activities of interest to the general public and/or that support the development of new collaborative partnerships with other horticultural institutions, and b) identify how to ‘scale up’ select activities/programs (e.g., aid municipalities to promote biodiversity/sustainability) to address conservations interests of a broader set of constituents in order to generate (consultation) self- supporting revenues. Part 3 – Develops a plan, budget, and timetable to conduct a collegiate case competition (in collaboration with the University of Utah’s College of Architecture and Planning) to review/evaluate technical and aesthetic proposals to guide LPG renovations per historical guidelines/updated mission. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 38 First Encampment Park Requested Funding: $125,500 The Park is 26 years old & upgrades & improvements are needed to improve safety & ensure continued usage. Goals include mending and upgrading the sprinkler system and incorporating drip systems to reduce water waste & rock erosion; improving drainage in the dry 'riverbed' to reduce standing water issues; adding motion sensor lighting to improve safety and discourage criminal activity; repairing damaged monuments to improve the perception that the park is valued; replanting water-wise vegetation that has eroded to improve visibility within the park; adding a more visible park sign; adding historical placards with added context; repairing engraved pioneer names damaged by water on the rocks to ensure continued historical value and work with new Park Rangers to share & modernize accessible historical information. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 18 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 39 Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections Requested Funding: $162,500 In October, the Salt Lake City Council approved The Other Side Village (TOSV) pilot project, a tiny home community just west of Redwood Road on Indiana Avenue. Also just west of Redwood Road, the Wallace Stegner Academy (WSA) charter school, Riverbend Sports and Events Complex, and Vincit Amor Event Center are all attracting families and individuals to the evolving, formerly- industrial area. This request for design funding will follow on a Transportation Division study, currently in progress, that is assessing the feasibility, recommended phasing, and cost estimates for a suite of projects on either side of Redwood Road, between 400 S and California Ave. This proposal seeks funds for the design and permitting of three key elements to connect TOSV, WSA, and other destinations to walking, biking, and transit options, and to existing infrastructure such as the 9-Line Trail, a new transit hub opening in early 2023 at Orange Street / 500 S, and sidewalks on Redwood Road. • The design and environmental assessment / permitting of a multi-use trail connection between The Other Side Village development and the new transit hub. • The possible location of one or more GREENbike stations connecting the village, the transit center, and bus stops along Redwood Road. • The design of a signalized crossing of Redwood Road at either Redwood Depot Lane (~950 S) and Redwood Rd or 1040 South and Redwood Road. The final location will be decided in discussion with UDOT. This signal may be a pedestrian and bicycle signal, or a full traffic signal. Future funds will be sought for construction. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance Requested Funding: $200,000 These funds are for hiring contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which SLC does not have the equipment or staff. Examples: enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement, delineators, radar speed feedback signs, pedestrian warning flashers, bike racks, etc. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 41 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding Requested Funding: $4,000,000 This project will complete the last half mile of a 4.6 mile 700 South reconfiguration from 25 Ft wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50 FT wide concrete street with bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage from Redwood Rd to 5600 West. Additional funding is needed to complete the package for multiple reasons: a water main 1,300 feet long is required to be replaced ($650,000); Styrofoam fill was proposed to mitigate settlement over the water main as a cost savings method, however that proposal was rejected; Union Pacific changed the City cost of the rail crossing from $400,000 to $1,200,000; inflation has driven up the cost of construction. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 19 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 42 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade Requested Funding: $336,500 Every day throughout the day many parents, children and volunteers at Rowland Hall, as well as students and families attending Judge Memorial and East High, cross the busy intersection of 800 South 1000 East in conditions that are very dangerous. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to replace the existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at this busy intersection. We suggest moving the RRFBs to the next crosswalk to the west, at Lincoln St 800 South. In addition, the 1000 East crosswalk is in disrepair and we request it be replaced with a colored concrete crosswalk. Drivers of vehicles speed up and down 800 South. The road has two lanes in each direction, eastbound and westbound left turn lanes, and a deteriorated 4-foot median on the intersection's east side. This crosswalk is also at the bottom of a hill that encourages westbound speeding and challenges sightlines from both directions. Currently, there is a tree blocking visibility for the cars driving westbound. There have been many near misses as children cross one side in safety, only to be stranded in the middle of the street as drivers from the other side blow through the intersection unaware that a student has started to cross. Given all of these factors, a more visible way to highlight pedestrians crossing the street, and ensure student and adult safety would be greatly appreciated. We are asking for a HAWK style crosswalk system to better protect children and families, moving the existing RRFBs to the next crosswalk to the west (Lincoln St 800 South), and replacing the deteriorated crosswalk with a colored concrete crosswalk -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 43 Central 9th Streetscape Improvements Requested Funding: $85,000 The Central 9th Community Council is seeking CIP Funds to purchase and install nine commercial trash receptacles to be located on 900 S, between West Temple and 300 W. We are also seeking funding for banner arms to be attached to the street lighting on 900 S between West Temple and 300 W and 200 W between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp for Central 9th branding banners. Also we would like laser cut C9 logos to be attached to benches and planters along public spaces on 900 S between West Temple and 200 W as well as 200 W between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 20 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 44 Sugar House Community Map Project Requested Funding: $93,400 Maps present information about the world in a simple, visual way. They are living documents that inform, direct, and recognize a community’s open spaces, historic buildings, public services, and points of interest. Sugar House is a special community—a true inner-city that balances the needs of residents, visitors, merchants, vendors, families, students, and others unlike any other region in Salt Lake City. Strategically placed maps throughout Sugar House would inform and direct pedestrians and cyclists, identify key locations in the community, provide specific branding for Sugar House, and showcase pride for the sweetest neighborhood in Utah. The Sugar House Community Map Project will install eight (8) outdoor maps in the community. The maps will detail assets, historic landmarks, public works, open spaces, places of interest, and walking/biking paths. In addition, each map will include a QR code to connect with the Sugar House Business Alliance. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 45 Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades Requested Funding: $2,000,000 Plaza 349 is critical to the day to day operations of the city by hosting several key departments including: Human Resources (HR), Engineering, Information Management Services (IMS), Transportation, and Building Inspection divisions. The city has commissioned a space planning and vulnerability study which identified key elements to be updated including life safety, access controls, and security. Facilities department has also identified key assets, including HVAC system and parking structure, that require updating to ensure operation. This CIP application is for the first phase of the project and will include upgrading life safety, access controls, security, HVAC design, and key HVAC asset upgrades. The estimated cost of the first phase is $2 million. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 46 Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive Requested Funding: $494,126 Building safer intersections for pedestrians and cyclists at major Foothill Drive intersections. In 2017 the Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy was completed with community input and professional planners. Since then little has been done to address the safety issues and solutions suggested in the plan. Residents and users of this corridor are seeking funds to implement changes along the west side at intersections between Bryan Avenuye and 2600 East.The most important intersection is 2500 East and Blaine Avenue near the Beacon Heights Elementary School. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 21 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 47 Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) Requested Funding: $100,000 4th (N) & 4th (W) is a critical piece of the Capitol Hill-Marmalade neighborhood infrastructure. A redesign of the intersection and the evolving 400 N and 400 W corridors has the potential to connect residents and visitors with the rich social infrastructure of the neighborhood. The proposed study is intended to create and improve community gathering places and develop safe, efficient, green, and pleasing neighborhood-wide connections for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and vehicle drivers. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 48 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches Requested Funding: $533,165 Install a new medium sized pavilion for shade and provide a gathering place for families, friends and neighbors. It will be located near the sports fields and north of the parking area, and would be large enough for six picnic tables and provide space for several groups to gather in the shade. Seating: The views from 11th Avenue Park are outstanding, however, there are few places to sit. Seating would be added at the top of the two slopes and adjacent to looped path. Backless benches will allow for viewing either the sports fields, the tennis or the valley below. Landscape enhancements: Increase the number of shade trees in the area near the playground, pavilion, and sports fields. Increased shade will offer refuge for spectators and families with small children. It is also critical to have trees of different age classes to create a healthy urban forest. Concrete Pad: With destination level recreation amenities there is a need to provide restrooms during the peak-use seasons. Seasonal demand can be met with portable units. A concrete pad near the entrance would make the park more usable for all who use the park. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 49 New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails Requested Funding: $262,000 Two proposed crosswalks across 500 E along with new sidewalks connecting to the Liberty Park sidewalk loop. One crosswalk would connect Edith Ave to Liberty Park, and one would connect Williams Ave to Liberty Park. These new crosswalks would benefit the local community by a) increasing pedestrian access to Salt Lake City’s flagship park, b) reducing speed on 500 E by adding visual friction to the road, and c) improving pedestrian safety by allowing people to avoid crossing at busy intersections. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 22 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 50 Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements Requested Funding: $450,000 The intersection at Sunnyside/Arapeen represents a significant impediment to traffic entering the Research Park area and creates traffic congestion that impacts the neighborhood adjacent to Sunnyside Avenue and to Foothill Drive. This volume of left-turning traffic would justify adding a new left-turn lane. Additionally, the 9-Line Trail (Sunnyside Trail) is on the north side of the roadway, and vehicles that make a westbound to northbound left-turn conflict with trail users in an unsafe manner. This project seeks to address these issues through the use of a technology called a "Flex Lane". This relatively new signal technology would allow one of the westbound through lanes to be converted to a shared left-through lane during this morning rush hour, resulting in less congestion and less frustration for residents in the area. In this way, we can use technology to avoid widening the roadway for a dual left and maximize the facility we already have. This technology has recently been employed by UDOT at the intersection of South Temple / State Street for people making a southbound left turn and has resulted in improved conditions in that area. The added benefit of this change would be that we could modify the signal phasing so that when the trail through traffic has a green light, no left turns are permitted. When the left turning traffic has a green arrow, trail users would be stopped. We are also planning some additional bike infrastructure at the intersection. In order to complete this project, it would be necessary to completely rebuild the signal as well as the pavement in the intersection, which is in a failed condition. The project is also planned to include several complete street enhancements to the crosswalks and bike lanes at the intersection. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 51 Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration Requested Funding: $500,000 The Wasatch Hollow Community Council (WHCC) has been collaborating with SLC Public Lands regarding critical improvements to Wasatch Hollow Park. As a response to growing concerns about safety, degradation of the park, and non- compliance with posted off-leash dog guidelines, SLC Public Lands conducted a survey in August of residents. The survey sought input on off-leash dog use and other activities at the park, with the goal of serving a diverse and inclusive community of park users. The WHCC is considering the survey results and other community inputs, and intends to submit recommendations to the City. This project would fund a planning and engagement process at Wasatch Hollow park to identify capital improvements that are well supported by the surrounding community and address existing challenges at the park, specifically related to off- leash dogs and activation. The resulting plan is expected to include recommendations for better separation of the off-leash dog area and the creation of other active and passive use areas where dogs are not allowed to be off-leash, new landscaping and restoration of the field. Remaining funding would then be used for design and construction of plan recommendations. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 23 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 52 Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit Requested Funding: $470,703 Purchase a small portion of private property at approximately 400 West Hansen Ave to create a second (west) access point for Hansen Ave. Initial contact with the property owner indicates that they would be amenable to having the conversation about selling this property. Would include upgrading the property to City standards for a public road. This would convert this current street from a dead end street to one with two access points. There would be many benefits both public and private for this change. As detailed later in this application in more detail. A brief overview is as follows: Currently Hansen Ave (1650 South 300 West) enters and exists about 120 feet from a very busy intersection - 1700 South/300 West. This creates a lot of congestion along with several other problems. Emergency vehicle (Fire trucks/ambulances) access would be significantly improved. City Maintenance (snowplowing) would be significantly improved. Garbage collection would be significantly improved. Freight and package delivery for the existing businesses and the soon to be 175 new residents would significantly improved. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53 Nevada Street Reconstruction Requested Funding: $479,000 Rebuild Nevada St running from Redondo Ave north to Garfield. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 54 Sunnyside Pickleball Courts Requested Funding: $500,000 Idea 1 - Sunnyside 4/6 Pickleball courts at Sunnyside Park on 800 South. Like to incorporate the best elements of all the pickle courts that I have visited in the SLC area. Ideal court location would be just south of the existing pavilion near the parking lot. This an older affluent area that would benefit from the following elements: Tall perimeter fencing to retain the ball within the courts, short fencing separating the internal courts, Sitting or bench area, covered, Night Lights, Flagging above to shade from sun, Paddle Rack system (like Fairnont court), Placard/signage that describes court rules, Court location will not infringe on the 3 existing large fields on the west side of the park used for football and lacrosse, nor the baseball fields on the north side, New Courts in this location will require: Removal of the vollyeball standards, never used, Removal or replanting of trees... Planting should be planted to strategically create shade for waiting players -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 55 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Requested Funding: $351,000 Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 24 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 56 Salt Lake City Pétanque Requested Funding: $500,000 I was National champion in a sport called petanque in 2019. Our national organization wanted us to put out bids. So I did and they got rejected as we don't have a facility to hold national tournaments. We are a growing sport and even had a medal winner on the last world games in Atlanta. What we ask for is a venue so we can practice. That way we can get national tournaments to Salt lake City. In almost every park, we see bocce courts but I never seen any bocce players. We are starting to grow as a sport and would love to have our own location. This project is proposing the addition of 16 Petanque courts, along with shade structures and seating at Rosewood Park. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements Requested Funding: $210,000 Ensign Nature Park attracts thousands of visitors at all hours of day and night. However, the park was not designed to handle the volume of traffic it receives, and it shows; the park lacks adequate facilities for visitors (no water or bathrooms), has heavily eroded trails and is not designed to manage the visitor volume. The increase in popularity of the park in recent years has come at considerable cost to the residents in the area - traffic, noise, littering and crime. Most of this adverse impact to the community is at night. The goal of this project is to reduce the impact to the community and be a first step towards enabling the park to be improved over the long-term. Before any other improvements can be sustainably made to the park, we need to limit late night access to the park, for the following reasons: 1) The impact on the community is severe - the late night crowd is loud - drinking, playing loud music, driving loudly, etc at all hours of the day -- it is common for significant numbers of people to be there even at 3am. They frequently leave beer bottles, fast food containers and other trash on neighboring lawns. 2) Public safety - there have been dangerous fires caused by night time visitors to the park at least twice, and firearms have been discharged at least twice in the last 2 years in the area by nighttime visitors. I propose we address this by building a fence with a full-height turn-locking turnstile and ADA gate at the park entrance, so the park can be locked between hours that the city and community agree is reasonable. Many residents in the area are willing to be volunteers to help with unlocking and locking the gate at night, and generally be stewards of the park. Improved lighting and landscaping in this area will further deter after-hours activity. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 58 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion Requested Funding: $502,500 Expand 11th Avenue Park pickleball courts by 4 more pickleball courts (6 current dedicated courts to a total of 10 dedicated courts), with fencing. This proposal also includes creating lines on the 2 tennis courts closest to the pickleball courts to be used by pickleball players if all pickleball courts are in use. This project also includes new signage: number the courts; queuing expectations and paddle holders; court rules. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 25 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Class C (gas tax) Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Council Funding Allocations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources Parks Impact Fees #Project Description Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations General Fund Funding Our Future Transportation Dedicated Sources 59 Westside Art Project Requested Funding: $150,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. Could be combined with or separate from the $150,000 for new art in the 9-Line RDA Project Area which was approved as part of the FY2024 annual budget. -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60 Maintenance of Vacant City-owned Property Requested Funding: $500,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. $200,000 is separately approved with the annual budget for security and utilities at vacant City-0wned properties. The Council approved $700,000 last fiscal year of which $598,698 remains available. The Administration identified five projects with a total cost of $550,000 to use the FY2023 funding. Projects have not yet been identified for the $500,000 in new funding for FY2024 (would not lapse to Fund Balance). The five projects using the FY2023 funds are: - $100,000 at the Former Public Safety Building (PSB) - $200,000 for a Development Strategy and Spacing Needs Study - $100,000+ additional Funding for Major Renovations to the Annex building Leased by Odyssey House - $100,000 for Maintenance of City-owned Buildings Leased to Third Parties - $50,0000 for Pre-development Work at the Fleet Block and former Public Safety Building (PSB) 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 61 Urban Trails Maintenance Requested Funding: $200,000 Not presented to CDCIP Board. Proposed as a new item that would be base funding ongoing annually. These funds will be used for repaving, crack and seal repair, bridge re-decking, bridge replacements, trail shoulder surfacing, snow removal, debris removal on urban paved trails. Project locations include the Jordan River Parkway, 9Line Trail, Folsom Trail. Short description: These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ AVAILABLE FUNDING BY SOURCE 8,484,921$ 3,240,000$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ 9,099,610$ 3,884,126$ 7,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 240,000$ 2,728,850$ AVAILABLE FUNDING LESS TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 614,689$ 644,126$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTALS Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log Last Updated July 10, 2023 Page 26 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS Page: FY 2023-24 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1 FY 2023-24 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5 DEBT SERVICE CIP DEBT SERVICE CIP 19 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES 22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 27 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 28 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 29 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 30 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 31 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 32 Livable Streets Implementation 33 Neighborhood Byways 34 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 35 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 36 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 37 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 38 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 39 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 40 337 Park Development 41 Jefferson Park Improvements 42 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 43 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 44 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 45 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 46 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 47 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 48 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 49 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 50 Westside Art 51 Cost Overrun 52 Percent for Art 53 ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS CUP Crossover Piping 58 Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design)59 Table of Contents Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations 60 Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction)61 Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)62 Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment 63 UPS Pump Station Replacement 64 Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction 65 SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I 66 TVY Water & Sewer Improvements 67 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 68 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design)69 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction)70 AOC Backup Generator 71 Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway 72 NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor 73 NWS Replacement Controls 74 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS Tee Box Leveling 76 Pump Replacement 77 Maintenance Equipment 78 Parking Lot Resurfacing 79 Property Fencing Project 80 New Construction Projects 81 Irrigation Improvements 82 Cart Path Improvements 83 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Water Main Replacements 86 Treatment Plant Improvements 87 Deep Pump Wells 88 Meter Change-Out Program 89 Water Service Connections 90 Storage Reservoirs 91 Pumping Plants & Pump Houses 92 Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 93 Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)94 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)95 Treatment Plants 96 Collection Lines 97 Lift Stations 98 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)99 Storm Drain Lines 100 Riparian Corridor Improvements 101 Landscaping 102 Table of Contents Storm Water Lift Stations 103 Detention Basins 104 Street Lighting Projects 105 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS City Creek Daylighting 108 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank CIP Summary Documents This page intentionally left blank CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Introduction and Overview Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the annual infrastructure improvements and budgets schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget. The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development & Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects before allocating funding and adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the recommended FY2023-24 CIP Budget are included in this book. In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into the decision-making process. Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or operations expenses, where the departments have included projections of any increases to future operating costs. The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready projects. The Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program. Because the proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the City analyzes the effect that issuance of additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio. Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify the expectations of the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance needs. Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include: –A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches. –A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or more, with few exceptions. –Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and minimize maintenance and replacement costs. –Priorities are given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in the preservation of the community’s prior investment. –The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an existing balance remains on a completed project. –Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding). Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 1 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Allocations Salt Lake City’s FY2023-24 adopted CIP budget appropriates $545,012,942 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C” Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private funds. The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the construction of two fire stations is funded through CIP. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds are funded through the City’s Class C Road fund. Funds to pay debt service, equaling $11,482,326, are included in the adopted annual budget. Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s capital improvement projects. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds funded the reconstruction of Class C roads throughout the City. A total of $10,274,000 was recommended for Transportation projects. Of this amount, the budget appropriates $1,194,000 of General Funds, $240,000 of Impact Fee funds, $2,090,000 of Funding our Future funds, and $6,750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Programs funded include Safer Crossings, Sidewalk Improvements, Frequent Transit Routes, Complete Streets, Livable Streets, Neighborhood Byways, Urban Trails, Traffic Circle Construction, and Traffic Signal Replacement. The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total appropriation of $4,221,000 from the General Fund and Parks Impact Fee funds. Projects funded include Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning, Park Development and Improvements, Bilingual Signage Installation, and Park Restoration and Conservation. Public Services capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of $10,348,771. Of this amount, the budget appropriates $4,598,771 from the General Fund, $3,500,000 of Class C funding, $1,000,000 of Funding our Future funds, $750,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding, and $500,000 of CIP funding. Programs funded include Public Way Concrete, Complete Streets Reconstruction and Overlay, Alleyway Improvements, Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot, and the Facilities Asset Renewal Plan. An apparatus bay extension project was also funded for Fire Station #1. A total of $150,000 was also recommended for a Westside Art Project from Funding our Future funds. Capital Projects The CIP pages include details for each recommended project for the FY2023-24 Budget. These pages provide a breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital projects in the FY2023-24 budget is $24,993,771. Enterprise Fund Projects The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf – are by nature, very capital intensive. The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality. Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use the remaining funds in the ARPA Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 2 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations. The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2024, the department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects to be designed in one year and constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. RDA Funds – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific project costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City Creek daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert underground up to the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This $50,000 funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 3 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2023-24. Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects. The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing at the Mountain Dell and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment. Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 4 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 De b t S e r v i c e Debt Service Projects Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond $ 362,950 $ 362,950 Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 747,025 $ 747,025 Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 2,003,973 $ 2,003,973 Sales Tax Series 2019A Bond $ 358,575 $ 358,575 Sales Tax Series 2022B Bond $ 1,999,625 $ 1,999,625 Sales Tax Series 2022C Bond $ 3,088,875 $ 3,088,875 B & C Roads Series 2014 $ 979,503 $ 979,503 ESCO Debt Service to Bond $ 761,000 $ 761,000 Fire Station #3 $ 679,400 $ 679,400 Fire Station #14 $ 501,400 $ 501,400 Debt Service Projects Total $ 10,301,526 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 1,180,800 $ 11,482,326 On g o i n g Ongoing Projects Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Ongoing Projects Total $ 1,200,000 $ — $ — $ — $ 200,000 $ — $ 1,400,000 Ot h e r O n g o i n g Other Ongoing Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES $ 700,000 $ 700,000 Public Services- Smiths Ballfield $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $ 150,500 $ 150,500 Public Services - Memorial House $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Other Ongoing $ 700,000 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 350,500 $ 1,050,500 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 5 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ne w C I P New/Maintenance Projects Total Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning $ 190,000 $ 190,000 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide $ 270,000 $ 90,000 $ 540,000 $ 900,000 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements $ 234,000 $ 234,000 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments $ 990,000 $ 110,000 $ 1,100,000 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide $ 3,293,000 $ 3,293,000 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Livable Streets Implementation $ 250,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,350,000 Neighborhood Byways $ 440,000 $ 360,000 $ 800,000 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 4,500,000 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion $ 253,500 $ 253,500 $ 507,000 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet $ 202,000 $ 648,000 $ 850,000 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities $ 438,850 $ 416,150 $ 855,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 6 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ne w C I P ( C o n t i n u e d ) 337 Park Development $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Jefferson Park Improvements $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation $ 82,800 $ 331,200 $ 414,000 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase $ 497,000 $ 497,000 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension $ 648,771 $ 500,000 $ 1,148,771 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens $ 325,000 $ 325,000 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement $ 40,000 $ 360,000 $ 400,000 Westside Art $ 150,000 $ 150,000 New Projects Total $ 7,284,921 $ 3,240,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,500,000 $ 500,000 $ 24,993,771 Cost Overrun $ 22,214 $ 225,357 $ 247,571 Percent for Art $ 161,518 $ 161,518 Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects $ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 2,031,300 $ 39,335,686 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 7 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ai r p o r t Airport CIP Projects CUP Crossover Piping $ 505,000 $ 505,000 Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design) $ 405,000 $ 405,000 Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations $ 967,000 $ 967,000 Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction) $ 9,400,000 $ 9,400,000 Taxiway U & V Proper (Design)$ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment $ 78,651,000 $ 78,651,000 UPS Pump Station Replacement $ 1,483,000 $ 1,483,000 Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction $ 1,613,000 $ 1,613,000 SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I $ 2,721,000 $ 2,721,000 TVY Water & Sewer Improvements $ 9,046,000 $ 9,046,000 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 $ 1,068,000 $ 1,068,000 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design) $ 1,559,000 $ 1,559,000 S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction) $ 60,808,000 $ 60,808,000 AOC Backup Generator $ 311,000 $ 311,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 8 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Ai r p o r t ( C o n t i n u e d ) Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway $ 1,044,000 $ 1,044,000 NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor $ 1,063,000 $ 1,063,000 NWS Replacement Controls $ 624,000 $ 624,000 Total Airport CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 175,993,000 $ 175,993,000 Go l f Golf CIP Projects Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Pump Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Maintenance Equipment $ 424,263 $ 424,263 Parking Lot Resurfacing $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Property Fencing Project $ 55,220 $ 55,220 New Construction Projects $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 Irrigation Improvements $ 4,400,000 $ 4,400,000 Cart Path Improvements $ 525,000 $ 525,000 Total Golf CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 7,034,483 $ 7,034,483 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 9 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Pu b l i c U t i l i t i e s Public Utilities CIP Projects Water Main Replacements $ 14,620,000 $ 14,620,000 Treatment Plant Improvements $ 38,340,000 $ 38,340,000 Deep Pump Wells $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Meter Change-Out Program $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Water Service Connections $ 3,450,000 $ 3,450,000 Storage Reservoirs $ 6,690,000 $ 6,690,000 Pumping Plants & Pump Houses $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 4,200,000 $ 4,200,000 Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 2,300,000 $ 2,300,000 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility) $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Treatment Plants $ 212,259,773 $ 212,259,773 Collection Lines $ 23,955,000 $ 23,955,000 Lift Stations $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility) $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Storm Drain Lines $ 6,230,000 $ 6,230,000 Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Landscaping $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Storm Water Lift Stations $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Detention Basins $ 365,000 $ 365,000 Street Lighting Projects $ 2,240,000 $ 2,240,000 Total Public Utilities CIP Projects $—$—$—$—$—$322,599,773 $322,599,773 RD A Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects City Creek Daylighting $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total RDA CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 10 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Su s t a i n a b i l i t y Sustainability CIP Projects No Projects $ — Total Sustainability CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP $ 505,677,256 $ 505,677,256 GRAND TOTAL $ 19,508,661 $ 3,626,875 $ 3,500,000 $ 2,968,850 $ 7,700,000 $ 507,708,556 $ 545,012,942 Salt Lake City General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 11 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Salt Lake City Impact Fee Summary Fiscal Year 2024 PROJECT Street Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees TOTAL Impact Fee Projects Im p a c t F e e s Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide $ 90,000 $ — $ 90,000 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments $ 110,000 $ — $ 110,000 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion $ — $ 253,500 $ 253,500 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet $ — $ 648,000 $ 648,000 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities $ — $ 416,150 $ 416,150 337 Park Development $ — $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Jefferson Park Improvements $ — $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation $ — $ 331,200 $ 331,200 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement $ 40,000 $ — $ 40,000 Total Impact Fee by Type $ 240,000 $ 2,728,850 $ 2,968,850 Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 12 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects Fiscal Year 2024 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s Public Lands Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 1060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 200,000 $ — $ 200,000 Constituent Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum 948 W 1300 South to 1106 W 1300 South; and 1225 S 1000 West to 948 W 1300 South, SLC UT 84104 $ 850,000 $ — $ 850,000 Public Lands Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub (Other Funds - $225,000 Parks Impact Fees) Roots Disc Golf Course - 1250 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116Rose Park Golf Course Driving Range - 1386 North Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 $ 270,000 $ 225,000 $ 495,000 Constituent Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design Citywide $ 75,000 $ — $ 75,000 Constituent Madsen Park Improvements (Other Funds - $300,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1000 W and South Temple St, Salt Lake City, 84116 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 500,000 Constituent Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $294,000 Parks Impact Fees) 2100 N Exit off I-215 to Rose Park Ln and 1700 N intersection, Salt Lake City UT 84116 $ 546,000 $ 294,000 $ 840,000 Public Lands Richmond Park Community Playground (Other Funds - $212,000 Parks Impact Fees) 444 E 600 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 $ 318,000 $ 212,000 $ 530,000 Public Lands Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study 1954 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161944 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161932 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 841161902 N Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 $ 140,000 $ — $ 140,000 Constituent North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 100 South 800 West SLC, Utah 84104 $ 495,111 $ — $ 495,111 Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 The local, neighborhood streets within the area bounded by 900 East on the west, 1100 East on the east, 2100 South on the south, and Garfield Avenue on the north. $ 150,000 $ — $ 150,000 Constituent Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 950 S 1100 W, SLC, Utah, 84104 $ 361,073 $ — $ 361,073 Public Lands Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation Citywide $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000 Constituent Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned 600 E 1300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 841051060 S 900 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 242,823 $ — $ 242,823 Constituent First Encampment Park 1704 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 125,500 $ — $ 125,500 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 13 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Constituent Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections The approximate mid-point of the proposed trail between the Other Side Village and the new transit hub at 500 S and Orange Street. Proposed Redwood Road signalized crossing: 1040 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 162,500 $ — $ 162,500 Transportation Multimodal Capital Maintenance (Other Funds - $200,000 FOF Other)Citywide $ — $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Engineering 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 700 South Street from 4600 West to 5000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 4,000,000 $ — $ 4,000,000 Constituent 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 800 South 1000 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 $ 336,500 $ — $ 336,500 Constituent Central 9th Streetscape Improvements 200 West between 800 S and the 900 S freeway off-ramp and 900 South between West Temple and 200 W in Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 $ 85,000 $ — $ 85,000 Constituent Sugar House Community Map Project Multiple locations throughout the Sugar House area $ 93,400 $ — $ 93,400 Facilities Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 349 S 200 E, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 $ 2,000,000 $ — $ 2,000,000 Constituent Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 and1. Blaine Avenue and 2500 East2. 2600 East3. Bryan Avenue4. Westminster Avenue5. Possible modifications at Laurelhurst $ 494,126 $ — $ 494,126 Constituent Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) 400 N 400 W Intersection and Corridors, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 100,000 $ — $ 100,000 Public Lands 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches (Other Funds - $533,165 Parks Impact Fees) 581 Terrace Hills Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ — $ 533,165 $ 533,165 Constituent New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails (Other Funds - $13,000 Street Impact Fees, $131,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1216 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105978 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, 84105(Southeast and southwest corners of Edith Ave and Williams Ave @ 500 East) $ 118,000 $ 144,000 $ 262,000 Transportation Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements (Other Funds - $45,000 Street Impact Fees, $405,000 Qcent Tax) 2240 East Sunnyside Ave., Salt Lake City UT 84108 $ — $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Constituent Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration 1631 E 1700 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 500,000 $ — $ 500,000 Constituent Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 400 West Hansen Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 $ 470,703 $ — $ 470,703 Constituent Nevada Street Reconstruction Nevada Street from Redondo North to Garfield, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108 $ 479,000 $ — $ 479,000 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 14 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Un f u n d e d P r o j e c t s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Constituent Sunnyside Pickleball Courts (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees) 1800 E. Sunnyside Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Constituent 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 1200 E Zenith Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut 84106 $ 351,000 $ — $ 351,000 Constituent Salt Lake City Pétanque (Other Funds - $500,000 Parks Impact Fees) Rosewood Park, 1400 N 1200 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 $ — $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Constituent Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 163 E Ensign Vista Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 210,000 $ — $ 210,000 Constituent 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion (Other Funds - $502,500 Parks Impact Fees) 584 Terrace Hills Drive, Salt Lake City UT 84103 $ — $ 502,500 $ 502,500 Total Unfunded CIP Projects $ 13,873,736 $ 3,860,665 $ 17,734,401 Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Other Funds Total Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents 15 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Debit Service Capital Improvement Program This page intentionally left blank Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $362,950 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2013 October 1, 2023 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. A portion of the Series 2013B Bonds were refunded with the series 2021 Bonds. As of June 30, 2023, $355,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due on October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2023. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $747,025 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds September 2014 October 1, 2034 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property, and roads. The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2023, $7,460,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2034. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $2,003,973 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2016 October 1, 2028 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City. Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. As of June 30, 2023, $13,880,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2028. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $358,575 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 April 1, 2027 General Fund Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 19 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown. The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. As of June 30, 2023, $1,270,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April 1, 2027. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $1,999,625.00 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2042 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022C 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $3,088,875 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2032 General Fund Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022B&C, were issued in November 2022 to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving capital improvement projects, including: City Cemetery irrigation and road repairs and reconstruction; Pioneer Park; 600 North Corridor; new radio towers for City communication; an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency back-up generators; Westside railroad quiet zones; Warm Spring Plunge structure stabilization; Smith's Ballpark; urban wood re- utilization equipment and storage additions; and Fisher Mansion stabilization; and various other capital improvement program projects. The Series 2022B bonds were issued with a par amount of $40,015,000. As of June 30, 2023, $40,015,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2042. The Series 2022C bonds were issued with a par amount of $24,240,000. As of June 30, 2023, $24,240,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2032. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $979,503 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds August 2014 April 1, 2024 Class C The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East. The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2023, $960,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2024. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 20 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ESCO Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $93,500 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division. ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County $150,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment. ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $517,000 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $501,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 April 15, 2037 General Fund The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2023, $5,220,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15, 2037. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $679,400 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 April 15, 2038 General Fund The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project. The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2023, $6,950,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15, 2038. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 21 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES Crime Lab Rental Payments 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $600,000 General Fund Yearly rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab. Facilities Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $350,000 General Fund The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock. Trail Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $200,000 ¼ Cent Tax These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and so they can be used year-round. Public Lands Maintenance 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $250,000 General Fund The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock. Percent for Art 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $161,518 Funding our Future To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures, and other works of art. (1.5% of CIP) Cost Overrun 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $22,214$225,357 General Fund & Funding Our Future Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 22 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Smith Ballfield Naming Rights 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $150,000 Other -Donations Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 33 yrs. old. CIP Memorial House 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $50,000 Other - Rental A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation. Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use of the funding is to be determined. Real Estate Services – Surplus Land 2024 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $700,000 General Fund Salt Lake City Corporation holds several properties in its real estate inventory that are not used for city functions but that are either vacant or are leased to third parties. This fund is for the maintenance, security, and improvement of these properties. Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B 2024 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source Sales Tax Revenue Bonds October 2019 April 1, 2038 RDA Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it. The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. As of June 30, 2023, $56,790,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2038. Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP 23 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank General Fund Capital Projects This page intentionally left blank Project Title:Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning Project Address:200 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Project Description: Many complex structural and drainage issues at Library Plaza are causing known settling and damage to critical materials (e.g., pavers, railings and footings, walls) visible on the surface. This project will include an investigation into these issues, followed by planning and design to complete the necessary changes. Specific plaza elements that will be investigated include the wedge wall near 200 East, fountain, retaining walls and pavers, and overall stability throughout the plaza. The project will also include a planning process to identify solutions and designs for activating the plaza. These will mitigate currently unknown and known barriers (including direct sunlight and little shade or protection from the elements) to increase usage in line with its original intent as a public event space. Salt Lake City is a potential candidate for the 2030 Olympics and structural repairs, retrofitting, and reimagining space within this site and adjacent properties will be critical first steps if the City wants to use this site to host events and accommodate large crowds. If funded, this request would lay the groundwork for a funding application for construction within the next few years. Once construction is funded, this project will be a joint venture between Public Lands and Facilities. Proposal ID:423313 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: Planning Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $190,000 $190,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 27 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide Project Address: Main St Crossings (900 South to 2100 South): This second set of crossings is likely to include: Layton Ave, Van Buren/Bryan Ave, Cleveland / Merrimac Ave, Paxton / Kelsey Ave, Fayette, OC Tanner, Grove Ave.Glendale Park Crossing: 1300 West 1700 SouthCitywide Project Description: This project will fund two key projects as well as providing ongoing funding to a citywide program that installs warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control devices to address safety issues. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossings - Ten crossing locations need upgraded crosswalks; about half will be done with funds already allocated in FY23. This request is for construction funds for the remaining locations. Anticipated construction is 2024. 2. Glendale Park / 1700 South - This request is for funds to upgrade the existing crosswalk at 1300 W 1700 S from flashing yellow beacons (RRFBs) to a pedestrian-activated signal (HAWK, Toucan, or half-signal), to fully stop traffic with a red light between the residential Glendale neighborhoods to the north and the new Glendale Regional Park (Phase 1 - 2024) to the south. 3. Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of traffic control devices such as signals, flashers, signs, or markings to improve pedestrian safety. Wide crosswalks like this one on Main Street will receive pedestrian refuge islands. Proposal ID:424230 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $270,000 $270,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $90,000 $90,000 1/4 Cent Tax $540,000 $540,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 28 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements Project Address: Route: 200 East from 1700 South to Westminster AveKey intersection: 200 East Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Project Description: 200 East ADA and sidewalk improvements. This project seeks to bring a section of sidewalks near senior housing into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It also seeks to improve walkability in a low-income neighborhood by fixing a gap in continuous sidewalks. Potential layout for new curb ramp and sidewalk at 200 East and Downington Ave. Proposal ID:417914 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $234,000 $234,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 29 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funds will construct bus stops along frequent transit routes that reflect the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. Examples include the 200 (State Street), 209 (900 East) and 217 (Redwood Road). Improvements ensure that stops are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient. This is a partnership program with UTA, with investment by the City made to complement (rather than supplant) UTA's plans for bus stop construction as articulated in their Bus Stop Master Plan, and City investments generate UTA investments. Salt Lake City constructs the concrete pad, and UTA provides the shelters, benches, bike racks, and trash cans. If bicyclist/pedestrian connections to bus stops are problematic or don’t exist, these funds may be used to address those issues. Funds may also provide match to $5.59 million in federal grants received so far for transit hubs (especially 200 S East Downtown Hub, Westside North Temple Hub). The transit hubs are multi-million-dollar projects; a portion of these funds will be used to provide the required local match. These projects are also partnership projects with UTA (and other potential partners, such as the University of Utah and real estate developers), with both agencies seeking funds, providing match, and together creating the full project. Bus shelters, trash cans, and bike racks are all part of Salt Lake’s transit improvements along Frequent Transit Network routes. Proposal ID:424222 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $110,000 $110,000 FOF Transit $990,000 $990,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 30 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide Project Address: 1000 East 2100 South, Salt Lake City, UT, 84106, 200 North Virginia Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84103, Citywide Project Description: This program funding request provides supplemental funds to street projects that have been found, including through input from the community, to need additional complete street elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bikeways, safer intersections, placemaking, and street greening. This year's request focuses on three aspects: two critical streets, both tied to Streets Bond Funding in the 2024 construction season, and third, an allocation for citywide restriping and corridor designs, primarily in conjunction with planned maintenance. For these streets to be reconstructed and/or restriped to meet both City Ordinance and community expectations, these additional funds are needed. Rendering of updated design on 2100 South Proposal ID:424210 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $3,293,000 $3,293,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: The reconstructed streets will reduce pavement maintenance costs but may create increased operating expenses in other Departments and Divisions due to landscaping and new Complete Streets elements. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 31 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 4 years has averaged 53%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, it is a moral obligation. Proposal ID:423889 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets $750,000 $750,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 32 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Livable Streets Implementation Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need. Traffic circles are one tool identified in the Livable Streets Report to help slow traffic on neighborhood streets. Proposal ID:424211 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $250,000 $250,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 33 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Neighborhood Byways Project Address: 975 North Star Crest Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point)1400 South 1600 East, Salt Lake City UT 84105 (Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway, approximate mid-point) Project Description: Neighborhood byways create pleasant and convenient routes for people walking, bicycling, or rolling by encouraging safe travel speeds, discouraging cut-through vehicle traffic, providing safe crossings of busy streets, and connecting people to key community destinations. These funds will be used for the engineering design and construction of the Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway, and for the engineering design of the Sugar House to the U Neighborhood Byway. Both projects are currently in conceptual design with significant community input. The Westpointe / Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway has already received a state grant for $900,000 toward its $1.5 million construction budget. This CIP request will serve as the required 40% match to this grant. Technicians finishing up the installation of a neighborhood byway crossing in Poplar Grove along 400 South. Proposal ID:424216 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $440,000 $440,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 34 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program funds reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Proposal ID:423853 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Class C Funds $2,250,000 $2,250,000 Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 35 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion Project Address:Poplar Grove Park (Indiana Avenue and Emery St.), Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Project Description: This park currently has a half court – which is used frequently, with players spilling out all over the court and grass surrounding it. This project will fund the expansion of the court which includes demolition, irrigation adjustments, a new concrete court, fencing, signage (that would include a flower bed, which will provide beautification opportunities for Friends of Poplar Grove Park to showcase their flower planting skills over the years. Not all will play on the court, but some could still benefit from this improvement by volunteering to plant flowers). Furthermore, it will also fund an artist to design and paint a mural on the new court. Which will provide an opportunity for local artists to share their talents with the community. There are so many benefits to this project - it invites all to participate, enjoy and cherish this wonderful open space for many years to come. COVID-19 may have been a hard time to deal with, but our parks became the extension of our homes and will remain that way for a long time. Proposal ID:419327 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $253,500 $253,500 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $253,500 $253,500 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance is expected to increase by $1,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 36 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet Project Address:356 N Redwood Rd, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: In November 2022, Public Lands acquired a property adjoining Cottonwood Dog Park and the Jordan River located at 356 Redwood Road. The dirt lot has long been used as an informal parking lot for dog park users, even prior to property acquisition. This project would develop a trailhead and parking lot that better serve the park’s current and future users. This site has the potential to better serve as a gateway to the Jordan River Trail and to Cottonwood Park as a whole, with interpretive signage, wayfinding, improved connectivity, landscaping, and a small gathering space along the river. This would also provide lighting and artwork to provide a welcoming space. This project also funds a new restroom facility to replace the existing failing restroom. It should be noted that Cottonwood Park was selected as one of District 1’s “Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trails, or Open Space” projects, funded by the GO Parks Bond. Proposal ID:424360 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $202,000 $202,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $648,000 $648,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $2,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 37 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program funds rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Street segments identified by Roadway Asset Services (RAS) as backlog candidates for 3” Overlay (OCI of approximately 40-50) are included below as recommended projects. Suggested Project areas: 2.34 Lane MilesWasatch Drive - 1300 S to Michigan Ave (partly within Bonneville Golf Course)800 E - 100 S to 400 S (signal loops at 100 S)Work displayed below on the map. Proposal ID:424280 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 38 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail Project Address: 1900 West Indiana Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 841041851 East Sunnyside Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Project Description: Two projects are critical to this urban trails request: connectivity for The Other Side Village just west of Redwood Road, and a short gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah. This request seeks funding for critical trail connections in support of "The Other Side Village," the tiny home village with assistive services that will be constructed just west of Redwood Road in the City's Glendale / Poplar Grove neighborhoods. $1.2 million will be allocated to begin improvements, currently under study, which will prioritize a multi-use trail and/or sidewalks on Indiana Avenue; safer crossings of Redwood Road; a new multi-use trail north from the Village to the transit center; and/or segments of the 9-line trail and Surplus Canal Trail (see map). This is anticipated to be Phase 1 of three or four requests. Funds will also be used for a missing gap in the 9-Line Trail near the University of Utah, where the 12' wide multi-use trail along Sunnyside Avenue narrows down to a scant 4' wide sidewalk, creating conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. This section of Indiana Avenue lacks even a sidewalk connecting “The Other Side Village” to transit stops on Redwood Road. Proposal ID:424227 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 39 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities Project Address:273 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: This project will fund construction for restoring the courts and adding amenities at the Fire Station No. 7 Tennis Park on 300 North (west of 1000 West). This space is currently two failed tennis courts. One tennis court will be restored, and the other will be converted into two pickleball courts. The addition of two pickleball courts is necessary to meet increasing demand for usable pickleball courts throughout the city. There are currently no dedicated pickleball courts in the city’s westside neighborhoods. This project would also complete associated amenities on site, as funding is available, such as court lighting, drinking fountains, and ADA access. Public Lands has already separately funded the design of this court project. This CIP funding will go towards construction costs of the courts and other associated amenities. Proposal ID:424358 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $438,850 $438,850 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $416,150 $416,150 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance costs will decrease by $1,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 40 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:337 Park Development Project Address:337 South 400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Project Description: 337 Pocket Park was initially established as a community garden but has since been decommissioned as such due to adjacent higher density property development to the south shading out agricultural potential. The parcel has since been sitting vacant and in a state of disrepair. This potential pocket park needs significant development to add park service to District 4. Funding would facilitate public engagement, planning and design, and construction of the site. This project is an expansion of a previously submitted constituent CIP application during the FY22-23 cycle with the addition of Public Lands-supported direction for implementation. Currently, a small portion of the parcel (nearest to 400 East) has public art and plantings. This project would develop the remainder of the parcel. Potential amenities and features of this site will be determined with public engagement but could include an off-leash dog park, seating, and native plantings appropriate for shaded areas. This property has been the subject of continuous encroachments since the lot to the south of this parcel has been under development. There have been inquiries about the 337 Park lot being reduced to allow for access to the southern development. Because of the increased interest in this lot and the threat to this valuable property in a low level-of-service area for parks, it is critical for the development of this lot to move forward as quickly as possible. Proposal ID:423315 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $550,000 $550,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact is estimated at $7,500. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 41 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Jefferson Park Improvements Project Address:Fremont Ave and West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Project Description: Jefferson Park is an under-resourced jewel in the Ballpark Neighborhood. This application seeks to address long standing issues identified in the City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan, including “a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks”. The park currently has a small, aging playground (to be replaced through separate funding by Public Lands in 2023) with two benches as well as a set of temporary soccer nets and an off-leash dog area. The constituent applicants request the following: •Safety improvements: Ample, attractive 'dark sky' lighting throughout the perimeter of the park and fencing around the playground area. Given the area’s crime, this is essential. •Health improvements: Permanent, attractive garbage cans along the perimeter of the park to reduce the constant flow of garbage (including clothing, needles, and human waste), and to encourage responsible dog ownership. •Activation improvements: The retention pond berm is an ideal location for a walking path around the park and provides residents with a place to exercise. Adding a few benches (with garbage cans) under the existing shade trees, like in Liberty Park, will encourage activation. Proposal ID:417708 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $530,000 $530,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance would increase by $4,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 42 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Parks Bilingual Signage Installation Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This project will replace existing signage and add new bilingual signage in English and Spanish in approximately ten parks citywide. This project will be the second phase of implementation of the City's new multi-lingual signage standards. The standards were completed in early 2022, with the first phase of implementation occurring in 2023 and early 2024. The first phase of implementation included ten parks and were initially chosen because they are classified as Community Parks in the Public Lands Master Plan, have numerous and varying amenities, and lack effective signage types and locations currently. The second phase of implementation, to be completed with this funding proposal, are the next largest parks with varying amenities that necessitate the addition of signage that the park currently lacks. Currently, many parks, natural areas and public spaces are not adequately signed for appropriate and effective communication of public lands' regulations, assets, amenities, and stories. This project would not only add signage to parks with outdated or inadequate signage, but would add bilingual information on all signs in order to enhance communication and provide public lands information more equitably and reliably throughout Salt Lake City. The project will also help the City accomplish the goals of the recently-adopted Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan. Proposal ID:423318 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $82,800 $82,800 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $331,200 $331,200 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance impact: $2,900 Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 43 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fairpark Roundabout Construction Phase Project Address:500 North 1000 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Project Description: 1000 West is an important street for the Fairpark neighborhood and access to the Utah State Fairpark. Over the last two years, Salt Lake City Transportation Division has engaged with the community about the challenges and opportunities on 1000 West. Common requests for changes to 1000 West include slowing vehicle speeds, making the crosswalks safer, improving street aesthetics, and balancing regional access needs with neighborhood livability. This application is requesting funds to build a roundabout at the intersection of 1000 West and 500 North. This application is related to one submitted for FY23, that awarded funds for study/design only. The Transportation Division is actively working on the study/design while supporting this application for construction funds. Intersection upgrades at 500 North is consistent with the 1000 West Corridor Plan, which seeks to moderate vehicle speeds, improve walkability, add landscaping, and create a gateway feature for the neighborhood. Proposal ID:416618 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds ¼ Cent Tax $497,000 $497,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned / designed using these funds. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 44 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary. Proposal ID:424439 Department:Engineering Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Streets $250,000 $250,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 45 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension Project Address:211 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Project Description: Originally constructed in 1994, Fire Station #1 was built to house the resources (both human and mechanical) that were in use at the time. Since then, much of our apparatus and equipment needs at this strategic location have changed, requiring additional space. Fire Station #1 is located at 211 South 500 East, in the heart of Salt Lake City’s downtown. The call volume for this station is consistently the highest in the city and has been steadily increasing over the past five (5) years. In fact, it recently came to the attention of SLCFD Administration that the current call volume and projected increase would be unsustainable for the single fire engine that was housed there. In response, the Administration made the data-based decision to reassign existing resources within the City, in an effort to alleviate the pressure on the fire crews operating out of Station 1 Specifically, a fire truck was moved from Fire Station #5 to Fire Station #1, essentially repurposing Fire Station #1 to what is known in the industry as a “dual-company house.” While this reassignment of resources has certainly shown a more balanced delivery of emergency services, there are logistical limitations affecting the housing of the newly assigned aerial apparatus. The three newest and most advanced SLCFD aerial apparatus (trucks) are too long to be housed in the apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. Consequently, we have implemented the use of an older, shorter aerial apparatus. In the meantime, we await the construction of a new, smaller in length truck (not a standard build) which is anticipated to take 3-4 years to build. Additionally, there is uncertainty that the manufacturer will be able to build this length of truck in the future. As such, it is requested that funding be made available to design and construct the expansion of four (4) apparatus bays at Fire Station #1. Proposal ID:425243 Department:Fire Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $648,771 $648,771 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Other $500,000 $500,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 46 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Following a 10-year plan to eliminate the $45,600,000 in deferred asset renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing replacements based on asset criticality. Proposal ID:426588 Department:Facilities Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual maintenance cost will be reduced as new assets are more efficient, switching from reactive repair work to ongoing preventative maintenance. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 47 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program Project Address:Citywide Project Description: The Streets Division, part of Public Services, will be the project sponsor and implementation manager. Streets is requesting to begin a Mill & Overlay pilot program, which is a more robust form of roadway surface treatment. Many existing city roadways do not currently need a full depth reconstruction but are not in good enough condition for current maintenance surface treatments, namely chip and slurry seal. If nothing is done, these roads will continue to deteriorate and soon require a costly reconstruction. The Mill & Overlay program would allow Streets to perform maintenance on these roads at a lower cost, compared to reconstructing. To carry out this pilot program the Streets Division needs two additional pieces of equipment, an Asphalt Paver, and a Cold-Milling Machine. Proposal ID:426528 Department:Streets Project Type:Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds 1/4 Cent Tax $750,000 $750,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Average yearly maintenance cost: $19,400 (for both pieces of equipment) Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 48 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens Project Address:1060 South 900 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Project Description: Despite receiving hundreds of visitors per day, the International Peace Gardens in District 2 has dilapidated garden architecture. Hollows left by stolen plaques and artwork remind visitors of theft and vandalism, and limit their understanding of the history and cultures behind the 28 national garden exhibits. CIP funding is needed to replace or replicate, conserve, and conceive a plan and trust fund for future upkeep of this trove of art, ethnic and botanic diversity. This request consists of multiple projects that include: conservation and restoration artworks, design and replacement of artwork that has been removed/stolen, replacement of perennial botanicals and landscaping, structural study and design exploring expansion of the greenhouse while assessing the feasibility of a visitor space/exhibition space. Proposal ID:418741 Department:Public Lands Project Type:Capital Category: New, Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $325,000 $325,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual Maintenance Impact: $1,000-$3,000. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 49 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement Project Address:1300 East @ 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 or1300 East @ 100 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Project Description: Upgrade one aging traffic signal, along with parts of the surrounding intersection, with safety and operational improvements for all modes. The typical life of a traffic signal is 30 years. After that age, frequent repairs are needed, and the structural supports for the traffic signal may be at risk of failing. Twenty traffic signals in Salt Lake City are over 40 years old, with some of them rapidly approaching 75 years old. This project will fund the design and construction to replace one of the oldest and/or poorest condition traffic signals in Salt Lake City. The project will replace and upgrade the signal with new steel poles, signal heads, and detection, including current best practices for pedestrian detection and design, pedestrian countdown timers, and motor vehicle left turn phasing, as needed. It is anticipated that a traffic signal along 1300 East near the University of Utah will be selected. Those traffic signals were constructed in 1948. 75-year-old traffic signal at the busy intersection of 1300 East 400 South. Proposal ID:424235 Department:Transportation Project Type:Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $40,000 $40,000 1/4 Cent Tax $360,000 $360,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: This signal reconstruction will reduce signal maintenance costs, as keeping an older traffic signal alive past its normal expiration date typically includes extra repairs. Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 50 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Westside Art Project Address:Westside of Salt Lake City Project Description: An art project will be incorporated into the City’s westside neighborhood. Proposal ID:N/A Department: Project Type:Art Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $150,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 51 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cost Overrun Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects. Proposal ID:NA Department: Project Type:Overrun Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $22,214 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $225,357 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 52 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Percent for Art Project Address:Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to provide art at City developed projects. Proposal ID:NA Department: Project Type:Art Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Other $161,518 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects 53 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Enterprise Fund Capital Projects This page intentionally left blank The Department of Airports The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the Airport) has 639 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget continues to see growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2024. The Airport will use the remaining funds in the ARPA grants which will help offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY24 as well as make up for lost revenues. The BIL grants will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on 22 gates located on South Concourse East (SCE) in October 2024 which brings additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing a significant reduction in the hardstand operations. The developed FY24 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 57 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:CUP Crossover Piping Project Description: This project will provide crossover 12-inch diameter piping from the existing 12-inch chilled water supply and return lines to the 20-inch supply and return hot water piping that feeds the Airport Terminal and Concourse areas from the Central Utility Plant (CUP). This would enable the Airport to maintain chilled water for cooling and hot water for heating as a backup to the system if there is a failure of lines that run underground from the CUP to the Terminal and Concourse areas. Project Justification: The existing chilled water and hot water piping systems run underground from a standalone location in the CUP north to the Airport Terminals and Concourse areas. If a failure of either supply lines happens, the crossover piping would facilitate the transfer of chilled water and/or hot water to keep the supply of cooling or heating to continue in a temporary operation mode until a permanent fix could be made. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 November 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $401,000 $54,000 $8,000 $2,000 $40,000 $505,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $505,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 58 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Decommission R/W 14-32 & T/W Improvements (Design) Project Description: As outlined in the SLCIA Master Plan, Runway 14-32 has two FAA hot spot locations and numerous non- standard geometry challenges. This runway accounts for only 1 percent of total aircraft operations at SLCIA and is unnecessary in the SLCIA runway system to meet FAA-defined wind coverage requirements and thus is not eligible for federal funding assistance. This means the entire cost of any and all corrective solutions would be paid by SLCDA. Through engagement with SLCDA staff and stakeholders, it was determined the cost to correct the runway hot spots outweighs the benefit the runway provides to the airport system. The Master Plan concluded that the final solution for implementation is to remove Runway 14-32. Project Justification: Projects in the short-term phase of airport development focus on modifications to the airfield that enhance airport operational safety. These projects address changes in runways and taxiways needed to reduce the potential for runway incursions and comply with current FAA airport design standards. This request is to develop the design on removing Runway 14-32 and modifications needed to the existing taxiway connections at Taxiways J, M, P, and Q. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $367,000 $20,000 $18,000 $405,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $405,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 59 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Replace Pumps in Glycol Pumps Stations Project Description: This project will replace the existing piping, pumps, and valves in the Intermediate East Pump Station (IEPS) and the East Pump Station (EPS) for the glycol pump stations. Project Justification: The piping, pumps, and valves for the glycol pump stations have been in service for over 20 years and are approaching the end of their useful service life. The piping and equipment are obsolete and can no longer be maintained, and are showing significant signs of deterioration due to the corrosive nature of the deicing fluid. New pumps that are more efficient, require less maintenance, and safe guard against system failure will be installed. These pumps are long lead items and are critical for de- ice operations on Taxiway L and the 34R de-ice pad. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 203 July 2023 October 2023 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $734,000 $155,000 $5,000 $73,000 $967,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $967,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 60 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway F Reconstruction (G - F1) - (Construction) Project Description: This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure and bring the taxiway geometry to current FAA standards. The project will consist of replacing the pavement on Taxiway F between Taxiways G and F1. Work will include demolition of existing concrete pavement and econocrete base, unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new econocrete base course and new portland cement concrete. Also included is the installation of new in-pavement centerline base cans and the reinstallation of centerline and taxiway edge lights complete with new underground cabling and connectors. Finally new asphalt shoulder paving and pavement marking will be done. Project Justification: Taxiway F connects Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R with the terminal area. It has a high volume of aircraft use because it serves as a major taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft. The taxiway concrete panels are showing signs of pavement distress including surface spalling, full depth slab cracking, and corner breaking indicating that the pavement is at the end of its useful service life. This area has received multiple patches where the concrete has settled indicating possible base failure. This project will make a significant contribution to safety and capacity by ensuring that the taxiway pavement integrity is preserved while minimizing FOD. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date April 2024 October 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $9,400,000 $9,400,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $7,050,000 $2,350,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 61 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway U & V Proper (Design) Project Description: This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $4,725,000 $4,725,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $4,725,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 62 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Taxiway U & V Tunnel & Roadway Realignment Project Description: This project is the first of two phases that includes constructing a tunnel structure to allow for Taxiways U and V to cross over a depressed portion of 4000 West. This work includes realigning 4000 West as identified on the SLCIA master plan and shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Other components of this project are constructing MSE walls along the new 4000 West realignment, earthwork, asphalt and concrete paving, relocating conflicting utilities, drainage systems, and fencing. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified Taxiways U and V as a new cross field taxiway system between the north cargo support area and existing concourses. Currently Taxiways E and F are the only taxiway connections between Runways 16R/34L - 16L/34R and the terminal area. The construction of Taxiways U and V will provide alternative taxi routes to improve aircraft circulation and overall airfield efficiency and safety, particularly during snow removal operations on Taxiways E and F. This project will provide an immediate benefit to flow of aircraft on the airfield as well as improving safety by reducing traffic in a very congested area on the airfield. With current passenger numbers already approaching 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase operations at SLCIA, there is a need to expand the airfield capacity. Additionally, the new taxiway system will allow for future maintenance to occur on Taxiways E and F as well as provide an enabling project for a future Concourse C. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 March 2024 November 2026 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $64,560,000 $6,339,000 $1,291,000 $5,000 $6,456,000 $78,651,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $36,570,000 $42,081,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 63 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:UPS Pump Station Replacement Project Description: The glycol collection system is deteriorating in older portions of the airport. In new development the ability to divert low concentration surface water has been implemented to improve the efficiency of the reclamation process. This project will replace the pumps at the UPS Cargo facility pump station due to deterioration and add a diversion vault with actuators, similar to more recent installations. The actuators help manage the large volume of water that does not need treatment which is generated from the cargo ramp deicing pads. Project Justification: The pump station near the UPS Cargo facility is rapidly deteriorating and is in need of replacement. The surface water that is collected during inclement weather that does not need to be treated at the reclamation plant needs to be diverted to storm drain. This project replaces essential infrastructure as well as improves efficiency of the reclamation process, ultimately reducing processing costs. The pump station work needs to be completed prior to the start of the Airport's deicing season to accommodate the air cargo carriers. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2023 October 2023 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,164,000 $178,000 $23,000 $2,000 $116,000 $1,483,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,483,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 64 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Demo Row 21 - Apron & Taxiway Reconstruction Project Description: This project is for site development within General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support future expansion. Work will include demolition of an existing row of T-hangars along with asbestos mitigation, if necessary, and site preparation consisting of taxilane pavement reconstruction and rerouting of existing water and storm drain utilities. Project Justification: The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the eastside of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft. This project will construct a taxilane for access to undeveloped areas at the Airport and allow for future growth. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,126,000 $141,000 $23,000 $210,000 $113,000 $1,613,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,613,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 65 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:SVRA Hangar Site Development - Phase I Project Description: This project will widen the existing taxilane north of the existing shade hangars and construct a new ramp complete with underground utilities for a proposed future site for a new T-hangar at the South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA). Project Justification: An existing taxilane north of the shade hangars will be widened approximately 21' to accommodate Group II aircraft to access a new 220' x 750' ramp where a future T-hangar will be constructed. New underground utilities consisting of gas, power, communication, water, storm drain, and sewer will be installed and stubbed up to within 15 feet of the future T-hangars. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $2,276,000 $216,000 $46,000 $1,000 $182,000 $2,721,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $2,721,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 66 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:TVY Water & Sewer Improvements Project Description: This project will provide water and sewer infrastructure to the Tooele Valley Airport (TVY) to support the future aerial firefighting facilities being constructed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This work includes the installation of a sewer lift station, 16,500 LF of sewer line, and 16,500 LF of water line. Project Justification: Salt Lake City Corporation recently signed a lease agreement with the BLM which will begin construction of government facilities including a Single Engine Airtanker (SEAT) base of operations to include Air Attack, Helitack operations, retardant distribution and containment systems, and an Aviation Dispatch Center building on approximately 10 acres at TVY. Development of future hangars and facilities cannot occur until water and sewer utilities are available at TVY. The BLM is expected to begin construction of their new facility in 2023 and have an operational SEAT base by 2025. SLCDA is working on an agreement with Grantsville City to connect the water and sewer utilities. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 April 2024 October 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $7,399,000 $259,000 $148,000 $500,000 $740,000 $9,046,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $9,046,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 67 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations FY24 Project Description: Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) has created a Master Plan for a phased installation program of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and infrastructure relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. For the past several years, the Airport has received rebates from Rocky Mountain Power which have reimbursed up to 75% of the cost to purchase and install EVCS on the Airport campus. This year the Airport will apply for funding incentives to install infrastructure for 16 level 2 EVCS for employee parking. Project Justification: Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Nonattainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute to respiratory problems. This project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The Airport is proposing to install infrastructure and purchase 16 Level 2 EVCS for the employee parking lot. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $884,000 $89,000 $2,000 $5,000 $88,000 $1,068,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,068,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 68 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Design) Project Description: This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot. Project Justification: The Environmental Assessment (EA) currently underway requires the design of the surplus canal relocation to be completed to a 60% design level. This budget request is to complete the balance of the design and provide contract documents for bid, award, and construction administration for the FY2025 construction season. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2025 June 2028 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $1,410,000 $19,000 $10,000 $120,000 $1,559,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,559,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 69 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:S Employee Parking Lot Development Program / Surplus Canal Relocation (Construction) Project Description: This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow for the development of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as shown on the new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. This phase is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. Phase 2 will be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which will allow for the new canal to be relocated. Phase 3 will be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified that a new employee parking lot will be needed to accommodate the forecasted increase in employee numbers at our facility. The existing South Employee Parking Lot will be reutilized to accommodate the forecasted increase in passenger parking. With passenger numbers already approaching past 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase both their operations and employee numbers at SLCIA, the need to expand our parking has been accelerated. There currently is not enough parking to sustain peak days. This program will provide an immediate and long-term parking solution. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 July 2025 June 2028 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $45,185,000 $4,784,000 $904,000 $5,417,000 $4,518,000 $60,808,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $60,808,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 70 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:AOC Backup Generator Project Description: This project will provide a new 480V backup generator to support the Airport Operations Center (AOC) building users that have been affected by power outages. Project Justification: The Airport Operations Center (AOC) is considered a vital building where Airport Control is directed and maintained. After a number of recent power outages, the facility users requested the building service loads to be backed up by a new generator. The AOC building is currently supported from two electrical services and two emergency standby generators. Envision Engineering, one of the Airport's on-call electrical consultants, has completed a study to evaluate the AOC standby branch capacity on the south side of the building and proposed options to backup these loads for the vital functions of the AOC. The option selected was to move the entire distribution panel NDL-1A-01 to a new 480V generator to meet the demands for full backup power. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 December 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $250,000 $29,000 $5,000 $2,000 $25,000 $311,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $311,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 71 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Demo FAA FMP and Construct New Roadway Project Description: This project is for additional site development in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) to support current demand for corporate hangar development. Work will include demolition of the FAA FMP building and construction of a new hangar access road. This project includes site preparation and construction of taxilane pavement and installation of new underground utilities to a future hangar lease area. A new 475-foot wide by 30-foot long hangar access road and taxilane pavement will be constructed up to the future hangar lease line. Project Justification: The only remaining undeveloped land in General Aviation Zone 3 on the east side of SLCIA currently cannot accommodate larger ADG II aircraft for future hangar facility development. This project will construct infrastructure to allow for future growth. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 September 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $783,000 $75,000 $48,000 $60,000 $78,000 $1,044,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,044,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 72 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:NS1 & NS4 Switch Gear & Capacitor Project Description: This project will replace the Electrical Main Distribution equipment for buildings NS1 and NS4 located in North Support and provide a power factor capacitor bank for NS4 to condition the power output within this building. The work includes the purchase and installation of all new main electrical distribution equipment for the incoming high voltage Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that feeds the main breakers and switchboards in both buildings. This also includes miscellaneous conduit, cabling, and junction box work. Project Justification: The NS1 and NS4 North Support buildings were constructed approximately 37 years ago and replacement parts for the original electrical equipment in these buildings is no longer available. This is due to the electrical manufacturer going out of business. Since parts are no longer available for purchase, any failure of the electrical infrastructure in either of these buildings will impact Airport Fleet Maintenance, Warehouse, and Roads and Grounds staff and equipment. Also impacted would be the CASS, Radio, and Electrical shops. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 December 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $905,000 $77,000 $7,000 $2,000 $72,000 $1,063,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $1,063,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 73 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:NWS Replacement Controls Project Description: This project will replace the existing Variable Air Volume (VAV) units that have reached the end of their useful life in the tenant area of the National Weather Service (NWS) facility. The units will be replaced with new VAV units with Direct Digital Controls (DDC). Project Justification: The existing VAV units are pneumatically controlled and have reached the end of their useful life and will be replaced with new units that have integrated DDC controls allowing BACKNET connections for the control and maintenance by Airport Maintenance. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2023 October 2023 June 2024 Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion $494,000 $66,000 $10,000 $5,000 $49,000 $624,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds $624,000 PROJECT LOCATION Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects 74 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 The Salt Lake City Golf Division The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects. The Golf Division has budgeted $6,610,220 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY24. The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY24 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $525,000 for FY24. Other significant projects include new parking lot resurfacing at the Mountain Dell and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional equipment. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 75 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Tee Box Leveling Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing tee box leveling at all 6 courses ($60,000). Salt Lake City customer satisfaction surveys and course evaluation initiatives have shown that the biggest area of needed improvement is the condition of the tee boxes. This is an area where course labor can be utilized to perform a large portion of the work. The Golf Division proposes utilizing Golf CIP funds to pay for needed equipment and supplies. Each course will undertake a four-year plan to address tee box leveling of existing tee boxes and to begin construction of new forward tee boxes. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $60,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 76 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Pump Replacement Project Address:Glendale Project Description: The Golf Division will be replacing the first of five irrigation pumps at Glendale golf course ($20,000). The replacement of these pumps will take place over a 5-year period. This is the first of 5 pumps that are nearing their life expectancy. At any time if one of these pumps goes down it will have impact on our ability to irrigate the golf course. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Replacement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $20,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 77 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance Equipment Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $424,263 in FY24 to purchase additional used equipment (usually lease-return equipment from high-end private courses). The plan would be to purchase equipment if available such as Sprayer, Groundsmaster, Greensmaster. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Equipment Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf Operating Fund $424,263 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 78 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Parking Lot Resurfacing Project Address:Mountain Dell Project Description: The Golf Division will be resurfacing the parking lot at Mountain Dell. This improvement project is estimated to cost ($250,000). The current parking lot surface is beyond just normal sealing and patching and will require full replacement. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $250,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 79 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Property Fencing Project Project Address:Nibley Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be replacing property fencing at Nibley Park golf course ($55,220). The projects consist of removal of existing damaged fencing along the northern perimeter (2700 south) and replacing it with new fencing material. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvement Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $55,220 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 80 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:New Construction Projects Project Address:Glendale Project Description: The Golf Division will be entering into the planning phases of a new construction project at Glendale Golf Course ($1,300,000). The projects consist of a double-decker range structure and new fencing at Glendale. This project will position the Glendale driving range to take advantage of changing market conditions and will expand the range capacity and extend the use of the range by 3 to 4 additional months annually, having a significant increase in driving range revenue generation and providing an enhanced recreation opportunity for City residents and visitors. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Construction Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $1,300,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 81 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Irrigation Improvements Project Address:Rose Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing irrigation improvements at Rose Park ($4,400,000). The current mainline system is as old as 65 years and is in desperate need of replacement. This project also includes a turfgrass reduction plan and some redesign of certain holes to allow for a more efficient system, utilizing fewer heads and potential water use reduction of up to 40%. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvements Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $4,400,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 82 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Cart Path Improvements Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing cart path improvements at all 6 courses ($525,000). Well-maintained golf cart paths are critical for the overall customer experience and for helping to preserve golf course playing conditions. The existing paths are decades behind receiving proper repair and expansion. Additionally, with slight modifications, many cart paths can be used by non-golfers during the off season or other times when conditions are not ideal for golf. Proposal ID: Department:Public Lands - Golf Project Type:Improvements Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Fund $525,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets. Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects 83 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities: water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant or state/federal government subsidized loan. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year 2024, the department has over 95 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 85 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Water Main Replacements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 1,300 miles of aging water pipe. Over the past 10 years, Public Utilities has replaced an average of 18,820 linear feet per year. The budget includes two major transmission line projects: 1) $5,000,000 for the continuation of a master plan project – East-West Conveyance Line – Terminal Reservoir to 300 East and 2) next phase of Upper Conduit for $3,500,000. This category also includes $6,120,000 for routine replacement of pipelines in poor condition at various locations in the system with $2,950,000 related to the Funding our Future streets bond projects. The department is continuing to develop a more robust way to identify pipeline replacement priorities and corrosion related issues within the system. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $14,620,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 86 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Treatment Plant Improvements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: All three city-owned water treatment plants (WTPs) were built in the 1950's and early 1960's. Each plant is nearing the end of its expected life and will need to be rebuilt. The City Creek WTP will be rebuilt first based on DPU’s receipt of a FEMA BRIC grant for this project. The grant is a 70% match up to $36.6M. Work during the coming FY includes completion of design ($1.7M), start of construction ($12.5M), and continued public engagement ($290K). The reconstruction of the Big Cottonwood WTP will be delayed until sufficient budget is available to design and construct this important project. However, construction of the Big Cottonwood Creek Pump Station ($10M this year) and associated SLA Replacement – Cottonwoods Connection pipeline ($10M this year) will begin as part of a regionalization approach that allows Big Cottonwood Creek water to be treated using available capacity of the existing Little Cottonwood WTP. This pump station and pipeline will serve as redundancy to both the Big Cottonwood WTP and the portion of the Big Cottonwood Conduit that conveys drinking water from the plant to the City’s drinking water distribution system. This cost center also includes replacing failing components as they wear out as part of annual budget ($2M) to ensure regulatory compliance until larger projects can be funded. Finally, the budget for capital project support of $1.65M includes contracted project management support necessary for delivery of these important projects. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $38,340,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Estimated operational increase of $2.2M per/year. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 87 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Deep Pump Wells Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The Department would like to bring more wells online to help supplement water supplies, first starting with inactive wells. One of these inactive wells is the budgeted 1500 East Well. This well and other inactive wells are being evaluated for future use and repair or rehabilitation, as required to bring wells to current codes and Division of Drinking Water standards. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $100,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 88 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Meter Change-Out Program Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The budget includes the continuation of the small meter change out program piloted in 2015 and initiated in 2018. Metering water consumption by customers is the source of our revenue. Approximately 51,100, or 63%, of the system’s water meters have been replaced with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) read meters. With optimal conditions, 10,000 to 12,000 meters per year can be replaced. Supply chain issues have created delays thus replacement is planned at 8,000 meters per year. The plan is to complete the residential AMI meter change out program in the next 4 to 4 ½ years. AMI technology provides hourly usage information instead of relying on monthly data. An online portal provides our customers with information to better manage their water usage and alerts to the status of their water service. Better information will assist us in water conservation efforts. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,500,000 Priority: Ongoing program Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 89 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Water Service Connections Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Water service extends beyond the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. Approximately 37% of our service connections are in this outlying area. Repair and replacement of these connections are part of an ongoing program. The components of this program are service line replacements, new connections, and small and large meter maintenance and replacement. Public Utilities is determining the best way to implement the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revision (LCRR) including developing inventories, sampling plans, public outreach, and lateral service line replacements. The plan will include resources, personnel, and capital needs. Budget associated with the LCRR includes $500,000 to support pothole work associated with inventory development and service line material identification. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $3,450,000 Priority: Project/need specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Estimated operational increase of $100,000 per year associated LCRR line replacement and temporary filters. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 90 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storage Reservoirs Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU owns and operates six raw water reservoirs that store snow run-off. SLCDPU operates Little Dell Dam, for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy with a capital improvement budget of $400,000 for controls replacements. Little Dell and 5 of SLCDPU’s reservoirs are used to store water that is treated for drinking water. All seven of the reservoirs are a contingent way for the Department to meet exchange agreements for secondary water. Three of the reservoirs are used by ski areas for snowmaking. The raw water storage reservoir at Mountain Dell has a $6,040,000 proposed budget for outlet replacement, upstream waterproofing, and land restoration work. SLCDPU has received a 30% matching funds, grant of $265,000 in December of 2022 for engineering and planning for Lake Mary Dam’s restoration. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $6,690,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 91 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Pumping Plants & Pump Houses Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: As a result of its size and topography, the water distribution system consists of more than 50 different pressure zones. Pump stations are often connections between pressure zones, pumping treated water from one zone to another. The utility has over thirty pump stations with many still needing back-up power or generators for system resiliency. Planned projects for this fiscal year are the Arlington Hills Pump Station Full Backup Power project, $700,000, and the University Pump Station Piping Replacement and Equipment Upgrades project, $200,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $900,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 92 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Culverts, Flumes & Bridges Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: These secondary water conveyance systems are critical to maintaining our water exchange agreements. Planned projects within this category are the flume from Double Barrels to the railroad tracks for $2,200,000 and the JSL Canal Enclosure at Millcreek for $2,000,000. These projects are intended to support the long-term resiliency and reliability of systems that are critical to maintaining water deliveries. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $4,200,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 93 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 100,000,000 gallons of finished water storage in 22 tanks and reservoirs. These components require on-going inspection and maintenance. The location and elevation of these facilities is critical to the operation of the water distribution system. The budget includes $1,850,000 dedicated to maintenance and repair of both the 15th East Reservoir and Park Reservoir structures. Other projects include slope stabilization efforts at the Canyon Cove Upper Tank, $50,000, and drainage upgrades at the Capitol Hills Tanks site, $400,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,300,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 94 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $400,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $400,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 95 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Treatment Plants Project Address:1365 West 2300 North Project Description: The largest budgeted item in this category is for the construction of a new water reclamation facility. The $210,499,773 estimate represents the continuation of a multi-year project and includes design, construction, and program management. Existing plant improvement projects include Capital Asset Rehabilitation and Upgrades for $1,300,000, digester rehabilitation and cogeneration projects for $210,000 and $250,000 respectively. These existing plant improvements are critical to maintaining existing operations while the new water reclamation facility is commissioned. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $212,259,773 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Temporary dewatering will continue to have an operational impact in FY24 for chemical costs. The annual operational cost of wastewater treatment is anticipated to increase by $2M to $4M for power and chemical costs when the construction of the new water reclamation facility is complete and operational. This estimate will be refined as construction progresses. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 96 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Collection Lines Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 667 miles of aging sewer collections pipelines. Proposed budget within this category includes pipe renewal & replacement projects, City/County/State driven projects, and master plan projects. Master plan projects are the largest budgeted item in this category and total $23,955,000. This includes $1,500,000 for the 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 2; $6,000,000 for 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 3; $12,000,000 for 2100 S Upsizing Project; and $250,000 for South Temple Upsizing Project. Master plan projects identified within this category support system condition improvements and growth related capacity constraints. Pipe renewal & replacement projects are budgeted for $2,155,000 and consist of Emergency Operations Support, 2100 S Sewer Rehab (600 E/400 E), and other small improvement projects intended to improve system operations and reliability. The budget includes $1,650,000 for capital project support, program management, and emergency projects. Project budgets to support City, County and State driven projects are estimated at $400,000 which includes Misc. Public Services Projects and the 700 N Sewer Rehabilitation design, which is to be completed in advance of the planned roadway improvements. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $23,955,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 97 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Lift Stations Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The Proposed lift station renewal and replacement program anticipates two projects for FY 2023/2024. The first of these projects includes the 5300 West Lift Station capacity improvements budgeted for $2,500,000. This project is intended to support growth within the International Center and surrounding inland port development area. The Industrial Lift Station Improvements budgeted for $250,000 are intended to improve the existing lift station operating conditions and to mitigate sanitary sewer overflows that have been experienced over the past several years. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $2,750,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 98 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility) Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $350,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $350,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 99 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storm Drain Lines Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The largest item in this category is $5,730,000 for projects supporting City, County, and State driven projects, including $4,430,000 in work supporting Funding our Future streets bond projects. Other projects in this category total $1,300,000 for various collection lines and public utility defined projects to include Highland Drive storm drain improvements, northwest drain bypass to Jordan River improvements, and Emigration Creek at 1700 South improvements. Other local area projects to be completed by city crews at various locations are budgeted to be $500,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $6,230,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 100 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Riparian Corridor Improvements Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The planned riparian project for FY 2023/2024 is Emigration Creek – 1700 S Outlet Protection. Riparian vegetation will be restored and a wingwall and apron will be installed to reduce erosion in Emigration Creek. This work will accompany the rehabilitation of the 1700 S culvert which conveys Emigration Creek through the roadway. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $250,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 101 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Landscaping Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: The landscaping budget includes $50,000 for the Northwest Oil Drain canal remediation. This budget is to reserve funding for cleanup and closeout on the remediated portions of the Northwest Drain. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $50,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 102 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Storm Water Lift Stations Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Storm water lift station work includes the design of a storm water lift station in Swede Town budgeted for $200,000. This will provide improved drainage services in Swede Town and surrounding area east of the railroad. The Northwest Drain Lift Station Reconstruction is intended to increase capacity of the Northwest Drain and is budgeted for design in the amount of $450,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $650,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 103 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Detention Basins Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Detention Basins work includes the continuation of the design of the Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping Project. This project will design detention basins to be installed within the city to reduce the Granary Floodplain. The Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-mapping is budgeted for $365,000. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $365,000 Priority: Project Specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 104 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:Street Lighting Projects Project Address:Various Locations Project Description: Planned projects for FY 2023/2024 are $2,240,000 to upgrade to high efficiency lighting and other system improvements on arterial streets, collector streets, and in neighborhoods. This includes budget to hire a contractor to perform inspections on new street lighting facilities, consultant support to develop an Implementation Plan for new Master Plan related projects, and budget for improvements for base level lighting services and three enhanced lighting groups. The master plan determines and guides best practices for upgrades and new lights. Proposal ID: Department:Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Street Lighting Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Funds Enterprise Funds: $2,240,000 Priority: Ongoing program Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Reduce electricity costs.Replacing aging poles and wiring throughout the city.Continued research on Smart City and Lighting Control Technology. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects 105 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 This page intentionally left blank Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2024 budget process proposes one potential City infrastructure project. The City Creek daylighting design plan explores bringing a portion of City Creek that currently runs in a culvert underground up to the surface just north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This $50,000 funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects 107 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Project Title:City Creek Daylighting Project Address:Folsom Corridor – North Temple Project Area Project Description: Appropriation of funds to support a design plan to daylight (bring to the surface) a portion of City Creek that runs north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. Project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. This funding request will produce final construction drawings which will be used for project implementation. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities will also be recommended as a part of the design plan to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000. Proposal ID: Department:RDA Project Type: Category: Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $50,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but it’s anticipated that City Parks and Public Utilities will maintain the creek and associated amenities. Salt Lake City RDA Capital Projects 108 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 104 4 $ 190,000 $ 190,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Internal #7 Serious 2 Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 103.29 Citywide $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Satisfactory 3 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 103.14 5 $ 234,000 $ 234,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability 6 Failed 4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 101.86 Citywide $ 1,500,000 $ 1,100,000 Citywide (N/A)6 N/A 5 Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide 100.71 Citywide $ 6,600,000 $ 3,293,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Failed 6 Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 100 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Ranges from Poor to Failed 7 Livable Streets Implementation 99.14 Citywide $ 2,500,000 $ 1,350,000 Citywide (N/A)5 N/A 8 Neighborhood Byways 98 Citywide $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Highest Vulnerability 7 N/A 9 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2023/2024 97 Citywide $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed 10 Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 96.86 2 $ 507,000 $ 507,000 Highest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #8 Fair 11 Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 96 2 $ 200,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Internal #5 N/A 12 Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 95.57 1 $ 850,000 $ 850,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #4 Failed 13 Three Creeks West - Roadways Addendum 95.29 2 $ 850,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability 1 Serious 14 Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 95.29 Citywide $ 3,500,000 $ 1,250,000 Citywide (N/A)2 Serious/Failed 15 Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 94 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 N/A 16 Rose Park and Jordan River Recreation Hub 93.86 1 $ 495,000 $- Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #9 N/A 17 Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design 93.43 Citywide $ 75,000 $- Lowest Vulnerability 1 Constituent #4 Poor 18 Madsen Park Improvements 93 2 $ 500,000 $- Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #3 Fair 19 Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 92.57 1 $ 855,000 $ 855,000 Highest Vulnerability NA Internal #1 Failed 20 337 Park Development 92.29 4 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Internal #8 N/A 21 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements 92 1 $ 840,000 $- Moderate-High Vulnerability 4 Constituent #6 Failed Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 1 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 22 Richmond Park Community Playground 92 4 $ 530,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Internal #10 Serious 23 Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study 91.14 1 $ 140,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA not ranked Very Poor 24 Jefferson Park Improvements 90.86 5 $ 530,000 $ 530,000 Highest Vulnerability 5 Constituent #2 Very Poor 25 Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 89.86 Citywide $ 414,000 $ 414,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Internal #6 N/A 26 Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase 89.57 1 $ 497,000 $ 497,000 Highest Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory 27 North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 89.14 2 $ 495,111 $ - Highest Vulnerability 5 Fair 28 Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 87 Citywide $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Citywide (N/A)NA Serious/Failed 29 Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 86.57 4 $ 1,148,771 $ 1,148,771 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 30 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 85.57 Citywide $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to Failed 31 Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program 84 Citywide $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Citywide (N/A)1 N/A 32 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 83.14 7 $ 150,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 3 N/A 33 Historic Restorations, Replacements, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens 82.86 2 $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Moderate-High Vulnerability NA Constituent #1 Poor 34 Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements 82.29 2 $ 361,073 $ - Highest Vulnerability NA Constituent #9 Satisfactory/Poor 35 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 80.14 4 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Moderate-Low Vulnerability NA Failed 36 Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation 80 Citywide $ 500,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Internal #3 N/A 37 Liberty and Jordan Parks Greenhouses - Revisioned 78.57 Citywide $ 242,823 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 5 Constituent #7 Fair/Poor 38 First Encampment Park 77 5 $ 125,500 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 1 Satisfactory 39 Indiana Avenue Area - Transit & Trail Connections 76.57 2 $ 162,500 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 6 N/A 40 Multimodal Capital Maintenance 76.43 Citywide $ 200,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)5 Ranges from Poor to Failed 41 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 72.29 2 $ 4,000,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 2 Failed 42 800 S 1000 E Crosswalk Upgrade 70.43 5 $ 336,500 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 4 Very Poor Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 2 #Application Title CDCIP Board Council District Requested Funding Recommended Funding Social Vulnerability Index Sustainability 10 is Highest PNUT Board 1 is Highest Pavement Condition 43 Central 9th Streetscape Improvements 70.43 5 $ 85,000 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A 44 Sugar House Community Map Project 68.71 7 $ 93,400 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 3 Very Poor/NA 45 Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades 68.57 4 $ 2,000,000 $ - Citywide (N/A)7 Ranges from Poor to Failed 46 Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive 67.86 6 $ 494,126 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 4 N/A 47 Reimagining 4th & 4th (4th West & 4th South) 65.57 3 $ 100,000 $ - Moderate-Low Vulnerability 4 Satisfactory 48 11th Ave Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches 64 3 $ 533,165 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Internal #2 N/A 49 New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails 60.14 5 $ 262,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 4 Constituent #5 N/A 50 Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements 60 6 $ 450,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability 2 Failed 51 Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration 56 6 $ 500,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Constituent #10 Fair 52 Hansen Ave - West Entrance/Exit 53.14 5 $ 470,703 $ - Highest Vulnerability 2 N/A 53 Nevada Street Reconstruction 52.71 6 $ 479,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 2 Serious 54 Sunnyside Pickleball Courts 49.29 6 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 55 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 48 7 $ 351,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability 1 Serious 56 Salt Lake City Pétanque 44.57 1 $ 500,000 $ - Moderate-High Vulnerability NA N/A 57 Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 43.43 3 $ 210,000 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA Poor 58 11th Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion 40.57 3 $ 502,500 $ - Lowest Vulnerability NA N/A 59 Westside Art Project N/A 1, 2, and/or 3 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 TBD NA N/A Attachment 4 - FY2024 Simplified Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funding Log by CDCIP Advisory Board Scores Page 3 Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Funding Sources General Fund Dollars (Most flexible funding source; can be spent on any project) These are the City’s most flexible unrestricted funds available to be spent on any CIP project. The Council transfers a portion of General Fund revenues into the CIP Fund as part of each annual budget in June. The City collects a variety of revenue sources that all go into the General Fund such as property taxes, sales taxes, franchise taxes, building permits and license fees, and many others. A Council audit identified 9% of ongoing General Fund revenues as an ideal funding level to help ensure the City keeps up with capital investment needs. The City reached that 9% funding level in FY2023. In the prior two decades the City’s annual General Fund transfer into the CIP Fund averaged closer to 7%. Funding Our Future 0.5% Local Salt Lake City Option Sales Tax (Critical need categories: housing, public transit, streets, and public safety; a fifth category of parks maintenance was added in FY2023) The 0.5% sales tax increase was authorized by the Legislature only for the capital city as part of the State prison relocation from Draper. The City’s local option sales tax was increased as part of the FY2019 annual budget and was branded “Funding Our Future” along with a Streets Reconstruction Bond approved by voters (all those bond funds have now been budgeted). Prior to enacting the sales tax increase the City conducted impact research, public hearings, open houses, workshops, letters, online information, and other extensive outreach. The funds from the sales tax are limited to the critical need categories as determined by the Council. The definition of the critical need categories has evolved over the times such as expanding public safety from only police to also include 911 dispatch, fire, medical, and social workers. The number of categories was originally four and a fifth category, parks maintenance, was added in FY2023. There is no legal limitation to the categories which are subject to the Council’s annual appropriation process and subject to change. Class C Funds (State gas tax) Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations as recorded in the Engineering Division’s Six Year Pavement Plan which is regularly updated. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and the County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding. Per state law, Class C funds may be used for: 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way 3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund) 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals 5. Engineering and administration costs 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects 7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards 8. Matching federal funds 9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys 12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating 13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible) County Quarter Center (0.25%) Sales Tax (Limited to transportation and streets eligible uses per state law) The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is an ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle- focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g., widening) existing roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for the Utah Transit Authority or UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and Class C funds. Impact Fee Eligibility (Four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation / streets) Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service provided can continue with the additional impacts of the new developments (such as serving more residents or workers). As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not encumbered or spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest. General Impact Fee Guidelines: 1. Impact fees are to be used to keep a current level of service for new growth to a City. 2. Cannot be used to cure deficiencies serving existing development. 3. May not raise the established level of service in existing development. 4. Cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for staff/administration, operation, and maintenance. 5. Impact fees can only be used to pay for the portion of the project directly attributable to growth (it’s uncommon for projects to be 100% eligible for impact fees). 6. Must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected, or they shall be returned to the developer with interest payments per state law. 7. Must use an adopted Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities needed to serve new growth and set fees costs by development type. 8. Repair and replacement projects are not growth related. 9. Upgrade projects are not growth related. 10. Repair, replacement, or upgrades can be included as part of a mixed project where the scope will create increased capacity to serve projected growth. 11. Impact fees must be spent in the same geographic boundary (service area) in which they are collected. The City’s Impact Fee Facilities Plan designates the entire city as the service area. The Transportation section was updated in 2020. The other three sections were adopted in 2016. Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8319062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre $209.89 Total $209.89 8314031 Driver Feedback Signs $86,320.00 8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program $21,518.62 8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru $2,219.83 8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C $112,657.56 8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp $38,047.09 8319504 Street Reconstruct 1500S/2700S $8,281.62 8320501 Streets Reconstruction 20 $1,497.88 8320502 Street Overlay 20 $99,454.82 8320503 Traffic Signal Upgrades 20 $0.74 Total $369,998.16 8300800 ESCO Steiner - County Ongoing $439,527.00 8317076 SLVSWMF Projects $132,043.12 8319705 ZAP Oak Tennis Pro $4,721.20 8319710 Trans Choice 9 Line $62,203.69 8319720 Millcreek Sugarhouse County $27,021.29 8320070 FY20 Landfill Monitoring $207,402.00 Total $872,918.30 8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp $8,598.00 8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion $234,427.36 8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House $12,039.79 8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation $35,565.72 8317064 Jordan River Trail – Union P $500,000.00 8321800 Community Nutrition Hub $75,462.02 8322633 200 South Dominion Donation $300,000.00 8323401 Backman Community Donation $20,000.00 8600071 Smith Ballfield Naming Rights $374,908.15 8619621 Transportation Safety Improvem $630.25 Total $1,561,631.29 8315015 Fire Station #14 furnishings $6,265.96 8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap $25,335.87 8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $103,181.93 8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W $13,194.60 8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction $476,232.86 8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements $16,990.39 8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh $7,343.15 8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH $21,634.16 8317055 Capital Facilities Plan $4,928.32 8318028 Bridge Maintenance $76,503.76 8318044 East West Connections Study $970.74 8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails $57,732.81 8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway $24,336.20 8318048 Miller Park ADA access $364,735.10 8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control $4,432.91 8318053 Parks and Rec HVAC $9,900.00 8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP $110,104.00 8319085 Cost overrun $56,027.29 8319301 Delong & Parks Yard Improvemen $20,915.09 8319401 Glendale Park Playground Path $43,476.17 8319403 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr $1,428.58 CDBG Class C County Donations Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8319405 Rose Park Multiloop Trail $148,007.23 8319406 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage $39,545.97 8319616 Whitlock Curb and Gutter $18,909.88 8319619 1900 East Reconsruction $68,502.51 8319621 Traffic Signals Upgrade $0.68 8319622 1400 E Sunnyside Intersection $64,662.90 8319701 Library Parking Equipment $59,576.57 8319721 Millcreek Sugarhouse GF $485.95 8319741 WestsideMultimodal GF $29,657.50 8319900 Transportation Acctg SalesTax $2,241.02 8320085 Cost overrun $70,381.00 8320401 Liberty Park 7 Cany Fountain $695,580.27 8320402 Hidden Hollow Water Enhancemen $379,928.03 8320404 10 E Senior Ctr Retaining Wall $2,378.51 8320405 Libert Prk Drainage Fueling S.$94,837.45 8320406 Community Parks Signage $248,665.00 8320407 Three Creeks Con Phase III $492,800.00 8320432 Liberty 7 Canyons Fountain $127,968.00 8320442 Match UT FHA Foothill Trails $144,106.12 8320602 Bus Stop Signal Enhancements $772,947.60 8320603 McClelland Str Phase 2a $124,740.00 8320701 Sorensen Unity Connecting Corr $875,000.00 8381200 OPEN SPACE LAND MATCHING $11,600.00 8395046 OPEN SPACE LAND TRUST $9,103.01 8600001 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - GF $598,685.20 8600005 Crime Lab Rent $101,842.10 8600040 Percent for Art $255,895.77 8600042 Maintenance Percent for Art $43,133.35 8600401 Parks Maintenance $206,898.27 8600402 Public Lands Maintenance FOF $1,170,528.45 8600701 Facilities Maintenance $451,424.24 8600702 Facilities Asset Renewal $964,847.78 8619402 City-wide Park Walkway Safety $5,386.33 8619409 Fairmont Stream Access Beautif $17,000.00 8619411 Westside Trail Connections $249,922.91 8619602 Bridge Maintenance $150,000.00 8619603 Saw Cutting Sidewalk -$33.59 Why is this negative? 8619624 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration $35,322.27 8619625 Sunnyside 9 Line Trail $3,342.01 8620608 Sugarhouse 600 E Traffic Calmi $149,068.28 8620621 Bridge Maintenance $250,000.00 8686058 Elections Expenses $91,546.00 Total $10,672,104.46 8405005 Public Safety Building Replcmn $0.28 8406001 Gladiola Street $2,244.33 8412002 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design $124,593.18 8416004 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr $42,832.69 8416005 9line park $4,420.71 8417011 Marmalade Park Block Phase II $73,264.60 8417012 Parley's Trail Design & Constr $327,678.45 8417013 Rosewood Dog Park $1,055.97 General Fund Funding Source Cost Center Description Remaining Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status? 8417014 Redwood Meadows Park Dev $9,350.26 8417017 Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn $2,945.50 8417018 Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence $1,569.60 8418002 Cwide Dog Lease Imp $261.73 8418003 Bikeway Urban Trails $181,845.59 8418005 Bridge to Backman $251,757.84 8418016 500 to 700 S $22,744.01 8419008 Traffic Signal Upgrades $450.00 8419103 ImperialParkShadeAcct'g $6,397.50 8419150 Pioneer Park $3,022,323.09 8419201 Eastside Precint $21,639.09 8419202 Fire'sConsultant'sContract $58.00 8419203 Street'sConsultant'sContract $12,374.31 8419204 Park'sConsultant'sContract $42.00 8420110 Transp Safety Improvements $32,028.03 8420120 Complete Street Enhancements $18,699.37 8420125 Street Improve Reconstruc 20 $383,308.67 8420134 Jordan Prk Event Grounds $399,055.66 8420136 9Line Orchard $142,612.29 8420138 Rich Prk Comm Garden $8,103.29 8420142 Wasatch Hollow Improvements $413,726.49 8420406 IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks $54,807.56 8420420 UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails $121,329.10 8420424 Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen $110,390.48 8420430 FY20 Bridge to Backman $117,628.28 Total $5,911,537.95 8600002 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT -$27,171.28 Why is this negative? Total -$27,171.28 8316079 University bikeway $1,200.80 Total $1,200.80 8318100 Fire Training Center $19,313.38 8319801 PolicePrecinctLandAquisition $1,299,688.00 8381600 Regional Sports Complex land p $489,836.03 8381750 Building Assessment - City Bld $19,602.62 Total $1,828,440.03 $208,275,255.98 Impact Fees Land Sales Private Donations Sale of Property Grand Total Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019 1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council consideration. Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of deferred maintenance Appropriations vs. funding need identified in Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that tracks each asset $6.8 million annually or $68 million over ten years Expand the City's urban trail network with an emphasis on East-West connections Total paved/unpaved network miles; number and funding for improved trail features; percentage of 9-Line completed $21 million for 9- Line implementation Increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement condition survey every five years $133 million cost estimate (in addition to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Master Plan Distance of improved trails completed; number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD Advance the City's sustainability goals through building energy efficiency upgrades Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD Focus on renewal and maintenance projects over creating new assets Number, funding level and ratio of renewed assets vs. new assets $TBD 2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CAP projects. The idea of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5 million, and over $5 million. 3.Measure CAP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CAP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CAP. A high alignment would indicate the CAP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs. 4.Council Adoption of CAP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CAP each year with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding. Does the Administration have a preference? Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000 $200,000 $220,000 Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 $270,000 $290,000 4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 $550,000 $585,000 8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000 $850,000 $915,000 Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000 $90,000-$115000 $75,000-$115,000 Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000 $90,000-$175,000 $75,000-$175,000 City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000 $230,000-$350,000 $200,000-$350,000 Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000 $45,000-$62,500 $45,000 -$65,000 Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $250,000-$350,000 $300,000-$450,000 $325,000-$455,000 New Playground $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000 $550,000-$650,000 $585,000-$715,000 Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000 $450,000-$550,000 $525,000-$650,000 Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $325,000 Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF $54.00-$65.00 $58.00-$70.00/LF Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000 $210,000 $220,000 New post tension court $250,000 $300,000 $360,000 $400,000 Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40" width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF $30.00-$35.00 $32.50-$40.00/LF Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF $13.00-$18.00 $13.00-$20.00/LF Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF $7.00/SF $10.00/SF Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF $12.00/SF $15.00/SF Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF $8.00-$13.00/SF $10.00-$15.00/SF Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000 $330,000-$460,000 $365,000-$500,000 Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +$85,000+$90,000+ Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750 $600 $750 Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000 $135,000-$250,000 $145,000-$275,000 Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles = 1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+$ 700,000 $746,000 Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile)2,000+$2,500+$ 4,000 $4,300 Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000 $750,000-$1,250,000 $799,000-$1,331,000 Traffic Signals - New $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000 Traffic Signals - Upgrades $ 250,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $426,000 HAWK Signals $ 130,000 $ 150,000 $ 175,000 $350,000 Drinking Fountains Multi-purpose Field Improvements Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts) Path/ Trail Improvements Regular CIP Project Costs; General Rules of Thumb NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (could be out of date), vary by project, and do not include ongoing maintenance Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work) Studies Crosswalk - Flashing $ 60,000 $75,000 $85,000 $90,000 Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights $ 25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $37,000 Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000 $20000 - $30000 $21,500 - $32,000 Driver Feedback Sign $ 8,000 $9,500 $11,000 $12,000 Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk $ 25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $43,000 Pedestrian Refuge Island $ 10,000 $12,000 $15,000 $16,000 Curb Extension at Intersection $ 20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $32,000 Crosswalk $ 1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200 Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate 2022 Estimate 2023 Estimate Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)$ 280,000 $ 335,000 $ 360,000 $587,000 Crack Seal (Lane Mile)$ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $11,000 Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)$ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $761,000 Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000 $1,000,000 - $1,700,000 $1,088,000 - $1,811,000 Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)$ 4 $5 $6 $7 Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12 $9 - $15 $ 12 - $17 Note: Last updated July 2023 Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program First Year Accomplishments Summary From the Transportation Division -Hired four new transportation planners. -Worked with the Administration and City Council to change the prima facie speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph. Additional 20 mph signs are currently being prepared for installation near elementary schools throughout the city. -Updated the Livable Streets and Transportation Safety web pages. -For Livable Streets Zone 1, phase 1 of the traffic calming project for the Capitol Hill area has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -Our first public meetings were held this spring for Livable Streets Zones 2, 3 and 4. -Speed bumps to be installed on 2100 East and 1300 South. The project has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -The Slow Down West Sugar House project has been awarded and will be constructed this summer. -Temporary traffic calming devices were installed in the Sugar House Safe Side Streets project area. -As part of the Emery Street Livability Improvement Pilot Project, temporary traffic calming devices have been installed on Emery St with more on the way over the next couple of weeks. -Extensive work has been performed to update the crosswalk flag program. -Livable Streets enhancements were installed at a school crosswalk located at 2150 E Westminster -A roundabout has been designed for 700 S 1000 W. The project is currently being prepared for advertisement to obtain contractor bids. -In-roadway crosswalk warning signs were installed at multiple locations. Zone Prioritization and Status Based on Funding Level The prioritization of the zones hasn’t changed, therefore the overall map remains the same. Since this program is so new, we’re still working off estimates of the amount of funding each zone will require for their Livable Streets improvements. If we assume that the average of each zone will be $500K, then, based on the original $2M plus the new $1.35M funding will provide us with enough funding for approximately $3.35M/$500K = 6.7 Zones, or about six or seven zones. The attached map highlights the locations of the top 7 Livable Streets zones. We’re already working on Zones 1-4. Based on these assumptions, the FY2024 $1.35 million request will fund all or a portion of the projects in zones 5, 6 and 7. Note, the color coded prioritization map on the following page is from the Livable Streets Program 2022 Final Report page 13. Council staff added zone numbers one through seven to help compare the two maps. An interactive version of the zones map is available on the Transportation Division’s website here: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans-studies/livable-streets/#LivableStreetsProjects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CAP Plan, Matrix, & Policy Goals/Metrics Council Briefing July 18, 2023 Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, and Mike Atkinson Capital Asset Planning Model Funding Sources Funding Source Description Transportation Fund Quarter Cent Sales Tax - Transportation and Streets projects Bonds General Obligation and Revenue Special Assessment Area Central Business District - Economic Promotion Grants Federal, State, County Class C Roads State Gas Tax General Fund Most flexible funding source, can be spent on any project Public/Private Partnerships Potential future funding source Impact Fees Fire, Parks, Police, and Transportation/Streets Donations Individuals and foundations Capital Asset Plan Elements Division Master Plans Division specific documents RDA & Public Utilities Input Strategic Collaboration 10 Year Division Capital Planning Long-term capital planning Annual Constituency Requests Reviewed to align with internal requests & not ranked Impact Fee Facilities Plans Determine Impact Fee Eligibility Capital Asset Plan Funding Sources Committees Finance Committee Provide detailed information on Funding Sources CAP Committee Internal project ranking and submittal to CDCIP Board CAP Committee Scoring General Fund Capital Asset Plan CAP Manager Funding Sources Final Scoring & Budget Finance Committee CAP Committee Once projects have been evaluated by the CAP Committee, they are forwarded to the CDCIP Board for recommendation to the Mayor and City Council. Mayor City Council Criteria Critical Failure Legal Obligation Risk: Life, Health & Safety Outside Funding Completed Project Design Promote Equity Environmental Conservation Beautification Efficient Investment Workforce Support Community Request Points (0-4):4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y/N [Project Name] Submitting a request: When submitting a request, please provide answers to the following questions in addition to any information available related to the criteria. 1. Describe the project. 2. What is the problem the department is trying to solve? 3. Who will the project serve, and how will it improve services? 4. What is the requested timing of project completion, and what is the implication if the request is delayed or denied? 5. Is this a replacement or a new capital asset project? 6. Is there an estimated cost at this time? 7. What is the current annual maintenance and the estimated future annual maintenance? 8. Has the capital asset project been scoped? 9. Has the capital asset project been designed? *Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolution 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communities, Our City Family. CAP Matrix* 2019 Council Policy Goals and Metrics Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-Level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of deferred maintenance Appropriations vs. funding need identified in Public Services’ Facilities Dashboard that tracks each asset $6.8 million annually or $68 million over ten years Expand the City's urban trail network with an emphasis on East-West connections Total paved/unpaved network miles; number and funding for improved trail features; percentage of 9-Line completed $21 million for 9-Line implementation Increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair Overall Condition Index (OCI); pavement condition survey every five years $133 million cost estimate (in addition to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Master Plan Distance of improved trails completed; number and funding for improved trailheads $TBD Advance the City’s sustainability goals through building energy efficiency upgrades Energy savings; carbon emission reductions $TBD Focus on renewal and maintenance projects over creating new assets Number, funding level and ratio of renewed assets vs. new assets $TBD 2023 Mayor Goals – CIP Related Our Environment •Work with the City’s Sustainable Infrastructure Steering Committee to draft and propose internal policy requiring capital projects to consider environmental justice impacts and incorporate green and sustainable infrastructure. •Complete Foothills Trails Master Plan evaluation and Plan addendum in collaboration with key stakeholders and indigenous leaders. Our Community •Develop a 5-Year Strategic Plan for Planned Growth to more effectively utilize impact fees for community benefits. •Complete the Neighborhood Byway Design Guidebook and finish design and/or construction of at least four neighborhood byways throughout the city. •Implement action items on the Vision Zero program to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities. •Propose adoption of Life on State to improve transportation and land uses along the corridor. THANK YOU Presented by Department of Finance CAP Matrix* Cri�cal Failure: When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will prevent a cri�cal failure of a structure. Does this project follow the Sustainability Ordinance? Legal Obliga�ons: When reviewing this criterium, considera�ons include coming into compliance with ordinances and execu�ve orders, various contractual agreements, or state and federal mandates. Risk: Life, Health, and Safety: When reviewing this criterium, par�cular focus should be paid to whether the request will correct various types of code viola�ons or increase safety/reduce crime. Outside Funding: This criterium assesses whether there is outside funding support for a par�cular ini�a�ve, including federal and state grants, coordina�on with other agencies, public/private partnerships, or dona�ons. When analyzing outside funding, it should be noted how much of the funding will s�ll need to be provided by the City in addi�on to any outside support. Project Design Complete: This is in accordance with Resolu�on Number 29 of 2017 which states, "The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construc�on funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more �me passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-es�ma�ng project costs by funding capital projects in a �mely manner.” Promote Equity: Considera�on should be given to underserved areas of the city in order to improve the infrastructure of the city as a whole ("close the gap amongst neighborhoods") rather than improving some areas and allowing others to deteriorate. A map showing the condi�on of the infrastructure of the city could help in performing this analysis. Environmental Conserva�on: This criterium involves analyzing whether a project provides environmentally sustainable solu�ons or helps preserve natural resources (watersheds, rivers, green space, etc.) Efficient Investment: The main considera�ons for efficient investment are whether a project func�ons to increase revenue or reduce expenses. Projec�ons on this front should be as accurate as possible and veted through the Department of Finance. Workforce Support: This criterium focuses on whether a project supports the physical, mental, or economic well- being of City employees, in keeping with the Mayor's goal of suppor�ng "Our City Family". Beau�fica�on: This relates to aesthe�c improvements including Art incorpora�on, Historic Preserva�on, Site Beau�fica�on, and other opportuni�es that express the City's value for the arts and improving quality of life through projects that go beyond func�onal efficiency. Community Request: While the financial limita�ons of any municipality inhibit the ability to act on every request - the concerns and desires of our residents are vital to understanding how best to allocate our limited resources, therefore, projects that are closely aligned with community requests should be given proper considera�on. *Criteria has been developed in accordance with Resolu�on 29 of 2017 and the Mayor's Goals of: Our Growth, Our Environment, Our Communi�es, Our City Family. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 18, 2023 RE: Rezone & Text Amendment: Fleet Block PLNPCM2019- 00277 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: October 6, 2020 Briefing: December 8, 2020 Briefing: November 22 2022 Briefing: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing 1: Nov 10, 2020 Public Hearing 2: Nov 17, 2020 Potential Action: TBD NEW INFORMATION During the November 22, 2022, briefing, the Council received an update on the Fleet Block disposition strategy as well as discussed the proposed zoning amendments pertaining to the FB-UN3 zone and potential rezone of the Fleet Block to FB-UN3 Additionally, the Council conducted a series of straw polls that provided direction to staff on changes pertaining to the draft zoning ordinance and the development strategy for the block. (See Section 3 below) Since that last briefing, the Administration worked to incorporate the Council’s recommended changes. On June 1 of this year, the Administration sent updated transmittals for the block’s zoning and disposition strategy. Based on that updated work, the Administration is requesting the Council review the updated zoning changes and disposition strategy and consider the following: 1) Approve the rezone as provided through a separate transmittal. The legislative function of rezoning the property must be finalized prior to initiating an RFQ/P process to ensure that procurement processes are based on an approved zoning district. 2) Indicate support for the Fleet Block public space to be located on the southeast quadrant of the block as demonstrated on Exhibit A – Fleet Block: Proposed Location of Public Space. If the Council is supportive, the Department of Public Lands will return to the Council at a later date to formally designate the public space as either a public square or park. 3) Provide any final policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process. Page | 2 The updated information for July 18 is outlined in the following sections: Section 1 – Policy Questions Section 2 – Zoning Changes Section 3 – Disposition strategy Section 4 – Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning (November 22, 2022) Section 1 – Policy Questions •Is the Council ready to move the zoning petitions forward for potential action? o The Council could consider adopting the zoning text amendment that would codify the FB- UN3 zoning district and hold off on rezoning the Fleet Block. o The Council could move forward with both zoning amendments •Does the Council support the proposed site plan that bisects the block into four quadrants, including a plaza/shared street, open space, midblock streets, and a nonmotorized midblock connection? •Does the Council support the proposed RFQ/RFP process outlined in the transmittal letter? o Does the Council have any additional policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process? Section 2 – Zoning Changes At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council requested the following revisions and additional information pertaining to the zoning changes. The changes were included by Planning staff are outlined below: •Split the ordinance into two parts The ordinance has been split up into two parts which would need to be adopted separately. o Zoning text amendment to adopt the code text. o Zoning map amendment to map the zone over the Fleet Block. •Lot Size Limits to Control Building Length Size The City Council asked for more information on the Planning Commission recommendation to consider a lot size limit for property in the FB-UN3 zone. Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines the issue and provides reasons why Planning Staff does not believe a lot size limit is necessary. In summary, “[Planning] Staff recommends not imposing a maximum lot size limit, as the maximum façade length limit accomplishes the same intent and would better control development size in more situations than a lot size limit. Further, the Administration is proposing to break up the Fleet Block into multiple lots with an internal street and pedestrian walkway network, so a lot size limit is not necessary to ensure that breakup.” (Transmittal Letter, Page 4) •Ground Floor Modification The Council discussed strengthening the ground floor use requirement to ensure a use with a high level of activity would be on the ground floor of larger buildings. Planning staff proposed the following language to address this concern: For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: 1. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non- residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 2. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 3. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. Active Use Definition: Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning commission. Page | 3 •Ordinance Updates Due to Recent Code Changes and Potential Conflicts Planning Staff updated the land use table in the FB-UN3 ordinance to align with code changes made since the Fleet Block was transmitted in 2020: •Technology Related Land Uses •Significant Water Consuming Land Uses •Congregate Care •Single-Room Occupancy •Downtown Building Heights Also removed duplicate uses from the FB-UN3 land use list to avoid conflict and interpretation issues, such as “Office, Publishing Company” and “Store, Convenience,” as the uses are already allowed under general uses like “Office” and “Retail Goods Establishment.” Section 3 – Disposition strategy The Transmittal letter discusses the following topics in depth. Below is a short summary of each of these topics. See the Transmittal letter for full analysis. •Site Plan and Public Space (Transmittal Letter, Page 2) Based on the Council’s feedback provided during the November 2022 briefing and after completing a shadow analysis, the Administration is recommending that the public space be located on the south end of the block, on the 300 West 900 South corner for the following reasons (Transmittal Letter, pages 1-2): o It will support the Green Loop and 9 Line. o A shade and shadow analysis indicates that this site will have less shade in the winter, thereby making the public space more usable year-round. o While locating two of the development sites along 800 South may require design concessions to ensure adequate fire aerial access, the Administration believes that the benefits of locating the open space on the southeast quadrant outweigh the resulting negatives Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal Exhibit A Proposed Location of Public Spaces Page | 4 •Midblock Infrastructure (Transmittal Letter, Page 3) The updated Midblock connections are proposed to bisect the block into four quadrants as outlined in the proposed site plan below: Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal Exhibit B: Proposed Site Plan •Budgetary Impacts (Transmittal Letter, Page 3-4) The Transmittal letter notes the goal is to have all the midblock connections owned and maintained by the City, which will ensure the public’s rights to access and use the space to the greatest extent possible. Funding for these two segments could be leveraged from the land value of adjacent development sites or acquired through a forthcoming capital improvement program (“CIP”) request. Recently CAN completed a study by Common Ground Institute and Urban 3 on the Public Asset Yield (“PAY”) model. Through the PAY model, which can be similar to an urban wealth fund model, cities develop underutilized properties as income-generating uses such as residential, office, and mixed-use communities. The administration provided two options to transform the land value into a public benefit 1. Land Sales Proceeds: Sell property and utilize the sales proceeds as a capital investment to build on-site public benefits 2. Ground Lease Proceeds: Issue a ground lease to an income-generating development and capture lease revenue annually over time to implement public benefits •Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposal Process (Transmittal Letter, Page 4) Page | 5 The three development sites will be marketed competitively through either an RFQ or RFP process. The procurement and development processes will include requirements to ensure that the ultimate development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and underrepresented groups. The City will continue to involve the community in the development process through involving an inclusive selection committee to evaluate rankings and proposal, require a Community Benefits Agreement with potential developers and identification of metrics to track and measure outcomes that will hold the City and developers accountable to the community’s vision for the block. Section 4 –Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning (from November 22, 2022) 1. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly. •Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum length/width for open space? No Change Needed - Downtown Height amendments will address this 2. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public who interact with the buildings •Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open space requirements? •If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space requirements. Council did not support this change 3. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher activity uses.” •Does the Council support asking the Administration to make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West? Planning will forward a recommendation •If over a certain amount (TBD) of sf, could require active use. •Building faced over x size must have x amount of ground floor commercial •See response above. Planning Commission Requests a. Limit lot sizes • The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater building variety. Page | 6 • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. • In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. • If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed. • Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block? Council requested more information. Examples may be helpful. b. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets •The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. •They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. •The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features. •The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone. •Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would require all units to front a public street? Council did not support this change c. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size •The Planning Commission was concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings. •In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. •The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the number of stalls allowed. •If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone? Council did not support this change d. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location •The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the block’s exact center. •The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. Page | 7 •Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. •The Commission expressed a desire to see the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the Fleet Block? Council did not support this change – this was fleet block specific The following information was provided for the November 22, 2022, briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive an update on proposed zoning amendments and disposition strategy for the City-owned property known as the Fleet Block, located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, most of this block was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the fleet function was moved to a facility farther west, the City conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. Based on previous Council and community input and discussion, any redevelopment will need to balance developer interest, land use and compatibility, and the significant community interest in the property focused on art murals painted on the building walls. The staff report is outlined in the following manner: •Background Information •Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations – starting on page 3 of the staff report (key questions for the Council from the Administration) •Zoning Amendments o Summary of Zoning Amendments o Planning Commission Recommended Changes o Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing o Zoning Policy Questions BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2019, former Mayor Biskupski initiated a zoning amendment to create a new zone titled Form- Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3. The Fleet Block property became a focal point of community expression and interest during the summer of 2020 amidst calls for social justice and reform for police practices. In fall of 2020, the Council held a series of briefings and public hearings pertaining to the zoning amendments. Page | 8 Many constituents spoke during the fall 2020 Council meetings and public hearings on this issue and covered various main themes, including: •significant number of comments in favor of preserving the area or part of the area for a community gathering space such as park, open space area or community garden •some comments recommending a community center •requests to save the murals; requests to incorporate the murals into future open space or development •requests for community to be included in conversation; some called for the City to establish a community advisory group to help guide the development process •some expressed opposition to housing and commercial development on the Fleet Block •some commenters expressed a desire to see the block developed as it has been a blight in their neighborhood for years •importance of the area as a community gathering space was emphasized Due to the public comments provided, the Council decided additional, meaningful public outreach was needed to help identify the vision for the Fleet Block and define what the public benefits could look like before redevelopment and zoning decisions were made. The Council decided to postpone considering the zoning amendments until a plan to conduct additional public outreach was agreed upon. At that time, the Council expressed general support for the concepts of the zoning amendments; however, they felt with the enhanced focus on the block, additional public outreach was needed. There has been general agreement between the Administration and Council on components for the public process and goals based on previous conversations. Emphasis would include: 1. Creation of a meaningful community gathering space on the block such as a park/public square or open space. 2. Features that represent the history of marginalized members of the community and the fight, struggle, and advancement of the community’s efforts for equality, fair representation, and justice 3. Space for the incubation, growth, and economic success of small and local businesses 4. Affordable and accessible housing At a December 2020 Council briefing, the Council directed staff to work with the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN) and the Attorney’s Office to outline potential conditions to the zoning amendments that would help ensure a meaningful public process is completed. The process would help identify community benefits and be the basis of draft motions for the Council’s consideration. For example, adoption of the rezone would be connected with: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (a Request For Information or RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future Fleet Block redevelopment and what the public benefits could look like. In January 2022, the Administration issued a Request-for-Information (RFI) for the Fleet Block. The purpose of the RFI was to “explore options available to the City to develop the Property and to learn from the prior experience of others in developing complex urban infill projects. The RFI was intended solely to assist in informing the City’s approach to developing the Property.” Staff note: An “RFI” is generally considered a more general information-gathering exercise, intended to be a lower-barrier for a variety of interested parties who may respond with ideas. An “RFP” is generally considered a more technical process and typically follows an RFI. Page | 9 Reponses to the RFI were due at the end of February. An internal City technical committee reviewed responses and utilized the information to draft a future Request for Proposal (RFP) specific to development proposals. In April of this year the Administration briefed the Council on Fleet Block, including the public process, rezone process, and development constraints of the block. The Council provided feedback emphasizing the importance of equality and inclusion. Previous large City property assemblages were offered to a single development team, often favoring partners with greater existing wealth and experience. At that time, the Council provided input encouraging the Administration to consider a different approach which could give other, less-capitalized partners an opportunity to participate. According to the Transmittal letter, since the last briefing in April, the Administration has “considered ways to not only infuse equity into the resulting development, providing affordable housing, affordable commercial space, and public space, but to also market and develop the property in a way that is more accessible to an inclusive group of partners. In consideration of the Council’s feedback, master plan polices, responses from the Request for Information (“RFI”), and development constraints, the Administration has developed an approach to create multiple development sites to be offered through a phased request for proposal (“RFP”) process. Dividing up the Fleet Block into multiple property offerings will be conducive for involving multiple development teams of varying scale and experience.” This briefing will provide an update to the City Council and the community on those efforts and outline the next steps pertaining to the following: 1. Zoning recommendations that would; 1) create the FB-UN3 zoning district and 2) rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3, 2. Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations Request for Proposal (RFP) strategy and policy considerations Property disposition is an Administrative function. However, the Council has zoning authority and must approve any potential future discounts to the fair market value of the Fleet Block. Therefore, the Administration is seeking policy guidance from the Council pertaining to the RFP and development scenarios of the block. In addition to the policy questions below, the transmittal letter outlines the cost and process for the environmental remediation and the impact to the land value once midblock connections and public space are included. 1. Potential Policy Questions The Administration’s transmittal outlined a few policy questions they are seeking feedback from the Council on. a. Mid-Block Connections (page 2 Transmittal Letter) If the council supports including midblock connections on the Fleet Block, the City would need to identify land designated as midblock connections through the subdivision process, prior to issuing the RFP. Does the Council support maintaining City ownership of portions of the Fleet Block intended to be public in the future, or selling parcels to private property owners? Staff note: the Council could stipulate that a certain percentage of land be set aside as Page | 10 public to provide flexibility for RFP respondents to locate those connections in a more appropriate manner. Some questions have been raised about potential benefits and opportunities to the community if the fleet block was divided up into smaller developments instead of going with one master developer. Attachment A: Hypothetical Development Scenario, of the transmittal letter provides a hypothetical scenario of how the property could be subdivided to establish three separate development sites. Does the Councill wish to provide policy guidance on subdividing Fleet Block into smaller development sites? b. Park Space (page 3 Transmittal Letter) To move forward with the RFP process the City must identify where any public space will be located. The transmittal letter notes key considerations include the public feedback and alcohol buffers Does the Council wish to provide feedback on the location of public space on the Fleet Block? See staff note above. c. Zoning (page 4 Transmittal Letter) Since December 2020, the Council held off considering the zoning changes while the Administration conducted further, meaningful public process. The intent of the process was to help identify potential community benefits of the block and gather feedback on potential future uses on the block. Two steps the Council asked to have completed before considering the zoning changes are: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (an RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future redevelopment of Fleet Block and what public benefits could be included. The Council was briefed on the RFI in April 2022. The RFP transmittal outlines additional public engagement the Administration conducted. Does the Council feel the goals for more public engagement and opportunity to provide input on the RFI have been satisfied? If yes, does the Council support setting a date to consider adopting the zoning changes at a Council meeting? d. RFP – Equity and Inclusion provisions (Page 5 Transmittal Letter) The Transmittal letter notes the RFPs will include requirements to ensure the forthcoming development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and minority communities. An Inclusive Committee will be established to help review and rank responses to the RFP. Additionally, a community benefit agreement to ensure the community’s interest are addressed in future development and metrics to track the outcomes will be part of the development process Does the Council have any question about how equity and inclusion factors will be included in the RFP process? Page | 11 Zoning Amendments 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing 4. Zoning Policy Questions 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments Text Amendment: Establish Development Standards and Land Uses The Planning Division drafted development standards for the FB-UN3 zoning district. FB-UN3 is meant to complement the existing FB-UN 1 and FB-UN2 zoning districts which are found mainly in the Central 9th neighborhood. According to Planning staff, “The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid- block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height. The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix of land uses expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 3) Below is a summary of key form-based concepts for the proposed the FB-UN3 zoning district. It is also outlined in detail on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is provided here for ease of access. Additionally, Planning staff created a graphical summary of the proposed FB- UN3 regulations. See Attachment B to view that summary. Rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN 3 The City owns the majority of the Fleet Block. However, the southwest corner is privately owned. The owner of that portion of the block asked to be included in the rezone. Vicinity Map (Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report) Page | 12 Building Form Types •Row house (townhome) •Storefront (a commercial building - retail, office, etc.) •Vertical Mixed-Use (a building with ground floor commercial and residential above) •Multi-family (an apartment or condominium building) General Building Standards •Height Limits o 40' for rowhouse and 85' for vertical mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125' through Design Review.) •Front Setback Limits and Build-To Lines o Requires that buildings are located close to the sidewalk •Open Space Requirements o 10% of lot area and can be yards, plazas, rooftop decks, similar o 25% of unit footprint for row houses •Ground Floor Use Minimums o 75% of the width of ground floor facade must be an active use (not parking) and have a minimum depth of 25' - meant to ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians along ground floor facades • Exception for rowhomes- use space must have 10' depth o Along 900 South, the required ground floor space is limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. • Exception for row houses, must be live/work and have 25' depth •Minimum Ground Floor Heights o Min. 14' to ensure flexible, viable active spaces in the long-term Page | 13 •Mid-block Walkway Installation o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional walking routes on large City blocks. •Entry Features for Dwellings o Every ground floor dwelling unit adjacent to a street must include an entry feature, such as a porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o For row houses, each dwelling unit must include an entry feature even if the unit is not street facing •Rowhome Frontage o Rowhome lots without frontage along a street allowed with a final plat that documents access easements for lots and includes a shared infrastructure reserve study disclosure o Rowhomes adjacent to the street must incorporate a street facing entry feature Design Standards •Entryway Installation o Facade must include an entry feature- porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o One entry required for every 75' of facade •Glass/Window Minimums o 60% of ground floor facade and 15% of upper floor facade must be glass. •Blank Wall Limits o No blank wall that is uninterrupted by doors, windows, or other projections, over 30' in length. •High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums o Min. 70% of facade must be quality, durable material- brick, fiber-cement, textured concrete, etc. •Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units o Dwelling units on upper levels facing a street must have a balcony •Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies •Parking Structure Design Requirements o Includes variety of requirements for the facade and ground level activation •Build-to Line Alternatives o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum build-to line requirements (the setback that a minimum percentage of the building must be built to), allowing buildings to be set-back behind these features Parking and Driveway Regulations Page | 14 The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian experience: •Driveway number and location limits - 1 driveway per street face •Parking limited to behind/ side of buildings •No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones) Streetscape Requirements Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These include regulations on: •Street trees (min. 1 every 30 feet) •Sidewalk widths (min. 8 feet) •Streetlights (required where identified in City streetlight plans) Land Uses The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the Downtown Master Plans call for an integration of "urban family living" and "clean industry" uses. Staff believes the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without generally having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts that would likely exist under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses would not be allowed, to avoid noise and visual conflicts. Storage/warehouse uses, which have limited human activity, would not be allowed on the ground floor next to the sidewalk. •Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing) Please see Attachment C to view the proposed land use table. Signs Sign regulations proposed for this zone generally match the FB-UN2 zoning allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument signs, marquee signs and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of building). Other Related Amendments As part of this proposal, staff is including additions and clarifications to some general regulations for development under the Form-Based Code chapter. This includes: •Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials •Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter, which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter. 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes Page | 15 Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines four recommendations the Planning Commission requested the Council consider. If the Council supports the concepts raised by the Planning Commission, which are outlined below, the Administration can prepare draft language to be considered for inclusion in the final ordinance. e. Limit lot sizes The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater building variety. • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. • In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. • If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed. • Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block? f. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets •The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. •They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. •The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features. •The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone. Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would require all units to front a public street? g. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size •The Planning Commission was a concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings. •In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. •The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the number of stalls allowed. •If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. Page | 16 Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone? h. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location •The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the exact center of the block. •The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. •Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. •The Commission expressed a desire in seeing the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the Fleet Block? 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020 work session briefing During the October 6, 2020 work session briefing the Council raised questions about the proposed zoning amendments. The list of questions is outlined below. Please see Attachment D for the Administration’s responses to these questions. Staff will be prepared to review these questions one by one and answer additional questions the Council may have. A. Can the proposed ordinance require any open space be open to the public? B. Questions were raised about potentially increasing the amount of open space required by the ordinance. Concerns were expressed that may be considered a taking. ▪How, if at all, would requiring more open space be consider a taking if the City owns the property? ▪Would the taking concern apply to other privately owned properties that may be potentially rezoned to FB-UN3? ▪Would increasing the amount of required open space potentially impede some kinds of development? •Does requiring open space attract some kinds of development? C. Could the Administration explain if there is a difference between open space required by the ordinance and the City designating some of the City owned fleet block as a park/green/open space? D. Can the City designate as much of city-owned portions of the Fleet Block a park/open space as it wants? ▪What is the process for the City to designate a park area? Page | 17 E. Could Planning Staff further explain landscaping requirements for the various type of buildings in the FB-UN3 and if it would be appropriate to increase vegetation requirements for the larger buildings? ▪Would vegetation on rooftops be allowed (roof gardens, green roofs, etc.)? F. Concerns were raised about the center of Fleet Block becoming a large parking lot. ▪Are there provisions in the ordinance that would prevent this from happening or could they be added? G. The ordinance requires ground floor uses on 900 South to be active uses such as retail establishments, restaurants, etc. Could active uses be required on 300 West too? ▪Would providing some exceptions make it more feasible? Potential Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning 4. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly. •Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum length/width for open space? 5. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public who interact with the buildings •Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open space requirements? •If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space requirements. 6. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher activity uses.” •Does the Council support asking the Administration to make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West? FB-UN3 Ordinance Update ▪Ordinance split into two parts: 1.Text Amendment –creates the FB-UN3 zone itself 2.Map Amendment –maps the FB-UN3 zone over the Fleet Block ▪Ordinance also updated to reflect recently adopted codes and eliminate code conflicts ▪Downtown zoning updates, tech land uses, etc. Active Ground Floor Uses For Buildings >100’ in Length Retail/Restaurant/Etc. OR Residential Retail/Restaurant/Etc. NOT Residential ▪Council concerned with lack of highly active uses on ground floors ▪Current code (applies to all building sizes): ▪75% of ground floor length must be retail, restaurant, or similar, OR residential ▪Additional code proposal for large buildings over 100' in length: ▪30%must be retail, restaurant, or similar active use –NOT residential ▪Remaining 45% can be any active use –retail, restaurant, etc., OR residential ▪Reason for requirement -more economically viable for larger buildings Proposed Ground Floor Requirement for Large Buildings Building Length Limit vs Property/Lot Size Limit ▪Proposed code limits building length NOT property/lot size ▪200' limit (~1/3 downtown block face) ▪Encourages building variety ▪PC suggested considering property size limits in addition to building length –ex. 2 acres ▪Concerns Fleet Block could be one large building ▪Property size limit not necessary ▪Building length limit accomplishes same intent more directly ▪Consistent with approach in other zones ▪Large properties already exceeding size limit would be legally exempt from property size limit –but not building limit Proposed Building Length Limit Example of a Property Size Limit Max. 90,000 sq ft/ 2 acres 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict) An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB- UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019- 00277. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C. (Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not 2 adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void): a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.030.C. Application of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form- based zoning subdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section may be modified through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in Subsections C.8 “Open Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions” of this Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design review. b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows: 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows: 8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. 3 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.050: FB-UN1, FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS: b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows: A. Subdistricts: 1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form based district: a. FB-UN1 Urban Neighborhood 1 Subdistrict: Generally includes small scale structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively small lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type. Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development regulations are based on the building type. b. FB-UN2 Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density residential, and other supportive land uses. c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 4 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 5 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature. 6 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. 7 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply with any specific building form regulation. c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, 8 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 9 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. 10 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. 11 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply with any specific building form regulation. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional Use Permitted Uses By District FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P Alcohol: Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8 Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8 Distillery P5 Tavern P8 Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8 Winery P5 Amphitheater, formal P Amphitheater, informal P Amusement park P Animal Cremation service P SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. 12 Kennel (Indoor) P Kennel (Outdoor) C Veterinary office P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 Artists loft/studio P Auction (indoor) P Auditorium P Bed and breakfast P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5 Blacksmith shop (indoor) P Blood donation center P Botanical garden P Brewery P5 Brewery, small P5 Bus line station/terminal C Car wash C Charity dining hall P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5 Community garden P P P P P Community recreation center P P P P Convent/monastery P Convention center P Crematorium P Daycare center, adult P P P P center, child P P P P nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P Assisted living facility (large) P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P Group home (large) P P P P Group home (small) P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) P P 13 Residential support (small) P P Rooming (boarding) house P P Single-family attached P P P P Single-family detached P Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P Single room occupancy P P Two-family P Emergency medical services facility P Equipment rental (indoor) P Exhibition hall P Farmers’ market P P P P Financial institution P P P Flea market (indoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C Government facility P P P P P Greenhouse P Health and fitness facility P P P P Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Hospital P Hotel/motel P P P House museum in landmark site P P P P P Industrial assembly (indoor) P Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5 Library P P P P Manufacturing, light (indoor) P Meeting hall of membership organization P Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district P P P P Mobile food business P Mobile food court P Mobile food trailer P Mobile food truck P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P Museum P P P P Nursing care facility P P P P Office P P P P Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P Open space P P P P P Park P P P P P Parking, commercial C7 Parking facility, shared P7 14 Parking garage P Parking, off site P P P7 P P Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7 Performing arts production facility P Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5 Place of worship P P P P Plazas P P P P P Radio, television station P Railroad passenger station P Reception center P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Restaurant P P P P Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Public or private P Seasonal farm stand P P P P Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P Social service mission P Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5 Storage, self P6 Store, specialty P P P P Studio, art P P P P Studio, motion picture P Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Theater, live performance P Theater, movie P P P P Urban farm P P P P P Utility, building or structure P P P P P Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P Vehicle Automobile rental agency P Automobile repair major C Automobile repair minor P Vending cart, private property P P P P Warehouse P6 15 Welding shop (indoor) P Wholesale distribution C6 Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P Woodworking mill (indoor) P Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. TABLE 21A.36.020.C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By the District Applicable Districts Chimney As required by local, State or Federal regulations All zoning districts Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts Elevator/stairway tower or bulkhead 16 feet All Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R- MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2 Districts 16 Note: 1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICT: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning district. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations for the Form Based Code District: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning district are intended to provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code zoning district. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All other regulations in this chapter shall apply. B. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards: 1. A-Frame Sign: Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By the District Applicable Districts Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district in which the flagpole is located or 60 feet, whichever is less. Conditional use approval is required for additional height All zoning districts Light poles for sport fields such as ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges, and similar uses1 Maximum height of the zoning district or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special exception approval is required for any further additional height or if the lights are located closer than 30 feet from adjacent residential structures All zoning districts that allow sport field activities and stadiums excluding parks less than 4 acres in size Mechanical equipment parapet wall 5 feet All zoning districts, other than the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and Open Space Districts 17 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications A- frame sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Placement On public sidewalk or private property. Obstruction free area Minimum of 8 feet must be maintained at all times for pedestrian passage. 2. Awning or Canopy Sign: 18 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Awning or canopy sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance. Width Equal to the width of the window. Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avoidance with tree canopy, and issuance of encroachment permits where required. The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a special purpose corridor. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance. Letters and logos Allowed on vertical portions of sign only. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face a special purpose corridor but must be located on 19 private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 5. Construction Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Construction sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity 1 per construction site. Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-UN3. Area Maximum of 64 square feet. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property. 6. Flat Sign: 20 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. No maximum width in FB-UN3. Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-UN3. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 7. Flat Sign (building orientation): Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign (building orientation) P Quantity 1 per building face. Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 6. Marquee Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Marquee sign P Quantity 1 per building. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. Height May not extend above the roof of the building. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project into right of way a maximum of 4 21 feet provided the sign is a minimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. 7. Monument Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Monument sign P Quantity 1 per building. Setback 5 feet. Height Maximum of 20 feet. Area 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 8. Nameplate Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications 22 9. New Development Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications New Development sign P Quantity 1 per street frontage. Setback 5 feet. Height 12 feet. Area 200 square feet. 10. Private Directional Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Private directional sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 5 feet. Area Maximum of 8 square feet. Restriction May not contain business name or logo. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 11. Projecting Sign: Nameplate sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Area Maximum of 3 square feet. 23 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building façade. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 12. Projecting Parking Entry Sign: 24 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign graphic) P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Height Maximum of 2 feet. Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 13. Public Safety Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 6 feet. Area 8 square feet. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 14. Real Estate Sign: 25 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Real estate sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Height Maximum of 12 feet. Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 15. Window Sign: 26 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Window sign P P P P Quantity 1 per window. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Area Maximum of 25% of window area. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Table 21A.37.060.G of Salt Lake City Code. That Table 21A.37.060.G of the Salt Lake City Code (Form Based Districts), shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: Standard (Code Section) District FB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-UN3 FB-SC FB-SE Ground floor use (%) (21A.37.050.A.1) 75 753 75 75 Ground floor use + visual interest (%) (21A.37.050.A.2) Building materials: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.B.3) 70 70 70 70 70 27 Building materials: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.B.4) 70 70 70 70 70 Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) 601 601 601 601 601 Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) 15 15 15 15 15 Reflective Glass: ground floor (%) (21A.37.050.C.1) Reflective Glass: upper floors (%) (21A.37.050.C.2) Building entrances (feet) (21A.37.050.D) 75 75 75 75 75 Blank wall: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.E) 15 15 30 30 30 Street facing facade: maximum length (feet) (21A.37.050.F) 200 200 200 200 200 Upper floor step back (feet) (21A.37.050.G.4) X X X X Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050.H) X X X X X Lighting: parking lot (21A.37.050.I) X X X Screening of mechanical equipment (21A.37.050.J) X X X Screening of service areas (21A.37.050.K.1) X X X2 Ground floor residential entrances for dwellings with individual unit entries (21A.37.050.L) X X X Parking garages or structures (21A.37.050.M) X X X X X Tree canopy coverage (%) (21A.37.050.P.1) 40 40 40 28 Minimum vegetation standards (21A.37.050.P.2) X X X Street trees (21A.37.050.P.3) X X X X X Soil volume (21A.37.050.P.4) X X X Minimize curb cuts (21A.37.050.P.5) X X X Overhead cover (21A.37.050.P.6) Streetscape landscaping (21A.37.050.P.7) X X X Height transitions: angular plane for adjacent zone districts (21A.37.050.Q) X X X Horizontal articulation (21A.37.050.R) X X X Notes: 1. This may be reduced to twenty percent (20%) if the ground floor is within one of the following building types: urban house, two-family, cottage, and row house. 2. Except where specifically authorized by the zone. 3. For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: a. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non-residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. b. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. c. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON 29 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 7, 2023 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 1, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00277 FB-UN3 Ordinance and Informational Update STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. 801-535- 7165 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the updated ordinances that would (1) adopt the FB-UN3 zone and (2) map the zone on the Fleet Block. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council requested a revision to the proposed FB- UN-3, Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3, ordinance regarding ground floor use requirements and requested more information regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation to consider a lot size limit. The Council also discussed splitting the ordinance into two parts – a zoning text amendment to adopt the code and zoning map amendment to map the zone over the Fleet Block. Since that meeting, Staff has also made some updates to the proposed ordinance to align the FB-UN3 text with recent City Code changes. The below sections provide more information on those items. Ground Floor Use Modification The Council discussed strengthening the ground floor use requirement to ensure a use with a high- level of activity would be on the ground floor of larger buildings. Buildings are already required 06/02/2023 06/02/2023 Lisa Shaffer (Jun 2, 2023 09:34 MDT) to have a ground floor use that isn’t just parking along sidewalks, but that space can be occupied by residential units. Residential units are not necessarily high activity uses. In response to this, Staff is proposing the following language: For buildings with street facing facades over 100' in length, a minimum of 30% of the façade length shall be an “active use” as defined in 21A.37.050.A.1. Except for the rowhouse building form, residential units shall not count as an “active use” toward the 30% minimum. Active Use Definition: Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning commission. The language would require that for buildings with a façade length longer than 100', at least 30% of that length would need to include an “active use” with a high potential for visible activity, such as retail or restaurant space, as defined above. Residential units would not count toward this requirement. At the smallest size building this regulation would apply to (at least 101' in length), the 30% requirement will create a space at least 30' in width, which is large enough to support a small business. All required ground floor spaces are required by ordinance to have a minimum 25' depth. This is a diagram representing the area proportions of the proposed ground floor use regulation. The red area is the percentage required to be a high activity “active use” such as retail or a restaurant; the yellow is the remainder of the façade that at a minimum must be occupied by a lower activity “active use,” such as residential or retail; and the remainder of the façade can be occupied by areas such as lobbies, mailrooms, parking, or other less active uses. The 100' length threshold captures larger buildings where there is likely more financial feasibility to accommodate a high activity ground floor use. Rowhomes are proposed to be excluded from the requirement as they are generally smaller in size, and it may not be as feasible to accommodate such uses as part of those developments. The above code relies on additional code not yet adopted, but that is currently proposed in the “Downtown Building Heights” ordinance, and so the proposed code changes have been included in that ordinance to avoid an ordinance conflict. That ordinance is currently before the Council. Lot Size Limits to Control Building Length Size The Planning Commission provided a recommendation that the City Council consider a lot size limit for property in the FB-UN3 zone. The Commission was concerned that there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended that there should be lot size limits to encourage smaller buildings and more building variety. One particular concern at the Commission meeting was that the Fleet Block could be developed for one very large building. A related recurring concern for the Commission is long façade lengths. Development scale is regulated in the FB-UN3 code with height limits (125' max.) and façade length limits (200' max.). These two types of regulations are generally how development scale is controlled in most of the City’s commercial and mixed-use zones. A key purpose of the façade length limit is to avoid long, monotonous building facades and help visually break up long block faces. Diagrams of a lot size limit example next to the proposed 200' façade length limit. Lot size limits are an additional way to regulate development scale. Maximum lot size limits are used in the City’s lower scale single- and two-family residential zones and in one lower scale commercial zone intended to be mapped within residential neighborhoods. An example of such a limit is the R-1/5,000, Single-family Residential, zone that has a maximum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The maximums are intended to help ensure new development is compatible and in scale with existing single-family residential homes. In these zones a maximum façade length limit is not used. This is in contrast to the City’s commercial and mixed-use zones that generally use a façade length limit to limit development size, rather than a lot size limit. Planning Staff doesn’t believe that a lot size limit is necessary due to the following reasons: • Development size is already regulated by the façade length limit, which accomplishes the same intent of limiting visible scale of development at the pedestrian level. • A lot size limit, whether controlling maximum lot area or width, would add unnecessary complexity to the zoning ordinance by having overlapping standards controlling development size. • Lot size limits would generally not limit development size for existing large properties. Those properties could be developed as-is at their current size as “legal noncomplying” properties. The lot size limit would only kick in if an owner wanted to divide their larger property or join their property with others. • A façade length limit would limit all future development sizes on these large properties – unlike a maximum lot size limit. Staff recommends not imposing a maximum lot size limit, as the maximum façade length limit accomplishes the same intent and would better control development size in more situations than a lot size limit. Further, the Administration is proposing to break up the Fleet Block into multiple lots with an internal street and pedestrian walkway network, so a lot size limit is not necessary to ensure that breakup. Ordinance Split – Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments The Council expressed interest in the proposed ordinance being split into two different parts – a text amendment to adopt the FB-UN3 zone into the City’s ordinance and a map amendment to map the zone over the Fleet Block. The City Attorney’s Office has split up the ordinance into those two parts that can be adopted by the City Council separately. The text amendment would need to be adopted first. The map amendment could then be adopted at a later date. Ordinance Updates Due to Recent Code Changes and Potential Conflicts There have been a few ordinance changes to the City’s land use tables since this ordinance was first transmitted to the Council in April 2020, including the “Technology Related Land Uses,” “Significant Water Consuming Land Uses,” “Congregate Care,” and “Single-Room Occupancy” text amendments. As a result, Staff has updated the land use table in the FB-UN3 ordinance to align with those code changes. For example, where tech related uses were added to the FB-UN2 zone, which is similar to the intensity of the FB-UN3 zone, the same uses have been added to the FB-UN3 zone. Footnotes have also been added to uses to align with those text amendments. Staff has also removed some duplicate uses from the FB-UN3 land use list to avoid conflict and interpretation issues, such as “Office, Publishing Company” and “Store, Convenience,” as the uses are already allowed under general uses like “Office” and “Retail Goods Establishment.” There are other pending ordinance changes to City Code that are before the City Council, including the “Downtown Building Heights” ordinance. The “Downtown Building Heights” ordinance makes several changes to all the form-based zones and includes adjustments to the FB-UN3 zone to align with those changes. Because of that, the FB-UN3 ordinance has been updated with language to avoid a “text collision,” where conflicting code is adopted with two different ordinances. With this additional language in place, the ordinances can be adopted in any order without causing text collision issues. PUBLIC PROCESS: The attached information and ordinance are a response to the Council’s questions and discussion at the Council briefing held on November 22, 2022. Public process and background information has been previously sent to the Council in prior transmittals. EXHIBITS: 1)FB-UN3 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, Final and Legislative Versions (Adopts the FB-UN3 Into the City Zoning Code) 2)FB-UN3 Zoning Map Amendment, Final Version (Maps the FB-UN3 Zone Over the Fleet Block) EXHIBIT 1: FB-UN3 Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance, Final and Legislative Versions Exhibit 2: FB-UN3 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance, Final Version 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict) An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB- UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019- 00277. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C. (Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not 2 adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void): a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.030.C. Application of Building Configuration Standards: Building configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all form- based zoning subdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this section may be modified through the design review process, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in Subsections C.8 “Open Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height Exceptions” of this Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design review. b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows: 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim only. c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows: 8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count toward the minimum open space area requirement. 3 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows: 21A.27.050: FB-UN1, FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS: b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows: A. Subdistricts: 1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form based district: a. FB-UN1 Urban Neighborhood 1 Subdistrict: Generally includes small scale structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively small lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building type. Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development regulations are based on the building type. b. FB-UN2 Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density residential, and other supportive land uses. c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 4 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 5 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature. 6 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. 7 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply with any specific building form regulation. c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 1. Row House Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, 8 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form Standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 9 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. 10 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. 11 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply with any specific building form regulation. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any form based code zoning district. Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional Use Permitted Uses By District FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P Alcohol: Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8 Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8 Distillery P5 Tavern P8 Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8 Winery P5 Amphitheater, formal P Amphitheater, informal P Amusement park P Animal Cremation service P SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. 12 Kennel (Indoor) P Kennel (Outdoor) C Veterinary office P P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 Artists loft/studio P Auction (indoor) P Auditorium P Bed and breakfast P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5 Blacksmith shop (indoor) P Blood donation center P Botanical garden P Brewery P5 Brewery, small P5 Bus line station/terminal C Car wash C Charity dining hall P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5 Community garden P P P P P Community recreation center P P P P Convent/monastery P Convention center P Crematorium P Daycare center, adult P P P P center, child P P P P nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P Assisted living facility (large) P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P Group home (large) P P P P Group home (small) P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) P P 13 Residential support (small) P P Rooming (boarding) house P P Single-family attached P P P P Single-family detached P Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P Single room occupancy P P Two-family P Emergency medical services facility P Equipment rental (indoor) P Exhibition hall P Farmers’ market P P P P Financial institution P P P Flea market (indoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C Government facility P P P P P Greenhouse P Health and fitness facility P P P P Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Hospital P Hotel/motel P P P House museum in landmark site P P P P P Industrial assembly (indoor) P Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5 Library P P P P Manufacturing, light (indoor) P Meeting hall of membership organization P Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district P P P P Mobile food business P Mobile food court P Mobile food trailer P Mobile food truck P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P Museum P P P P Nursing care facility P P P P Office P P P P Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P Open space P P P P P Park P P P P P Parking, commercial C7 Parking facility, shared P7 14 Parking garage P Parking, off site P P P7 P P Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7 Performing arts production facility P Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5 Place of worship P P P P Plazas P P P P P Radio, television station P Railroad passenger station P Reception center P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Restaurant P P P P Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Public or private P Seasonal farm stand P P P P Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P Social service mission P Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5 Storage, self P6 Store, specialty P P P P Studio, art P P P P Studio, motion picture P Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Theater, live performance P Theater, movie P P P P Urban farm P P P P P Utility, building or structure P P P P P Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P Vehicle Automobile rental agency P Automobile repair major C Automobile repair minor P Vending cart, private property P P P P Warehouse P6 15 Welding shop (indoor) P Wholesale distribution C6 Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P Woodworking mill (indoor) P Qualifying provisions: 1. Subject to Section 21A.36.130 of this title. 2. Subject to Section 21A.36.030 of this title. 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules. 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are allowed as indicated in Table 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. TABLE 21A.36.020.C HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By the District Applicable Districts Chimney As required by local, State or Federal regulations All zoning districts Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts Elevator/stairway tower or bulkhead 16 feet All Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R- MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2 Districts 16 Note: 1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICT: The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning district. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. A. Sign Regulations for the Form Based Code District: 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning district are intended to provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code zoning district. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All other regulations in this chapter shall apply. B. Sign Type, Size and Height Standards: 1. A-Frame Sign: Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By the District Applicable Districts Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district in which the flagpole is located or 60 feet, whichever is less. Conditional use approval is required for additional height All zoning districts Light poles for sport fields such as ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges, and similar uses1 Maximum height of the zoning district or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special exception approval is required for any further additional height or if the lights are located closer than 30 feet from adjacent residential structures All zoning districts that allow sport field activities and stadiums excluding parks less than 4 acres in size Mechanical equipment parapet wall 5 feet All zoning districts, other than the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and Open Space Districts 17 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications A- frame sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Placement On public sidewalk or private property. Obstruction free area Minimum of 8 feet must be maintained at all times for pedestrian passage. 2. Awning or Canopy Sign: 18 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Awning or canopy sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance. Width Equal to the width of the window. Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avoidance with tree canopy, and issuance of encroachment permits where required. The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a special purpose corridor. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance. Letters and logos Allowed on vertical portions of sign only. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face a special purpose corridor but must be located on 19 private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 5. Construction Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Construction sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity 1 per construction site. Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-UN3. Area Maximum of 64 square feet. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property. 6. Flat Sign: 20 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. No maximum width in FB-UN3. Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-UN3. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 7. Flat Sign (building orientation): Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign (building orientation) P Quantity 1 per building face. Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 6. Marquee Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Marquee sign P Quantity 1 per building. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. Height May not extend above the roof of the building. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project into right of way a maximum of 4 21 feet provided the sign is a minimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. 7. Monument Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Monument sign P Quantity 1 per building. Setback 5 feet. Height Maximum of 20 feet. Area 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 8. Nameplate Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications 22 9. New Development Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications New Development sign P Quantity 1 per street frontage. Setback 5 feet. Height 12 feet. Area 200 square feet. 10. Private Directional Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Private directional sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 5 feet. Area Maximum of 8 square feet. Restriction May not contain business name or logo. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 11. Projecting Sign: Nameplate sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Area Maximum of 3 square feet. 23 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building façade. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 12. Projecting Parking Entry Sign: 24 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign graphic) P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Height Maximum of 2 feet. Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 13. Public Safety Sign: Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 6 feet. Area 8 square feet. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 14. Real Estate Sign: 25 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Real estate sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Height Maximum of 12 feet. Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 15. Window Sign: 26 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Window sign P P P P Quantity 1 per window. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Area Maximum of 25% of window area. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 27 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney April 19, 2023 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4 to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict) 5 6 An ordinance amending the text of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-7 UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-8 00277. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 10 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend 11 various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based 12 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the 13 FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located 14 between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to 15 Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277; and 16 WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor 17 of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and 18 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 19 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.030.C. 22 (Void if Building Heights in the Downtown Plan Area Ordinance Adopted). That, if amendments 23 to Subsection 21A.27.030.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: Building 24 Configuration and Design Standards) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529 are not 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT adopted by the date of the City Council adopting this ordinance then that subsection shall be, and 26 hereby is amended as follows (if adopted then this Section 1 is void): 27 a. That the first paragraph of Subsection 21A.27.030.C is amended to read as follows: 28 21A.27.030.C. Application Oof Building Configuration Standards: Building 29 configuration standards apply to all new buildings and additions when the new 30 construction related to the addition is greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the 31 footprint of the structure or one thousand (1,000) square feet, whichever is less. The 32 graphics included provide a visual representation of the standards as a guide and are 33 not meant to supersede the standards in the tables. This standard applies to all Fform-34 Bbased Zzoning Dsubdistricts unless otherwise indicated. The standards in this 35 section may be modified through the design review process, subject to the 36 requirements of Chapter 21A.59 of this title. The requirements set forth in 37 Subsections C.8 “Open Space Area” and C.12 “Permitted Encroachments And Height 38 Exceptions” of this Subsection 21A.27.030.C may not be modified through design 39 review. 40 41 b. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.7 is amended to read as follows: 42 7. Building Materials: A minimum of seventy percent (70%) of any street facing 43 building facade shall be clad in high quality, durable, natural materials, such as 44 stone, brick, wood lap siding, patterned or textured concrete, fiber cement board 45 siding, shingled or panel sided, and glass. Material not specifically listed may be 46 approved at the discretion of the planning director if it is found that the proposed 47 material is of similar durability and quality to the listed materials. If approved, 48 such material can count toward the seventy percent (70%) requirement. Other 49 materials may count up to thirty percent (30%) of the street facing building 50 facade. Exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) is permitted for trim 51 only. 52 53 c. That Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 is amended to read as follows: 54 55 8. Open Space Area: A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area shall be 56 provided for open space area, unless a different requirement is specified in the 57 applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form. Open 58 space area may include landscaped yards, patio, dining areas, common balconies, 59 rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private balconies shall 60 not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. Required 61 parking lot landscaping or perimeter parking lot landscaping shall also not count 62 toward the minimum open space area requirement. 63 64 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.050. That 65 Section 21A.27.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Subdistricts: FB-UN1 and 66 FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 67 a. That the title of Section 21A.27.050 is amended to read as follows: 68 69 21A.27.050: FB-UN1, AND FB-UN2, AND FB-UN3 FORM BASED URBAN 70 NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICTS: 71 72 b. That Subsection 21A.27.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows: 73 74 A. Subdistricts: 75 76 1. Named: The following subdistricts can be found in the urban neighborhood form 77 based district: 78 79 a. FB-UN1 uUrban nNeighborhood 1 sSubdistrict: Generally includes small 80 scale structures, up to two and one-half (2.5) stories in height, on relatively 81 small lots with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot depending on building 82 type. Reuse of existing residential structures is encouraged. Development 83 regulations are based on the building type. 84 85 b. FB-UN2 uUrban nNeighborhood 2 sSubdistrict: Generally includes buildings 86 up to four (4) stories in height, with taller buildings located on street corner 87 parcels, which may contain a single use or a mix of commercial, office, and 88 residential uses. Development regulations are based on building type, with the 89 overall scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the primary focus. 90 91 c. FB-UN3 Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict: Generally includes buildings up 92 to eight (8) stories in height, with taller buildings allowed through the design 93 review process. Development regulations are based on types of buildings and 94 differ between building types as indicated. The subdistrict contains a mix of 95 uses that include commercial, technical, light industrial, high density 96 residential, and other supportive land uses. 97 98 c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown 99 Plan Area Ordinance is not yet adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to 100 Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new 101 Subsection 21A.27.050.D: 102 103 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: 104 Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations 105 for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 106 107 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. Row House Building Form Standards: 108 109 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 110 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.8 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the building configuration standards for glass and ground floor transparency are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form 111 Standards: 112 113 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 114 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through the design review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 ’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10 ’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required for each required entry feature. 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 115 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict 116 are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any 117 other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. 118 119 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 120 U Upper Level Step Back When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley . MW Mid-block Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 1. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 2. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20 ’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form . All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 121 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 122 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations 123 are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. 124 125 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 126 127 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve 128 construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply 129 with any specific building form regulation. 130 131 c. [Note to codifier: use this Section 21A.27.050.D. if Building Heights in the Downtown 132 Plan Area Ordinance is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. 133 PLNPCM2022-00529] That Section 21A.27.050 is amended to adopt a new Subsection 134 21A.27.050.D: 135 136 21A.27.050.D. FB-UN3 Building Form Standards: 137 Building form standards for each allowed building form and other associated regulations 138 for the FB-UN3 subdistrict are listed in the below tables of this section. 139 140 1. Row House Building Form Standards: 141 142 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.1 143 Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8 ’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House H Height Maximum of 40’. All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Minimum 5’. Maximum 10’, unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and side property line, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 2. Multi-Family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-Use Building Form 145 Standards: 146 147 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.2 148 an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. No setback required for common walls. R Rear Yard Minimum of 5’ between row house building form and rear property line, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. U Uses Per Story Residential on all stories; live/work units permitted on ground level. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South must be occupied by a live/work space at least 25’ in depth. Dimensions may be modified through Design Review (Chapter 21A.59). E Entry Feature Each dwelling unit must include an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Dwelling units adjacent to a street must include an entry feature on street facing façade. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, with minimum 5’ width are required for each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building façade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. OS Open Space Area Each dwelling unit shall include a minimum open space area that is equal to at least 25% of the footprint of the individual unit, subject to all other open space area requirements of Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. SO Side/Interior Orientation Dwelling units not located directly adjacent to a street are permitted, provided the design standards for glass are complied with on the façade with the required entry feature. Lots for individual row house dwelling units without public street frontage are allowed subject to recording a final subdivision plat that: 1. Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway; and 2. Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infras tructure associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 149 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use H Height Maximum height of 125’. All heights measured from established grade. Buildings in excess of 85’ require design review in accordance with Chapter 21A.59. Rooftop decks and associated railing/parapet are allowed on any roof, including roofs at the maximum allowed height. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback No minimum is required; however, doors are prohibited from opening into the public right of way. Maximum 10’ unless a greater setback is required due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). B Required Build-To Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built within 5’ of the front or corner side property line. May be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). S Interior Side Yard No minimum required, except when an interior side yard is adjacent to a zoning district that has a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum shall be 10’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. R Rear Yard No minimum required, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall not be considered adjacent. GU Ground Floor Use on 900 South The required ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030B for allowed entry features. Pedestrian connections, as per Subsection 21A.27.030.C.5, are required to each required entry feature. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall step back 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Midblock Walkway If a midblock walkway is shown in an adopted city plan on the subject property, a midblock walkway shall be provided. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 10’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Vegetation A minimum of 20% of the required open space area shall include vegetation. 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 150 151 3. Parking Regulations: Specific parking standards applicable to the FB-UN3 subdistrict 152 are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.3 of this section. These are in addition to any 153 other applicable parking standards in Title 21A. 154 155 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.3 156 157 4. Streetscape Regulations: Specific streetscape regulations applicable to the FB-UN3 158 subdistrict are listed below in Table 21A.27.050.D.4 of this section. These regulations 159 are in addition to any other applicable streetscape standards in Title 21A. 160 161 TABLE 21A.27.050.D.4 162 LB Loading Bay Maximum of one (1) loading bay on a front façade per street face, subject to all dimensional requirements in Section 21A.44.070. Loading bay entry width limited to 14’ and must be screened by garage door. One loading bay driveway is allowed in addition to any other driveway allowances. DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Parking Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone SP Surface Parking Location Surface parking shall be located behind or to the side of a principal building provided: 3. The parking is set back a minimum of 25’ from the front or corner side property line; and 4. The setback area shall be considered a landscaped yard and comply with the landscape yard planting requirements in Chapter 21A.46 and include: a. Trees with a minimum mature spread of 20 ’ planted at one tree for every 20’ of street frontage; and b. A 3’ tall solid wall or fence at the property line along the street. A hedge or other similar landscaped screen may be used in place of a wall or fence provided the plants are spaced no further than 18 inches on center across the entire frontage. GE Garage Entrances Street facing parking garage entrance doors shall have a minimum 20’ setback from the front property line and shall not exceed 50% of the first floor building width. One-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width. VA Vehicle Access One (1) driveway is allowed per street frontage. Driveways required to meet fire code are exempt from this limitation. LS Loading and Service Areas Allowed behind or to the side of a principal building only, except where specifically allowed by the applicable form based zoning subdistrict for the applicable building form . All service areas shall be screened or located within the building. EB Existing Buildings The reuse of existing buildings is exempt from the requirements of this table unless new parking area(s) are being added. New parking areas are subject to compliance with this section. Streetscape Regulation Applicability: Applies to all properties in the zone ST Street Trees Street trees are required and shall be provided as per Subsection 21A.48.060.D. 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 163 5. Uses Not Associated with Building Form: Allowed uses that do not involve 164 construction of a building, such as parks and open space, are not required to comply 165 with any specific building form regulation. 166 167 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That 168 Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 169 and Conditional Uses In Form Based Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 170 appear as follows: 171 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM 172 BASED DISTRICTS: 173 174 Note: Uses which are not listed in the following table are not permitted in any Fform Bbased 175 Ccode Zzoning Ddistrict. 176 177 Legend: C= Conditional P= Permitted 178 Legend: P = Permitted C = Conditional 179 Use Permitted Uses By District FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated in this chapter, or elsewhere in this title P P P P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark building P Alcohol: Bar establishment P8 P8 P8 C8 Brewpub P8 P8 P8 C8 Distillery P5 Tavern P8 Tavern, 2,500 square feet or less in floor area P8 P8 P8 C8 Winery P5 Amphitheater, formal P Amphitheater, informal P Amusement park P SW Sidewalk Width Sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 8 ’. This standard does not require removal of existing street trees, existing buildings, or portions thereof. For purposes of this section, sidewalk width is measured from the back of the park strip or required street tree if no park strip is provided, toward the adjacent property line. SL Street Lights Street lights are required and shall be installed in compliance with the city’s Street Lighting Master Plan and Policy or its successor. 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Animal Cremation service P Kennel (Indoor) P Kennel (Outdoor) C Veterinary office P P P P Animal, veterinary office P P P Antenna, communication tower P P P P Art gallery P P P P Artisan food production P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 P3,5 Artists loft/studio P Auction (indoor) P Auditorium P Bed and breakfast P P P P P Bed and breakfast inn P P P P P Bed and breakfast manor P P P P P Bio-medical facility P4,5 P4,5 P4,5 Blacksmith shop (indoor) P Blood donation center P Botanical garden P Brewery P5 Brewery, small P5 Bus line station/terminal C Car wash C Charity dining hall P Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P Commercial food preparation P5 P5 P5 P5 Community garden P P P P P Community recreation center P P P P Convent/monastery P Convention center P Crematorium P Daycare center, adult P P P P center, child P P P P nonregistered home daycare P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 registered home daycare or preschool P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 Dwelling: Accessory guest and servants’ quarters P Assisted living facility (large) P Assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P P P P Assisted living facility (small) P P P P Congregate Care Facility (Large) C C C C Congregate Care Facility (Small) C P Group home (large) P P P P 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Group home (small) when located above or below first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage P P P P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard P Multi-family P P P P Residential support (large) P P Residential support (small) P P Rooming (boarding) house P P Single-family attached P P P P Single-family detached P Single-family detached (cottage development building form only) P P Single room occupancy P P Two-family P Emergency medical services facility P Equipment rental (indoor) P Exhibition hall P Farmers’ market P P P P Financial institution P P P Flea market (indoor) P Funeral home P P P P Gas station C Government facility P P P P P Greenhouse P Health and fitness facility P P P P Home occupation P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Hospital P Hotel/motel P P P House museum in landmark site P P P P P Industrial assembly (indoor) P Intermodal transit passenger hub P Laboratory, medical related P5 P5 P5 P5 Library P P P P Manufacturing, light (indoor) P Meeting hall of membership organization P Mixed use developments including residential and other uses allowed in the zoning district P P P P Mobile food business P Mobile food court P Mobile food trailer P Mobile food truck P Municipal service uses, including city utility uses and police and fire stations P P P P P Museum P P P P 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Nursing care facility P P P P Office P P P P Office and/or reception center in landmark site P P P P Open space P P P P P Park P P P P P Parking, commercial C7 Parking facility, shared P7 Parking garage P Parking, off site P P P7 P P Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P7 Performing arts production facility P Photo finishing lab P5 P5 P5 Place of worship P P P P Plazas P P P P P Radio, television station P Railroad passenger station P Reception center P Recreation (indoor) P P P P Recreation (outdoor) P Research and development facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Restaurant P P P P Retail goods establishment P P P P Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P Retail service establishment P P P P Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P School: College or university P P P P Music conservatory P P P P Professional and vocational P P P P Seminary and religious institute P P P P Public or private P Seasonal farm stand P P P P Sign painting/fabrication (indoor) P Social service mission P Solar array P5 P5 P5 P5 Storage, self P6 Store, specialty P P P P Studio, art P P P P Studio, motion picture P Technology facility P5 P5 P5 P5 Theater, live performance P Theater, movie P P P P Urban farm P P P P P Utility, building or structure P P P P P 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P P P P P Vehicle Automobile rental agency P Automobile repair major C Automobile repair minor P Vending cart, private property P P P P Warehouse P6 Welding shop (indoor) P Wholesale distribution C6 Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P Woodworking mill (indoor) P 180 Qualifying provisions: 181 1. Subject to sSection 21A.36.130 of this title. 182 2. Subject to sSection 21A.36.030 of this title. 183 3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales. 184 4. Prohibited within 1/2 mile of a residential use if the facility produces hazardous or 185 radioactive waste as defined by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 186 administrative rules. 187 5. Consult the water use and/or consumption limitations of Subsection 21A.33.010.D.1. 188 6. Only allowed on a ground floor when the use is located behind another permitted or 189 conditional use that occupies the required ground floor use space. 190 7. Subject to parking location restrictions of Subsection 21A.27.050.D.3. 191 8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related 192 Establishments", of this title. 193 194 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.36.020.C. That 195 Subsection 21A.36.020.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance 196 With Lot and Bulk Controls: Height Exceptions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and 197 appear as follows: 198 C. Height Exceptions: Exceptions to the maximum building height in all zoning districts are 199 allowed as indicated in tTable 21A.36.020.C of this subsection. 200 201 TABLE 21A.36.020.C 202 HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS 203 Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By Tthe District Applicable Districts Chimney As required by local, State or Federal regulations All zoning districts 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Note: 204 1. Lighting shall be shielded to eliminate excessive glare or light into adjacent properties 205 and have cutoffs to protect the view of the night sky. 206 207 208 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.46.096. That 209 Section 21A.46.096 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Signs: Sign Regulations for Form Based 210 Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to read and appear as follows: 211 21A.46.096: SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE FORM BASED DISTRICTS: 212 213 The following regulations shall apply to signs permitted in the form based code zoning 214 districts. Any sign not expressly permitted by these district regulations is prohibited. 215 216 A. Sign Regulations Ffor Tthe Form Based Code Districts: 217 1. Purpose: Sign regulations for the form based code zoning districts are intended to 218 provide appropriate signage oriented primarily to pedestrian and mass transit traffic. 219 Type Extent Above Maximum Building Height Allowed By Tthe District Applicable Districts Church steeples or spires No limit All zoning districts Elevator/stairway tower or bulkhead 16 feet All Commercial, Manufacturing, Downtown, FB-UN2, FB-UN3, RO, R- MU, RMF-45, RMF-75, RP, BP, I, UI, A, PL and PL-2 Districts Flagpole Maximum height of the zoning district in which the flagpole is located or 60 feet, whichever is less. Conditional use approval is required for additional height All zoning districts Light poles for sport fields such as ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields, golf driving ranges, and similar uses1 Maximum height of the zoning district or 90 feet whichever is greater. Special exception approval is required for any further additional height or if the lights are located closer than 30 feet from adjacent residential structures All zoning districts that allow sport field activities and stadiums excluding parks less than 4 acres in size Mechanical equipment parapet wall 5 feet All zoning districts, other than the FP, FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, and Open Space Districts 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Applicability: This subsection applies to all signs located within the form based code 220 zoning districts. This subsection is intended to list all permitted signs in the zone. All 221 other regulations in this chapter shall apply. 222 B. Sign Type, Size Aand Height Standards: 223 1. A-Frame Sign: 224 225 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications A- frame sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 2 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Any portion of the frame (the support structure) may extend up to 6 inches in any direction beyond the sign face. Placement On public sidewalk or private property. 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Obstruction free area Minimum of 8 feet must be maintained at all times for pedestrian passage. 226 2. Awning Oor Canopy Sign: 227 228 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Awning or canopy sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per window or entrance. Width Equal to the width of the window. Projection No maximum depth from building facade, however design subject to mitigation of rainfall and snowfall runoff, conflict avoidance with tree canopy, and issuance of encroachment permits where required. The awning or canopy can project a maximum of 2 feet into a special purpose corridor. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet of vertical clearance. 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Letters and logos Allowed on vertical portions of sign only. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face a special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 229 5. Construction Sign: 230 231 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Construction sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity 1 per construction site. Height Maximum of 8 feet. Maximum of 12 feet in FB-UN3. Area Maximum of 64 square feet. Location permitted Private property or a public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor, but must be located on private property. 232 6. Flat Sign: 233 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 234 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. No maximum width in FB-UN3. Height Maximum of 3 feet. No maximum height in FB-UN3. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of store frontage. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. 235 7. Flat Sign (building orientation): 236 237 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Flat sign (building orientation) P Quantity 1 per building face. Height May not extend above the roof line or top of parapet wall. 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 238 6. Marquee Sign: 239 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Marquee sign P Quantity 1 per building. Width Maximum of 90% of width of leasable space. Height May not extend above the roof of the building. Area 11/2 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. Projection Maximum of 6 feet. May project into right of way a maximum of 4 feet provided the sign is a minimum of 12 feet above the sidewalk grade. 240 7. Monument Sign: 241 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Monument sign P Quantity 1 per building. Setback 5 feet. Height Maximum of 20 feet. Area 1 square feet per linear foot of building frontage. 242 58. Nameplate Sign: 243 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 244 245 246 9. New Development Sign: 247 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications New Development sign P Quantity 1 per street frontage. Setback 5 feet. Height 12 feet. Area 200 square feet. 248 610. Private Directional Sign: 249 250 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Nameplate sign P P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Area Maximum of 3 square feet. 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Private directional sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 5 feet. Area Maximum of 8 square feet. Restriction May not contain business name or logo. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 251 711. Projecting Sign: 252 253 254 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Area 6 square feet per side, 12 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building façade. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 255 812. Projecting Parking Entry Sign: 256 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Projecting parking entry sign (see projecting sign graphic) P P P Quantity 1 per parking entry. Clearance Minimum of 10 feet above sidewalk/walkway. Height Maximum of 2 feet. Area 4 square feet per side, 8 square feet total. Projection Maximum of 4 feet from building facade for public and private streets. Maximum of 2 feet within the special purpose corridor. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 257 913. Public Safety Sign: 258 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Public safety sign (see definition in this chapter) P P P P P Quantity No limit. Height Maximum of 6 feet. Area 8 square feet. Projection Maximum of 1 foot. Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 259 104. Real Estate Sign: 260 261 262 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Real estate sign P P P P Quantity 1 per leasable space. Leasable spaces on corners may have 2. Height Maximum of 12 feet. Area 32 square feet. 64 square feet in FB-UN3. 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Location permitted Private property or public street. Signs can face the special purpose corridor but must be located on private property. All signs are subject to the requirements of the revocable permitting process. 263 115. Window Sign: 264 265 266 Sign Type FB- UN1 FB- UN2 FB- UN3 FB- SC FB- SE Specifications Window sign P P P P Quantity 1 per window. Height Maximum of 3 feet. Area Maximum of 25% of window area. 267 268 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 269 first publication. 270 271 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 272 2023. 273 ______________________________ 274 CHAIRPERSON 275 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 276 277 ______________________________ 278 CITY RECORDER 279 280 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 281 282 283 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 284 285 ______________________________ 286 MAYOR 287 ______________________________ 288 CITY RECORDER 289 (SEAL) 290 291 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 292 Published: ______________. 293 294 Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning (legislative) 295 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets) An ordinance amending the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on December 11, 2019 to consider a petition by former Salt Lake City Mayor Jacqueline Biskupski to amend various provisions of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code to create the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict, to establish regulations for that subdistrict, and to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277); and WHEREAS, at its December 11, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to apply the FB-UN3 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict to the 2 “fleet block” property located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Streets (Tax ID Nos. 15-12-251-001-0000, 15-12-177-007-0000), and as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting FB UN3 zoning map amendment APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney March 23, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description and Map of Property Subject to Zoning Map Amendment: All of Block 7, Plat A, Salt Lake City Survey Parcel Tax ID Nos. 15-12-251-001-0000 15-12-177-007-0000 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: July 18, 2023 RE: Rezone & Text Amendment: Fleet Block PLNPCM2019- 00277 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: October 6, 2020 Briefing: December 8, 2020 Briefing: November 22 2022 Briefing: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing 1: Nov 10, 2020 Public Hearing 2: Nov 17, 2020 Potential Action: TBD NEW INFORMATION During the November 22, 2022, briefing, the Council received an update on the Fleet Block disposition strategy as well as discussed the proposed zoning amendments pertaining to the FB-UN3 zone and potential rezone of the Fleet Block to FB-UN3 Additionally, the Council conducted a series of straw polls that provided direction to staff on changes pertaining to the draft zoning ordinance and the development strategy for the block. (See Section 3 below) Since that last briefing, the Administration worked to incorporate the Council’s recommended changes. On June 1 of this year, the Administration sent updated transmittals for the block’s zoning and disposition strategy. Based on that updated work, the Administration is requesting the Council review the updated zoning changes and disposition strategy and consider the following: 1) Approve the rezone as provided through a separate transmittal. The legislative function of rezoning the property must be finalized prior to initiating an RFQ/P process to ensure that procurement processes are based on an approved zoning district. 2) Indicate support for the Fleet Block public space to be located on the southeast quadrant of the block as demonstrated on Exhibit A – Fleet Block: Proposed Location of Public Space. If the Council is supportive, the Department of Public Lands will return to the Council at a later date to formally designate the public space as either a public square or park. 3) Provide any final policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process. Page | 2 The updated information for July 18 is outlined in the following sections: Section 1 – Policy Questions Section 2 – Zoning Changes Section 3 – Disposition strategy Section 4 – Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning (November 22, 2022) Section 1 – Policy Questions •Is the Council ready to move the zoning petitions forward for potential action? o The Council could consider adopting the zoning text amendment that would codify the FB- UN3 zoning district and hold off on rezoning the Fleet Block. o The Council could move forward with both zoning amendments •Does the Council support the proposed site plan that bisects the block into four quadrants, including a plaza/shared street, open space, midblock streets, and a nonmotorized midblock connection? •Does the Council support the proposed RFQ/RFP process outlined in the transmittal letter? o Does the Council have any additional policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process? Section 2 – Zoning Changes At the November 22nd City Council meeting the Council requested the following revisions and additional information pertaining to the zoning changes. The changes were included by Planning staff are outlined below: •Split the ordinance into two parts The ordinance has been split up into two parts which would need to be adopted separately. o Zoning text amendment to adopt the code text. o Zoning map amendment to map the zone over the Fleet Block. •Lot Size Limits to Control Building Length Size The City Council asked for more information on the Planning Commission recommendation to consider a lot size limit for property in the FB-UN3 zone. Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines the issue and provides reasons why Planning Staff does not believe a lot size limit is necessary. In summary, “[Planning] Staff recommends not imposing a maximum lot size limit, as the maximum façade length limit accomplishes the same intent and would better control development size in more situations than a lot size limit. Further, the Administration is proposing to break up the Fleet Block into multiple lots with an internal street and pedestrian walkway network, so a lot size limit is not necessary to ensure that breakup.” (Transmittal Letter, Page 4) •Ground Floor Modification The Council discussed strengthening the ground floor use requirement to ensure a use with a high level of activity would be on the ground floor of larger buildings. Planning staff proposed the following language to address this concern: For buildings with street facing building facades over 100' in length: 1. A minimum length of 30% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of non- residential active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 2. An additional minimum length of 45% of the ground floor street facing façade shall consist of any active uses allowed by 21A.37.050.A.1. 3. This footnote does not apply to the rowhouse building form. Active Use Definition: Active uses include retail establishments, retail services, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), restaurants, bars, art and craft studios, and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the planning director and/or planning commission. Page | 3 •Ordinance Updates Due to Recent Code Changes and Potential Conflicts Planning Staff updated the land use table in the FB-UN3 ordinance to align with code changes made since the Fleet Block was transmitted in 2020: •Technology Related Land Uses •Significant Water Consuming Land Uses •Congregate Care •Single-Room Occupancy •Downtown Building Heights Also removed duplicate uses from the FB-UN3 land use list to avoid conflict and interpretation issues, such as “Office, Publishing Company” and “Store, Convenience,” as the uses are already allowed under general uses like “Office” and “Retail Goods Establishment.” Section 3 – Disposition strategy The Transmittal letter discusses the following topics in depth. Below is a short summary of each of these topics. See the Transmittal letter for full analysis. •Site Plan and Public Space (Transmittal Letter, Page 2) Based on the Council’s feedback provided during the November 2022 briefing and after completing a shadow analysis, the Administration is recommending that the public space be located on the south end of the block, on the 300 West 900 South corner for the following reasons (Transmittal Letter, pages 1-2): o It will support the Green Loop and 9 Line. o A shade and shadow analysis indicates that this site will have less shade in the winter, thereby making the public space more usable year-round. o While locating two of the development sites along 800 South may require design concessions to ensure adequate fire aerial access, the Administration believes that the benefits of locating the open space on the southeast quadrant outweigh the resulting negatives Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal Exhibit A Proposed Location of Public Spaces Page | 4 •Midblock Infrastructure (Transmittal Letter, Page 3) The updated Midblock connections are proposed to bisect the block into four quadrants as outlined in the proposed site plan below: Fleet Block Disposition Strategy Transmittal Exhibit B: Proposed Site Plan •Budgetary Impacts (Transmittal Letter, Page 3-4) The Transmittal letter notes the goal is to have all the midblock connections owned and maintained by the City, which will ensure the public’s rights to access and use the space to the greatest extent possible. Funding for these two segments could be leveraged from the land value of adjacent development sites or acquired through a forthcoming capital improvement program (“CIP”) request. Recently CAN completed a study by Common Ground Institute and Urban 3 on the Public Asset Yield (“PAY”) model. Through the PAY model, which can be similar to an urban wealth fund model, cities develop underutilized properties as income-generating uses such as residential, office, and mixed-use communities. The administration provided two options to transform the land value into a public benefit 1. Land Sales Proceeds: Sell property and utilize the sales proceeds as a capital investment to build on-site public benefits 2. Ground Lease Proceeds: Issue a ground lease to an income-generating development and capture lease revenue annually over time to implement public benefits •Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposal Process (Transmittal Letter, Page 4) Page | 5 The three development sites will be marketed competitively through either an RFQ or RFP process. The procurement and development processes will include requirements to ensure that the ultimate development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and underrepresented groups. The City will continue to involve the community in the development process through involving an inclusive selection committee to evaluate rankings and proposal, require a Community Benefits Agreement with potential developers and identification of metrics to track and measure outcomes that will hold the City and developers accountable to the community’s vision for the block. Section 4 –Summary of Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning (from November 22, 2022) 1. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly. •Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum length/width for open space? No Change Needed - Downtown Height amendments will address this 2. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public who interact with the buildings •Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open space requirements? •If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space requirements. Council did not support this change 3. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher activity uses.” •Does the Council support asking the Administration to make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West? Planning will forward a recommendation •If over a certain amount (TBD) of sf, could require active use. •Building faced over x size must have x amount of ground floor commercial •See response above. Planning Commission Requests a. Limit lot sizes • The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater building variety. Page | 6 • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. • In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. • If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed. • Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block? Council requested more information. Examples may be helpful. b. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets •The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. •They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. •The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features. •The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone. •Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would require all units to front a public street? Council did not support this change c. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size •The Planning Commission was concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings. •In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. •The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the number of stalls allowed. •If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone? Council did not support this change d. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location •The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the block’s exact center. •The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. Page | 7 •Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. •The Commission expressed a desire to see the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block. •Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the Fleet Block? Council did not support this change – this was fleet block specific The following information was provided for the November 22, 2022, briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive an update on proposed zoning amendments and disposition strategy for the City-owned property known as the Fleet Block, located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, most of this block was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the fleet function was moved to a facility farther west, the City conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. Based on previous Council and community input and discussion, any redevelopment will need to balance developer interest, land use and compatibility, and the significant community interest in the property focused on art murals painted on the building walls. The staff report is outlined in the following manner: •Background Information •Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations – starting on page 3 of the staff report (key questions for the Council from the Administration) •Zoning Amendments o Summary of Zoning Amendments o Planning Commission Recommended Changes o Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing o Zoning Policy Questions BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2019, former Mayor Biskupski initiated a zoning amendment to create a new zone titled Form- Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3. The Fleet Block property became a focal point of community expression and interest during the summer of 2020 amidst calls for social justice and reform for police practices. In fall of 2020, the Council held a series of briefings and public hearings pertaining to the zoning amendments. Page | 8 Many constituents spoke during the fall 2020 Council meetings and public hearings on this issue and covered various main themes, including: •significant number of comments in favor of preserving the area or part of the area for a community gathering space such as park, open space area or community garden •some comments recommending a community center •requests to save the murals; requests to incorporate the murals into future open space or development •requests for community to be included in conversation; some called for the City to establish a community advisory group to help guide the development process •some expressed opposition to housing and commercial development on the Fleet Block •some commenters expressed a desire to see the block developed as it has been a blight in their neighborhood for years •importance of the area as a community gathering space was emphasized Due to the public comments provided, the Council decided additional, meaningful public outreach was needed to help identify the vision for the Fleet Block and define what the public benefits could look like before redevelopment and zoning decisions were made. The Council decided to postpone considering the zoning amendments until a plan to conduct additional public outreach was agreed upon. At that time, the Council expressed general support for the concepts of the zoning amendments; however, they felt with the enhanced focus on the block, additional public outreach was needed. There has been general agreement between the Administration and Council on components for the public process and goals based on previous conversations. Emphasis would include: 1. Creation of a meaningful community gathering space on the block such as a park/public square or open space. 2. Features that represent the history of marginalized members of the community and the fight, struggle, and advancement of the community’s efforts for equality, fair representation, and justice 3. Space for the incubation, growth, and economic success of small and local businesses 4. Affordable and accessible housing At a December 2020 Council briefing, the Council directed staff to work with the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN) and the Attorney’s Office to outline potential conditions to the zoning amendments that would help ensure a meaningful public process is completed. The process would help identify community benefits and be the basis of draft motions for the Council’s consideration. For example, adoption of the rezone would be connected with: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (a Request For Information or RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future Fleet Block redevelopment and what the public benefits could look like. In January 2022, the Administration issued a Request-for-Information (RFI) for the Fleet Block. The purpose of the RFI was to “explore options available to the City to develop the Property and to learn from the prior experience of others in developing complex urban infill projects. The RFI was intended solely to assist in informing the City’s approach to developing the Property.” Staff note: An “RFI” is generally considered a more general information-gathering exercise, intended to be a lower-barrier for a variety of interested parties who may respond with ideas. An “RFP” is generally considered a more technical process and typically follows an RFI. Page | 9 Reponses to the RFI were due at the end of February. An internal City technical committee reviewed responses and utilized the information to draft a future Request for Proposal (RFP) specific to development proposals. In April of this year the Administration briefed the Council on Fleet Block, including the public process, rezone process, and development constraints of the block. The Council provided feedback emphasizing the importance of equality and inclusion. Previous large City property assemblages were offered to a single development team, often favoring partners with greater existing wealth and experience. At that time, the Council provided input encouraging the Administration to consider a different approach which could give other, less-capitalized partners an opportunity to participate. According to the Transmittal letter, since the last briefing in April, the Administration has “considered ways to not only infuse equity into the resulting development, providing affordable housing, affordable commercial space, and public space, but to also market and develop the property in a way that is more accessible to an inclusive group of partners. In consideration of the Council’s feedback, master plan polices, responses from the Request for Information (“RFI”), and development constraints, the Administration has developed an approach to create multiple development sites to be offered through a phased request for proposal (“RFP”) process. Dividing up the Fleet Block into multiple property offerings will be conducive for involving multiple development teams of varying scale and experience.” This briefing will provide an update to the City Council and the community on those efforts and outline the next steps pertaining to the following: 1. Zoning recommendations that would; 1) create the FB-UN3 zoning district and 2) rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN3, 2. Request for Proposal strategy and policy considerations Request for Proposal (RFP) strategy and policy considerations Property disposition is an Administrative function. However, the Council has zoning authority and must approve any potential future discounts to the fair market value of the Fleet Block. Therefore, the Administration is seeking policy guidance from the Council pertaining to the RFP and development scenarios of the block. In addition to the policy questions below, the transmittal letter outlines the cost and process for the environmental remediation and the impact to the land value once midblock connections and public space are included. 1. Potential Policy Questions The Administration’s transmittal outlined a few policy questions they are seeking feedback from the Council on. a. Mid-Block Connections (page 2 Transmittal Letter) If the council supports including midblock connections on the Fleet Block, the City would need to identify land designated as midblock connections through the subdivision process, prior to issuing the RFP. Does the Council support maintaining City ownership of portions of the Fleet Block intended to be public in the future, or selling parcels to private property owners? Staff note: the Council could stipulate that a certain percentage of land be set aside as Page | 10 public to provide flexibility for RFP respondents to locate those connections in a more appropriate manner. Some questions have been raised about potential benefits and opportunities to the community if the fleet block was divided up into smaller developments instead of going with one master developer. Attachment A: Hypothetical Development Scenario, of the transmittal letter provides a hypothetical scenario of how the property could be subdivided to establish three separate development sites. Does the Councill wish to provide policy guidance on subdividing Fleet Block into smaller development sites? b. Park Space (page 3 Transmittal Letter) To move forward with the RFP process the City must identify where any public space will be located. The transmittal letter notes key considerations include the public feedback and alcohol buffers Does the Council wish to provide feedback on the location of public space on the Fleet Block? See staff note above. c. Zoning (page 4 Transmittal Letter) Since December 2020, the Council held off considering the zoning changes while the Administration conducted further, meaningful public process. The intent of the process was to help identify potential community benefits of the block and gather feedback on potential future uses on the block. Two steps the Council asked to have completed before considering the zoning changes are: 1. An opportunity to review and provide input on the Administration’s future planning efforts (an RFI). 2. Completing a public engagement process that would further explore the vision for future redevelopment of Fleet Block and what public benefits could be included. The Council was briefed on the RFI in April 2022. The RFP transmittal outlines additional public engagement the Administration conducted. Does the Council feel the goals for more public engagement and opportunity to provide input on the RFI have been satisfied? If yes, does the Council support setting a date to consider adopting the zoning changes at a Council meeting? d. RFP – Equity and Inclusion provisions (Page 5 Transmittal Letter) The Transmittal letter notes the RFPs will include requirements to ensure the forthcoming development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and minority communities. An Inclusive Committee will be established to help review and rank responses to the RFP. Additionally, a community benefit agreement to ensure the community’s interest are addressed in future development and metrics to track the outcomes will be part of the development process Does the Council have any question about how equity and inclusion factors will be included in the RFP process? Page | 11 Zoning Amendments 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020, work session briefing 4. Zoning Policy Questions 1. Summary of Zoning Amendments Text Amendment: Establish Development Standards and Land Uses The Planning Division drafted development standards for the FB-UN3 zoning district. FB-UN3 is meant to complement the existing FB-UN 1 and FB-UN2 zoning districts which are found mainly in the Central 9th neighborhood. According to Planning staff, “The zone would have similar regulations to the FB-UN2 zone, which is mapped on the blocks around 900 South and 200 West and allows for four to five story tall mixed-use development. The FB-UN3 zone would primarily differ in that it would include requirements for mid- block walkways, allow more intense commercial land uses, such as light manufacturing and industrial assembly, and allow for greater height. The differences are intended to reflect the broad mix of land uses expected with the block and the surrounding "Granary" area and various Downtown Plan policies for the area that support a mix of housing choices and clean industries.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 3) Below is a summary of key form-based concepts for the proposed the FB-UN3 zoning district. It is also outlined in detail on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. It is provided here for ease of access. Additionally, Planning staff created a graphical summary of the proposed FB- UN3 regulations. See Attachment B to view that summary. Rezone the Fleet Block to FB-UN 3 The City owns the majority of the Fleet Block. However, the southwest corner is privately owned. The owner of that portion of the block asked to be included in the rezone. Vicinity Map (Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report) Page | 12 Building Form Types •Row house (townhome) •Storefront (a commercial building - retail, office, etc.) •Vertical Mixed-Use (a building with ground floor commercial and residential above) •Multi-family (an apartment or condominium building) General Building Standards •Height Limits o 40' for rowhouse and 85' for vertical mixed-use/multi-family/storefront (125' through Design Review.) •Front Setback Limits and Build-To Lines o Requires that buildings are located close to the sidewalk •Open Space Requirements o 10% of lot area and can be yards, plazas, rooftop decks, similar o 25% of unit footprint for row houses •Ground Floor Use Minimums o 75% of the width of ground floor facade must be an active use (not parking) and have a minimum depth of 25' - meant to ensure activity occurs next to pedestrians along ground floor facades • Exception for rowhomes- use space must have 10' depth o Along 900 South, the required ground floor space is limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities. • Exception for row houses, must be live/work and have 25' depth •Minimum Ground Floor Heights o Min. 14' to ensure flexible, viable active spaces in the long-term Page | 13 •Mid-block Walkway Installation o Required where mapped in the Downtown Master Plan, generally through the middle of blocks. Meant to increase pedestrian accessibility through additional walking routes on large City blocks. •Entry Features for Dwellings o Every ground floor dwelling unit adjacent to a street must include an entry feature, such as a porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o For row houses, each dwelling unit must include an entry feature even if the unit is not street facing •Rowhome Frontage o Rowhome lots without frontage along a street allowed with a final plat that documents access easements for lots and includes a shared infrastructure reserve study disclosure o Rowhomes adjacent to the street must incorporate a street facing entry feature Design Standards •Entryway Installation o Facade must include an entry feature- porch, stoop, shopfront, terrace, etc. o One entry required for every 75' of facade •Glass/Window Minimums o 60% of ground floor facade and 15% of upper floor facade must be glass. •Blank Wall Limits o No blank wall that is uninterrupted by doors, windows, or other projections, over 30' in length. •High Quality Exterior Building Material Minimums o Min. 70% of facade must be quality, durable material- brick, fiber-cement, textured concrete, etc. •Balcony Requirements for Dwellings Units o Dwelling units on upper levels facing a street must have a balcony •Upper Floor Step-back Requirement and Balcony Inclusion Alternative o Floors above the 30' height level facing a public street must be stepped back 15' or include balconies •Parking Structure Design Requirements o Includes variety of requirements for the facade and ground level activation •Build-to Line Alternatives o Allows for plazas, arcades, outdoor dining to count toward meeting minimum build-to line requirements (the setback that a minimum percentage of the building must be built to), allowing buildings to be set-back behind these features Parking and Driveway Regulations Page | 14 The zone includes limits on driveways and parking to limit their impact on the pedestrian experience: •Driveway number and location limits - 1 driveway per street face •Parking limited to behind/ side of buildings •No minimum parking requirement due to proximity to transit (same requirement as neighboring FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 zones) Streetscape Requirements Every building form must comply with general streetscape improvement requirements. These include regulations on: •Street trees (min. 1 every 30 feet) •Sidewalk widths (min. 8 feet) •Streetlights (required where identified in City streetlight plans) Land Uses The proposed allowed land uses are broad and are intended to reflect the Downtown Master Plans call for an integration of "urban family living" and "clean industry" uses. Staff believes the design controls of the form-based code allow for a larger assortment of uses without generally having the same level of concern for compatibility and conflicts that would likely exist under a traditional code. Outdoor manufacturing and outdoor equipment storage uses would not be allowed, to avoid noise and visual conflicts. Storage/warehouse uses, which have limited human activity, would not be allowed on the ground floor next to the sidewalk. •Broad variety of allowed uses (from townhomes up to light manufacturing) Please see Attachment C to view the proposed land use table. Signs Sign regulations proposed for this zone generally match the FB-UN2 zoning allowances, with some exceptions, taking into consideration the proposed higher scale of development in the FB-UN3. This includes some additional sign types, such as monument signs, marquee signs and building oriented flat signs (generally a major tenant or name of building). Other Related Amendments As part of this proposal, staff is including additions and clarifications to some general regulations for development under the Form-Based Code chapter. This includes: •Clarifying the list of allowed exterior building materials •Allowing modifications to design requirements through the "Design Review" chapter, which has standards related to such modifications. Currently, modification requests must go through the Planned Development process which does not address design specifically, unlike the Design Review chapter. 2.Planning Commission Recommended Changes Page | 15 Pages 3-4 of the transmittal letter outlines four recommendations the Planning Commission requested the Council consider. If the Council supports the concepts raised by the Planning Commission, which are outlined below, the Administration can prepare draft language to be considered for inclusion in the final ordinance. e. Limit lot sizes The Commission was concerned there may be very large developments on the Fleet Block and recommended there should be lot size limits to encourage small buildings and greater building variety. • Generally, the City zoning code does not have maximum lot sizes, except within residential districts. • In certain zoning districts, the scale of development is regulated by limiting building width and the length of blank walls. Those regulations are included in the proposed FB-UN3 zone. • If the maximum lot size limitation were applied, such a limit would only be applicable to new subdivided lots, and existing lots of any size could be developed. • Through the selling process, the City can divide up the Fleet Block into smaller lots without changes to the zoning. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit the potential size of lots on the Fleet Block? f. Require that lots have frontage on rights-of-way or streets •The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding row houses (townhomes) where some of the units are oriented to the side yard. •They requested the City Council consider regulations that would require all units in a row house project to be located along a public street or other public right-of-way. •The proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Commission requires every building to have public street frontage and the portion of the building along the street must address the street with limited setbacks, high quality building materials, glass minimums, and significant entrance features. •The proposed zoning also includes an allowance for a rowhouse building to have some units that don't face the street and are accessed from private sidewalks interior to a site. The allowance is similar to that recently adopted by the Council for the RMF-30 zone. Does the Council want to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would require all units to front a public street? g. Limit the size of parking lots with a maximum lot size •The Planning Commission was a concerned there could be large surface parking lots in the middle of blocks, like those in the Sugar House Business District, located behind or to the side of buildings. •In the FB-UN3 zone, there is a maximum parking stall number limit that should generally limit the potential for large surface parking lots. •The City doesn't currently have limits on parking lot sizes in any zone, except regarding the number of stalls allowed. •If a surface parking lot size limit was imposed, there would need to be analysis regarding its impact on the ability of potential businesses in this area to provide reasonable parking within the dimensions. Page | 16 Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would limit surface parking lot size in the FB-UN3 zone? h. Require the midblock walkways but allow them to be flexible in their location •The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there would be flexibility in the final location of mid-block walkways shown in the Downtown Plan for the Fleet Block, rather than requiring walkways to cross the block through the exact center of the block. •The zoning proposal includes language used in other City zones provides flexibility in exact walkway location, but additional language could be added to emphasize the flexibility. •Although no consideration was added to its recommendation, the Commission discussed how the Fleet Block property would be sold to a private developer, including if and how the property would be broken up into new mid-block streets, and if any public plaza/park property would be kept. •The Commission expressed a desire in seeing the block being broken up for smaller developments with mid-block streets, as opposed to one large, single development for the whole block. Staff informed the Commission the City could break up the block through the City's property sale process and could require new streets through the block. Would the Council like to request the Administration draft regulations for consideration that would ensure flexibility in locating mid-block walkways on the Fleet Block? 3. Responses to questions raised during the October 6, 2020 work session briefing During the October 6, 2020 work session briefing the Council raised questions about the proposed zoning amendments. The list of questions is outlined below. Please see Attachment D for the Administration’s responses to these questions. Staff will be prepared to review these questions one by one and answer additional questions the Council may have. A. Can the proposed ordinance require any open space be open to the public? B. Questions were raised about potentially increasing the amount of open space required by the ordinance. Concerns were expressed that may be considered a taking. ▪How, if at all, would requiring more open space be consider a taking if the City owns the property? ▪Would the taking concern apply to other privately owned properties that may be potentially rezoned to FB-UN3? ▪Would increasing the amount of required open space potentially impede some kinds of development? •Does requiring open space attract some kinds of development? C. Could the Administration explain if there is a difference between open space required by the ordinance and the City designating some of the City owned fleet block as a park/green/open space? D. Can the City designate as much of city-owned portions of the Fleet Block a park/open space as it wants? ▪What is the process for the City to designate a park area? Page | 17 E. Could Planning Staff further explain landscaping requirements for the various type of buildings in the FB-UN3 and if it would be appropriate to increase vegetation requirements for the larger buildings? ▪Would vegetation on rooftops be allowed (roof gardens, green roofs, etc.)? F. Concerns were raised about the center of Fleet Block becoming a large parking lot. ▪Are there provisions in the ordinance that would prevent this from happening or could they be added? G. The ordinance requires ground floor uses on 900 South to be active uses such as retail establishments, restaurants, etc. Could active uses be required on 300 West too? ▪Would providing some exceptions make it more feasible? Potential Straw Polls Pertaining to Follow-up Information on Zoning 4. Question E asked about landscaping requirements. Planning staff notes one way to address concerns that the open space is useable is to require a minimum length or width dimension for open space. This would increase the likelihood the space will be an amenity, rather than a narrow yard. A minimum open space dimension of 15’ x 15’ has been added to broader Form Based zone changes that are part of the ongoing Downtown Building Heights regulations project. Amenity requirements, like seating, have also been added. The changes would affect all Form Based zones, including FB-UN3. The proposal received a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission and will be with the Council shortly. •Does the Council support amending the ordinance to require a minimum length/width for open space? 5. Some expressed concern that allowing rooftop decks to count toward the open space requirement may not improve the overall design since it will be out view for most of the public who interact with the buildings •Does the Council support allowing rooftop decks to count toward open space requirements? •If not, does the Council support requesting the Administration make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code pertaining to rooftop decks counting toward open space requirements. 6. Question G asked about active uses on 300 West. In Planning’s response they note the ordinance requires 14’ floors to “encourage and support the use of ground floor for more active uses in the long term even if not immediately viable.” They further note there are other examples in City code that are used to preserve future options to convert space to “higher activity uses.” •Does the Council support asking the Administration to make recommendations for changes to the FB-UN3 code that would provide additional options to encourage high activity uses along 300 West? FLEET BLOCK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION //JULY 18, 2023 PROPERTY OVERVIEW •8.75 acres •$37,500,000 value (does not consider environmental remediation costs) •Current Zoning: Public Lands •Proposed Zoning: FBUN 3 CURRENT STATUS The Administration is requesting that the Council: 1. Approve the Rezone The rezone must be finalized prior to initiating an RFQ/P process to ensure that procurement processes are based on an approved zoning district. 2. Indicate Support for the Size and Location of the Public Space The Department of Public Lands will return to the Council at a later date to formally designate the public space as either a public square or park. 3. Provide Any Additional Policy Direction on the Development Plan CAN will lead the effort to subdivide the Property and prepare the development sites for an RFQ/P process. SITE PLAN (AS PROPOSED) PUBLIC SPACE(AS PROPOSED) BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS PROPOSED LAND USE ACRES %LAND VALUE Public Space & Midblock Connections ~4 46%$17,142,857 Development Sites ~4.75 54%$20,357,143 Total 8.75 100%$37,500,000 The land value is the City’s most significant tool for leveraging public benefits. In January of 2022, the Property appraised for $37,500,000, or $98.39 per square foot, not considering environmental contamination costs. LEVERAGING PUBLIC BENEFITSLAND SALE – HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE LEVERAGING PUBLIC BENEFITSGROUND LEASE – HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE DEVELOPMENT & PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS Environmental Remediation Environmental remediation could impact development budgets and timelines. The Sustainability Division is currently working with Utah’s Department of Environmental Quality on an application to the EPA Brownfields Program for additional site assessment work. Midblock Infrastructure The goal is to have all the midblock connections owned and maintained by the City, which will ensure the public’s rights to access and use the space to the greatest extent possible. Funding could be leveraged from the land value of the adjacent development sites or acquired through a forthcoming capital improvement program (“CIP”) request. RFQ vs RFP An RFQ would focus on establishing partnerships with development teams that have an ethos that aligns with that of the City and community. Whereas an RFP process would focus on selecting a particular development proposal that includes specific design and financial components. RFQ/P EQUITY & INCLUSION Inclusive Selection Committee Establishment of selection committees that will be responsible for evaluating, ranking, and selecting proposals for an award will include community representatives from diverse backgrounds along with City representatives. Community Benefit Agreement An agreement between the developer and community-based organizations that represents the public’s interest. Defines the benefits the community will receive in exchange for supporting the project. Metrics & Outcomes Identify metrics to track and measure the developments’ outcomes to provide accountability for the City and developer. Potential metrics may measure indicators such as affordability, underrepresented populations, climate resiliency, community health, and social and economic inclusion. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Office Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 1, 2023 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Update on the status and disposition strategy for 8.75-acres of city-owned property located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South, also known as the Fleet Block. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Information only RECOMMENDATION: Briefing and policy discussion BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City is working to transform the 8.75-acres of underutilized City-owned property located between 300 and 400 West, 800 and 900 South (“Fleet Block or “Property”) into community assets that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the city. While it is the Administration’s role to dispose of property, such as through a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) or request for proposal (“RFP”) process, it is the Council’s role to approve any rezones for the property and to approve any forthcoming budgetary items. Additionally, there are legislative functions tied to designating the size and location of parks and public squares. Accordingly, the Administration has provided a series of briefings to the Council in order to rezone the Property, designate public space, and gather policy direction on redevelopment goals. Since the last briefing in November of 2022, a multi-departmental team comprised of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”), the Mayor’s Office, Public Lands, the Arts Council, and Sustainability has been working on various aspects of planning for development of the Property. The team has identified the general placement of land uses for the Council’s feedback, ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 WWW.SLC.GOV TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 06/02/2023 06/02/2023 Lisa Shaffer (Jun 2, 2023 09:34 MDT) with the intent of subdividing the Property into public space and three development sites. Currently, the Administration is requesting that the Council: 1) Approve the rezone as provided through a separate transmittal. The legislative function of rezoning the Property must be finalized prior to initiating an RFQ/P process to ensure that procurement processes are based on an approved zoning district. 2) Indicate support for the Fleet Block public space to be located on the southeast quadrant of the block as demonstrated on Exhibit A – Fleet Block: Proposed Location of Public Space. If the Council is supportive, the Department of Public Lands will return to the Council at a later date to formally designate the public space as either a public square or park. 3) Provide any final policy direction on the development plan and budgetary considerations prior to the initiation of an RFQ or RFP process. If the Council indicates support for the location of the Fleet Block public space, Public Lands will initiate a robust planning process for the design and development of the public space. This process will build on engagement work that has already been completed, through Reimagine Nature, Art Healing efforts relating to the murals, among other efforts. Subsequently, CAN will lead the effort to subdivide the Property and prepare the development sites for an RFQ/P process. Sustainability is advising on the environmental cleanup, and the Mayor’s Office, the Arts Council, and Civic Engagement have been involved in community engagement efforts. Site Plan and Public Space The Property is challenged with several redevelopment barriers and there are pros and cons for the placement of land uses. Redevelopment barriers include the high voltage power lines that run along 800 South, various types and intensities of environmental contamination scattered across the Property, and budget constraints for developing and upgrading public infrastructure. During the last briefing, the Administration presented a hypothetical development scenario that placed the public space on the northeast quadrant of the block. At th at time, the Administration proposed that location to honor the community-led murals that were initiated first on this corner with the depiction of George Floyd. Also, open space may be more compatible than other land uses with the high voltage powerlines that run along 800 South, as the powerlines will limit the height of development and/or require setbacks to ensure that there is adequate aerial fire access. Council Members had mixed opinions, with some Members supporting the placement on 300 West 800 South and other Members supporting the placement on 900 South to be co-located with the forthcoming Green Loop and 9 Line. Currently, after considering the Council’s feedback and completing additional analysis, the Administration is recommending that the public space be located on the south end of the block, on the 300 West 900 South corner - refer to Exhibit B: Proposed Site Plan. The location of the public space on the southeast quadrant will not only support the Green Loop and 9 Line, but a shade and shadow analysis indicates that this site will have less shade in the winter , thereby making the public space more usable year-round. While locating two of the development sites along 800 South may require design concessions to ensure adequate fire aerial access, the Administration believes that the benefits of locating the open space on the southeast quadrant outweigh the resulting cons. Midblock Infrastructure Midblock connections are proposed to bisect the block into four quadrants, as called fo r in the Downtown Plan, the community plan for the area. As Demonstrated on Exbibit B: Proposed Site Plan, two of the four midblock segments, as highlighted in orange, are to be funded and developed by the City concurrently with the development of the public space. The other two midblock segments, the northern and western segments, will be developed in coordination with the northern two development sites. The ultimate goal is to have all of the midblock connections owned and maintained by the City, which will ensure the public’s rights to access and use the space to the greatest extent possible. Funding for these two segments could be leveraged from the land value of th e adjacent development sites or acquired through a forthcoming capital improvement program (“CIP”) request. Three of the midblock segments are proposed to be open to motor vehicles, while the southern segment will be integrated into the public space with limited vehicular access to draw pedestrians and bicyclists from the Green Loop into the block and public space. Budget Considerations The land value is the City’s most significant tool for leveraging public benefits. In January of 2022, the Property appraised for $37,500,000, or $98.39 per square foot, not considering environmental contamination costs. Based on the proposed site plan, the appraised value allocated by land use is as follows: LAND USE ACRES LAND VALUE Public Space & Midblock Connections ~4 $17,142,857 Development Sites ~4.75 $20,357,143 Total 8.75 $37,500,000 It is important that the Council and Administration coordinate on budget considerations as the development process moves forward. Since the Council was last briefed on Fleet Block, CAN completed a study by Common Ground Institute and Urban 3 on the Public Asset Yield (“PAY”) model. Through the PAY model, which can be similar to an urban wealth fund model, cities develop underutilized properties as income-generating uses such as residential, office, and mixed-use communities. The revenue generated is then invested into public benefits that are either developed on or off-site from the income-generating use(s). In general, there are two options to transform the land value into public benefits, as follows: 1. Land Sales Proceeds: The first option is to sell property and utilize the sales proceeds as a capital investment to build on-site public benefits. This option allows for sales revenue to be captured upfront and invested into the development of the Property. Under a land sales scenario, a portion of the Property would be sold at market rate for income-generating uses. Then, the sales proceeds are utilized to construct public benefits, such as environmental remediation, and the development of capital infrastructure such as public space, streets, multimodal amenities, affordable housing and commercial space. The following demonstrates how this option can not only incentivize public benefits but allow for development of infrastructure an environmental remediation with fewer budget allocations from other City resources. 2. Ground Lease Proceeds: The second option is to issue a ground lease to an income-generating development and capture lease revenue annually over time to implement public benefits. As such, rather than fund on-site capital improvements and affordable housing and commercial development, this type of revenue could be used to capitalize City-administered programs, maintenance for the Property, or programs that are created specific for the Property such as operating subsidies for commercial tenants or rental assistance to residential tenants. While this scenario provides ongoing revenue, capital to develop infrastructure, remediate environmental contamination, and construct public benefits needs to be secured in order to develop the Property. Example: Land Sales Proceeds Scenario Example: Ground Lease Proceeds Scenario RFQ/P Process The three development sites will be marketed competitively through either an RFQ or RFP process. The process for procurement will depend on the goals of each development site. Considerations include the following: • RFQ: Focuses on establishing relationships with development teams that have an ethos that aligns with that of the City and community. Fleet Block’s multiple development barriers present uncertainties that will need to be navigated. Through an RFQ process, the City and community would select development teams to navigate uncertainties through an ongoing partnership, allowing more room for the ultimate project to vary. While general design and financial aspects would be required through the RFQ process, specific elements would be established through a collaborative process. • RFP: Rather than being focused on the development partnership as with and RFQ, an RFP process focuses on selecting a particular development proposal that includes specific design and financial components. Since a specific development proposal is selected, there is less room for the selected project to evolve as development uncertainties are uncovered and dealt with. However, there is more assurance regarding project specifics upon selection of a project proposal through an RFP process. The forthcoming procurement and development processes will include requirements to ensure that the ultimate development provides economic opportunities, affordable living, and cultural expression for all residents, particularly communities of low- and moderate-income and persons who are minorities. The City will continue to involve underrepresented communities in the development process through the following: • Inclusive Selection Committee Establishment of selection committees, that will be responsible for evaluating, ranking, and selecting proposals, inclusive of community representatives from diverse backgrounds along with City representatives. • Community Benefit Agreement Implementation of Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) between the developers and community-based organizations representing residents’ interests. The agreements shall define the benefits the co mmunity will receive in exchange for supporting the project. • Metrics & Outcomes Identification of metrics to track and measure the development’s outcomes to provide accountability for the City and developer. Potential metrics may measure indicators such as affordability, underrepresented populations, climate resiliency, community health, and social and economic justice. EXHIBIT A: Fleet Block – Proposed Location of Public Space EXHIBIT B: Proposed Site Plan Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Amendments PLNPCM2022-01138/-01139 The Council will be briefed about a proposed zoning map amendment for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in City Council District Seven, from its current R-1/7,000 (single-family residential) designation to SR-3 (special development pattern residential). The proposal also calls for amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan future land use map from low density residential to medium density residential. The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct a small custom or modular home for himself on the irregularly shaped lot. The surrounding zoning is R-1/7,000 except for the green shaded City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area shown in the zoning map below. SR-3 zoning is used within the interior portion of the block for a variety of housing types in scale with the area development character. This zoning designation was requested due to reduced lot width requirements and side yard setbacks. It is not typically found in this area of the city. Planning staff noted the following: “The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 2) A 2020 administrative interpretation by the City Planning Division determined the property did not meet requirements to be considered a legal complying lot. The petitioner appealed that decision to the City Land Use Appeals Hearing Officer who upheld the administrative interpretation. The petitioner is now seeking to amend the zoning and future land use maps to potentially construct a home on the property. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing: July 18, 2023 Potential Action: August 8, 2023 Page | 2 The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its March 22, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which twelve people spoke. Nine people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, expressed opposition to the proposal, and three people were supportive. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 6-5 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the proposal and shared why they voted to send a negative recommendation cited the property being an illegal lot and inappropriately sized to construct a home. Because the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. The Council Chair and Vice-Chair asked staff to request an ordinance from the Attorney’s Office which is included in the meeting materials. Planning staff also noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make the property a buildable lot. If the zoning and future land use map requests are approved by the Council, the petitioner would need planned development, preliminary subdivision, and final plat approval for the lot to be buildable prior to applying for permits to construct a house. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and the accompanying future land use map amendment. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Note-the green shaded area is the City-owned Blaine Preserve Natural Area. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and text amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The Council may wish to weigh the need for additional housing against changing the zoning designation to a zone with very different development standards from existing area zoning. 2.Does the Council think a development agreement limiting the number of dwelling units on the property to one would help ease neighbors’ concerns? 3.The Council may wish to ask the petitioner if residents who use the property to access their garages will be able to continue if the subject parcel is developed. If so, will that be through an easement? KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area which designates the properties in this neighborhood as low density residential. The plan calls for medium density residential to generally be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods and near neighborhood commercial zoning and business districts. Planning staff noted the property is referred to as a flag lot by the petitioner, but it does not comply with zoning regulations associated with flag lots. Sugar House Community Master Plan policy statements associated with flag lots do not support this amendment. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposal generally does not align with goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Community Master Plan. They found the current R-1/7,000 zoning aligns with the future land use map. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. However, Planning noted the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. This would promote a dwelling unit on property that functions as a rear yard and has challenging access. Planning staff found the initiatives and goals in Plan Salt Lake do not support the proposed amendments. Consideration 2-Comparison of R-1/7,000 and SR-3 The table below compares the current R-1/7,000 and proposed SR-3 zoning. Primary differences include reduced lot sizes, and allowing single-family attached, twin homes, and two-family dwellings in SR-3. In addition, Planning staff found developing the subject property under current zoning is not permitted due to its configuration, access, lot width and the legality issues noted above. Based on the lot size and reduced square footage requirements under the proposed SR-3 zoning, Planning staff believes three dwelling units could be built on the property. However, Planning believes it would be difficult to fit more than one single-family dwelling on the property, which is the property owner’s stated intention. Potential density on the lot would be dependent on a subdivision and planned development to approve the illegal lot. Page | 4 R-1/7,000 SR-3 Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs 28 feet for pitched roofs 20 feet for flat roofs Average height of other buildings Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face If no block face exists, 10 feet Side Setback Corner Setback 6 feet and 10 feet 6 feet Single-family detached: 4 feet Single-family attached: 4 feet when abutting a single-family detached zone, otherwise no yard required. Rear Setback 25 feet 20% of the lot depth but not less than 15 feet, no more than 30 feet. Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet Single-family detached: 2,000 square feet; Single-family attached: 1,500 square feet; Two-family: 3,000 square feet. Lot Width 50 feet Single-family detached -Interior lots: 30 feet -Corner lots: 40 feet Single-family attached -Interior lots: 22 feet -Corner lots: 32 feet Two-family -Interior lots: 44 feet -Corner lots: 54 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%Single-family detached: 60% Single-family attached: 70% Consideration 3-Spot Zoning It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning and future map amendments are generally considered spot zoning. The requested SR-3 zoning differs significantly from the existing and established single-family residential zoning district. Analysis of Factors Attachment F (pages 51-53) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Page | 5 Zoning Map Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. The proposal is not consistent with Plan Salt Lake or the Sugar House Plan. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. General Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments generally support or has no appreciable on the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Zoning District Purpose The proposed map amendment would allow for medium density development, which would not be compatible with the existing scale of the neighborhood. The properties within this neighborhood primarily consist of R-1/7,000 zoning. The property owner is requesting development rights on a portion of the property that was illegally subdivided. The amendments are to accommodate a single-family dwelling and to legalize the subdivision. Staff believes that these amendments would be to relieve a hardship and would grant special privileges to this property owner. There has not been substantial change in public policy that would warrant the requested amendments. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed SR-3 zone will impose different development regulations than the R-1/7,000 district. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The map amendment doesn’t conflict with any overlays that affect the property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The City’s public facilities and services have adequate capacity to serve the additional dwellings that would be allowed with this rezone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, other than Planning staff’s recommendation to deny the proposals, no Page | 6 responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but provided, or stated they would provide, comments that are applicable if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • December 5, 2022-Petitions submitted. • January 30, 2023-Zoning map amendment petitions assigned to Liz Hart. • February 24, 2023- o Routed for review. o Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council, and Downtown Alliance. o Notice sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. • April 17, 2023- Applicant and Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council Land Use Committee meeting. • April 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, so no ordinance was included with the Administration’s transmittal. (As noted above, the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair requested an ordinance, which is included in the meeting paperwork.) • May 11, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment Applicant: Blaine Properties LLC •Property is classified as two independent parcels by Salt Lake County •Property is classified as a single lot per Salt Lake City Planning •Application is limited to the parcel with the “flag” configurement •Currently zoned as R-1-7000 •Requesting SR-3 Zone Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition. “In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options to increase the number of units on particular parcels through out the city…” …Missing Middle Housing types are those that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether… “Apart from traditional in-fill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape, of housing stock, should be addressed and leveraged to add incremental density” pg. 19 “Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” pg. 19 “Increase the number of medium density housing types and options” pg. 21 “Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate” pg. 21 “It will be critical for us to encourage and support a diversity of new housing options and types with a range of densities throughout the City to best meet the changing population” pg. 21 PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 1782 S 1600 E MAP AND PLAN AMENDMENT Property Location: 1782 S 1600 E Prior Applications: Administrative Interpretation (2020) & Appeal (2020). The outcome of these applications was that the property is not a legal buildable lot. The property is considered to part of 1572 E Blaine Ave. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPERTY HISTORY 1572 E Blaine Avenue View of the Drive Access of 1782 S 1600 E Looking East from 1782 S 1600 E Looking South from 1782 S 1600 E The applicant is seeking to amend the zoning map from R-1/7000 (Single- Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. The amendment is sought to accommodate a single-family detached dwelling. SR-3 was identified as the desired district due to reduced lot width requirements and setbacks. PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT Salt Lake City // Planning Division R-1/7000 SR-3 Building Height 28’ for pitched roofs 20’ for flat roofs 28’ for pitched roofs 20’ for flat roofs or average height of other buildings Front Setback Average of block face Average of block face. If no block face exists, 10’. Side Setback Corner Side Setback 6’ and 10’ 6’ Single-family detached: 4’ Single-family attached: 4’ when abutting a sfd, otherwise no yard required Rear Setback 25’20% of lot depth but not less than 15’ no more than 30’ Lot Minimums 7,000 square feet SFD: 2,000 square feet SFA: 1,500 square feet Two-family: 3,000 square feet Lot Width 50’SFD: 30’ (Interior) or 40’ (corner) SFA: 22’ (Interior) or 32’ (corner) TF: 44’ (Interior) or 54’ (corner) Building Coverage 40%SFD: 60% SFA: 70% ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON Land Use Changes: Dwelling, single-family attached Dwelling, twin home and two-family The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8- 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed plan amendment matches the density allowance for SR-3. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT Sugar House Plan Applicable policies for low density residential: •Support and enhance the dominant, single-family character of the existing low-density residential neighborhoods. •Maintain the unique character of older, predominantly low-density neighborhoods. •Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of primarily low-density dwelling units. Applicable location criteria for medium density residential: •Proximity to arterial or collector streets; •Proximity to higher density residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District; •Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space; •Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land use into areas of medium density residential. Applicable policies for medium density residential: •Encourage new medium density housing opportunities in appropriate locations in Sugar House. •Encourage a variety of densities in the medium density range while ensuring the design o these projects is compatible with surrounding residential structures. •Continue to prohibit the development of the “box car” design of multi-family dwellings. •Encourage street patterns that connect with other streets. Salt Lake City // Planning Division Plan Salt Lake Applicable Policies: Neighborhoods, Growth and Housing. Growing SLC Applicable Policy: Increase Housing Options Summary: As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments generally do not align with the established and adopted plans, policies and goals. The neighborhood is well-established with R-1/7000 zoning. The property does not meet the intent of the location parameters for medium density classification in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map. Ultimately, the amendments are sought to legalize an illegal subdivision for the purposes of development. These goals do not align with the identified policy statements or objectives. Salt Lake City // Planning Division QUESTIONS SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-01138, and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 01139. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2023 on applications submitted by Blaine Properties, LLC (“Applicant”), to rezone property located at 1782 South 1600 East Street (Tax ID No. 16-16-328-024) (the “Property”) from R- 1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01138, and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01139; and WHEREAS, at its April 16, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the Property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in the Sugar House Future Land Use Map of that plan. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 8, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property: PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD 0401BEG 152 FT S FR NE COR BLK 3, PROGRESS HEIGHTS SECOND ADD; W61.25 FT; N 2 FT; W 122.5 FT; S 131.35 FT; E 33.75 FT; N 110.32 FT; E 150 FT; N 20 FT, M OR L TO BEG, TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON S 4608-0466 6558* ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 11, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: 1782 S 1600 E Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 801-535-7930 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance - No ordinance requested due to Planning Commission’s negative recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map and the Sugar House Plan Future Land Use Map for the property located at 1782 S. 1600 E., which is approximately .1743 acres (7,592 square feet) in size. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8-20 dwelling units per acre) and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R- 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. The map and plan amendment are necessary to accommodate a single-family structure on the subject property. The applicant identified SR-3 zoning due to the reduced lot width and side yard setbacks required for a detached single-family structure. Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2023 15:15 MDT)05/11/2023 05/11/2023 Zoning Map of the Subject Neighborhood The subject property is an illegal lot created through a nonapproved subdivision. This means that a prior property owner recorded deeds subdividing the property without ensuring the property met the zoning requirements for a subdivision and without a subdivision amendment. The property history which is extensively discussed in a published administrative interpretation from 2020, outlines the history of the property. The determination relied on the prior Board of Adjustment decisions that identified the subject property as part of 1572 E Blaine Avenue. The full Administrative Interpretation can be accessed in the provided link, below. The applicant appealed the Administrative Interpretation to the Appeals Hearing Officer. The Appeals Hearing Officer agreed that the lot was illegally subdivided and upheld the Administrative Interpretation. The Appeals Hearing Officer decision can be accessed in the provided link, below. Due to the outcome of the Appeals Hearing, the applicant determined that the alternative route is to amend the zoning map and future land use map in order to pursue the construction of a single-family residence. It should be noted that the requested amendments do not legalize the subdivision of the subject property, nor make this property a buildable lot. The applicable adopted plans include Plan Salt Lake, Sugar House Plan and Growing SLC. The plans are generally in conflict with the proposed amendments. The Sugar House Plan designated the properties as Low Density Residential to preserve and protect the older low density single- family neighborhoods. Medium Density Residential should primarily be located near collector streets, mixed-use/higher density neighborhoods, as well as near the neighborhood commercial zoning and business district. The plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements within the Sugar House Plan. Additionally, the R-1/7000 zoning designation does align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 6 dwelling units per acre. Plan Salt Lake includes initiatives and goals to increase housing units. With that said, the proposed amendments include developing an illegally subdivided parcel in an existing neighborhood. The increase in density will promote a dwelling unit on the property that functions as a rear yard with challenging access. PUBLIC PROCESS: February 24, 2023 – The Sugar House Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. February 24, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. April 17, 2023 – Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On April 26, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNxTNHAkz34 beginning at 1:03. •Concerns with compatibility in the neighborhood. •Lack of current affordability of the existing rental housing. •Concerns of impacts to the neighboring property owners. •History of the property is in conflict with the proposal. •Requests that Salt Lake City require a consolidation to limit future requests. •Concerns with fire safety, due to the narrow access. •Support for the rezone for an additional unit. •A developed property is better than a vacant property. •The lot is illegal and shouldn’t be buildable. •Concerns with the precedent. •The legality of the lot shouldn’t impact whether it’s buildable. •It’s understandable that the current owners wouldn’t understand the items recorded on title. •Can the City afford to enforce rules that limit whether a property owner can building a home? The Planning Commission ultimately forwarded a negative recommendation with a 6-5 vote in favor of denial. The Planning Commission minutes are accessible in the link, below. Administrative Interpretation Records a)Administrative Interpretation published September 9, 2020 (Click to Access) b)Appeal of Administrative Interpretation published December 22, 2020 (Click to Access) Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITIONS: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 December 5, 2022 Petitions submitted January 30, 2023 Assigned to Liz Hart February 24, 2023 Routed for review. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to the Sugar House Community Council. February 24, 2023 Notice sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. April 17, 2023 Applicant and staff attended the Sugar House Land Use Committee Meeting. April 26, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering the following petitions: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 – Blaine Properties LLC is requesting to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 S 1600 E. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. A. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01138): The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). B. Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01139): The applicant is seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at Kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Property Identification The subject parcel is a .17-acre property located at 1782 South 1600 East (the “Subject Property”) owned by Blaine Properties LLC (the “Applicant”). The Property is what would commonly be referred to as a “flag lot” in that its frontage (on 1600 east) is long and narrow with a more substantial rectangular portion at its southeast. The Property is recognized by the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office as Parcel 16163280240000. While identified as a distinct parcel in County records, Salt Lake City does not recognize the Property as such. The Subject Property is adjacent to another property owned by the Applicant (the “Blaine Property”). The Blaine Property is a .21-acre lot with a duplex. For purposes of land-use designation Salt Lake City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be one cohesive lot. Both Properties are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Salt Lake County Parcel Map. The Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow. The Blaine Property Highlighted in Red. Whether using the City’s designation as one unitary lot or the county’s designation as two distinct lots, it is clear the Subject Property is uniquely configured and irregular in the neighborhood. The Master Plan Amendment (“MPA”) and Zoning Map Amendment (“ZMA”) applications are expressly for the parameters of the Subject Property and do not include the Blaine Property. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Existing Uses and Conditions The Subject Property currently has three predominant uses: 1) It houses a 750 sqft shade structure and roughly half of a 1300 sqft accessory garage (the remaining garage footprint is located within the Blaine Property lot1), 2) It is used by residents of the Blaine Property to access the accessory garage, and 3) it is used as a vehicular access to another adjacent lot’s accessory garage2 (1580 E Blaine Avenue). Harkening to the “Flag Lot” descriptor, the “pole” is asphalted for vehicular passage and the “flag” contains the shade structure and is otherwise vacant and sodded. Purpose for the Amendment The MPA and ZMA are being proposed to provide a higher and better use for the Subject Property than is currently existing or could feasibly be arranged under the current R-1-7000 designation. The Subject Property is currently used for vehicular storage, accessing parking stalls, and quite frankly not much else. The vacant portion of the lot is unused by the owner or its tenants and its value as “open space” is negligible, in that it is surrounded by private properties and built features. The location, size, and shape of the Subject Property lends itself well for the construction of a modest single-family home. A small home on the lot would provide the applicant an opportunity to transform this unused space to one that shelters and houses one new family unit in a beautiful existing neighborhood. Though the applicant’s proposal is modest and reasonable on a property of this size and location, the execution of such a goal has been set back by various impediments in the city process and barriers created by zoning and master plan regulations. History of Impediments and Current Zoning Barriers The Subject Property is certainly unique and unprecedented within the area. Its current configuration is the result of a long history starting in 1919 when the original Progressive Heights subdivision was subdivided. In 1951 Progressive Heights was further subdivided which created three unique lots now known as 1572, 1580, and 1586 Blaine Avenue. Following the latest subdivision, the Subject Lot was issued a distinct Parcel Number in the same year. From 1951-1957, the Subject Lot was left vacant. On May 22nd, 1957, the Subject Lot was forfeited to Salt Lake County pursuant to a tax sale for failure to pay property taxes. In 1977, Salt Lake County sold the Subject Property under its separate Parcel #1616328024 to the then- owners of 1572 Blaine Avenue, namely, David T. and Dorothy L. Cates. In 1985 the Cates’ applied to build a garage on the Blaine Property to be used for the Duplex on the same property. The garage was ultimately built straddling the common property line of the Subject Property and the Blaine Property. There is no evidence that the Cates intended to merge the properties together by this encroachment. 1 The overlapping nature of the accessory garage structure’s footprint has been identified as a reason the City considers the Subject Property and the Blaine Property to be “merged” as a unitary lot. 2 There is no formal easement on record for this access. However, the Applicant does not contest this access, nor would a re-zone or subsequent development hinder this access. In the event a plat amendment is recorded the applicant would be in favor of memorializing the access as a recorded easement. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment In 1999, the then-owner Mark Huber applied for and received a permit to build a small single-family home on the Subject Lot. Within a week of being issued the building permit, neighbors upset about a new home being constructed adjacent to them, complained to the City, and requested a stop work order. The city subsequently issued the stop work order to review if the Subject Property was legally buildable. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the Subject Property specifications and zoning ordinances and determined that the Subject Property did not legally exist and first introduced the notion that the Subject Property and the Blaine Property were one lot. Huber then appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the Board of Adjustments (the “BOA”). In the July 19th, 1999 hearing, a contingent of neighbors who were opposed to the building of a home on the Subject Property were represented by an attorney. The attorney introduced the idea of a “lot merger” having occurred with the previous construction of the detached garage. After other public comment from neighbors opposed to any development, the BOA unanimously voted to uphold the administrative decision, not to recognize the Subject Property as an independent lot, and to restrict any development of a new single-family dwelling. To memorialize the BOA’s decision an Abstract of Findings and Order was recorded over the property to notice that the Subject Property “is not an independent lot and may not be developed with a new single- family dwelling”. This ruling by the BOA has since become a barrier to reimagining the Subject Property’s land-use and highest and best use. After the ruling Huber ceased his efforts to develop the Subject Property and did not submit an appeal to the BOA’s decision. Eventually, on February 25th, 2014 both the Blaine Property and the Subject Property were purchased by the applicant. Like Huber, the applicant recognized the Subject Property as an ideal opportunity for the development of a humble single-family home structure. The applicant reached out to Salt Lake City Planning Department to explore the possibility of seeking a land-use redesignation. It was at this point where the applicant became aware of the history of the site and the BOA decision of 1999. In an effort to unwind the decision the applicant requested an Administrative Interpretation to determine whether the Subject Property is a legal complying parcel and a buildable lot. On September 9th, 2020 staff determined that they were unable to evaluate whether the BOA made a legal or correct decision. Given that the BOA decision of 1999 was never appealed by Huber, staff found that the decision remains in effect and that the property could not be developed independently. On September 18th, 2020 the applicant submitted an Appeal of Decision before Planning and Zoning arguing that the BOA decision 1) should be available for review and appeal and 2) that the BOA decision was legally incorrect. This appeal went before the Salt Lake City Land Use Appels Hearing Officer who on December 22nd, 2020 issued his ruling to uphold the decision of the September 9th, 2020 Administrative interpretation. In his ruling the Hearing Officer was sympathetic to the first issue argued by the applicant, namely, that the 1999 BOA decision could be challenged and plausibly overturned. The officer also questioned his authority to overturn a decision by a BOA (that no longer exists). With the latest land-use decision rendered the applicant reached out to city planning staff to see what processes exist to revisit and petition the “non-developable” status of the Subject Property. Two options 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment were given 1) Appeal the decision to the Third District Court, or 2) Submit a MPA and ZMA to rezone the subject property. The applicant has elected to pursue option two with this application for MPA and ZMA. If this petition is granted the applicant will be required to submit a Planned Development (“PD”) and Preliminary Subdivision application before any development of the Subject Property. The applicant understands that the PD application could be run concurrently with the MPA and ZMA, however, due to monetary constraints, the applicant is electing to only petition the MPA and ZMA at this time. Description of the Proposed Use of the Property The property is tucked inside a typical single-family and two-family neighborhood. While lots in the neighborhood more or less conform to Low Density Residential R-1-7 zone characteristics there is a variety of housing types and massing in the area. The property is best suited for a small-scale single- family residence. While no design decisions have been made the property is of ample size to provide space for a small footprint custom or modular home structure. Reasons why the Present Zoning is not Appropriate for the Area The applicant does not dispute that the R-1-7 zone is appropriate for the area at large. For the vast majority of the neighborhood blocks the dimensional standards have efficiently distributed properties with a proper balance of living spaces and open spaces. The R-1-7 has proven to be a value to the community as a rule, but it is desperately lacking in usability for exceptions. The Progress Heights Second Addition subdivision is more than 70 years old, and its current lot configuration has changed immensely since its initial subdivision. While the plat has never been formally amended, lots have been combined and a midblock alleys have been vacated in what surprisingly has resulted in a fairly typical neighborhood residential pattern. Figure 2: Portion of Progress Heights Second Addition Plat contrasted with current site condition. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment The only exception to a typical lot in the plat is the Subject Lot. Its peculiar historical circumstances have left this as the only “flag lot” and only “un-developable” building lot in the entire Progress Heights Second Addition Plat. Exceptions like this lot can be found in various historical neighborhoods throughout the city where development occurred before processes were more formalized and zoning as stringent. Where these unique parcels are of adequate size and dimension, they should not be blocked perpetually from development, but should rather be granted thoughtful consideration to see how they can be developed to their highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character. Thankfully the applicant has identified a city zoning designation that seems to address this exact exceptional situation. The SR-3 special pattern residential provides for lot, bulk and use regulations, including a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. This zone has been used liberally in the city to provide land-use to uniquely located properties where use of the surrounding zoning restrictions would render a site undevelopable. Figure 3: SR-3 Interior Block Examples Shown in Yellow The SR-3 is a designation that recognizes that unique properties should be given unique considerations and that “spot zoning” is not a pejorative but rather a tool for land-use efficiency. SR-3 is definitionally a different zone than its surrounding properties for the purpose of dealing with distinctive site location. Because the property is located midblock in a flagging composition it is petitioned that the lot be reclassified. The request is to amend the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Along with this, the requested zone change is from R-1-7000 to that of the SR-3 zone. Consistency with City Objectives Salt Lake City has made significant commitments to providing a broad array of responses to the housing shortage crisis. City master plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC: A Five Year Plan have clearly established objectives to increase housing where it makes sense and can be of minimal impact to the community. 1782 South 1600 East Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Plan Salt Lake specifically supports, “Promot(ing) infill and redevelopment of underutilized land” (PSL pg.19), “Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options” and “Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate” (PSL pg. 21). By designating the property SR-3, a medium density zone, a property that has been restricted for development can be made viable to build a modest single-family home. Growing SLC seems to be speaking directly to the subject property when it reads “Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to add incremental density…” (GSL pg. 19) Growing SLC specifically addresses small courtyard cottages and bungalows as “Missing Middle Housing” and prioritizes “finding a place for these (missing middle housing) types throughout the city…”. This petition is in line with Growing SLC in “finding a place” for missing middle housing. Small infill opportunities such as that presented by the Subject Property should be considered individually to see if they can responsibly include more housing or development otherwise. The city’s current objectives are to eliminate certain barriers that have historically and reflexively been put upon properties that don’t fit neatly into usual neighborhood characteristics. “Exacerbating the housing crisis are local barriers to housing development. These barriers, such as density limitations, prohibitions on different types of housing, and other development regulations, have contributed in part to a general supply deficit and economic segregation” (GSL pg. 11). Conclusion Even a cursory review of the site conditions of the Subject Property indicate that it is clearly an appropriate site for a modest single-family residence. It is only in review of the existing zoning designation and the recorded Abstract of Findings that anyone would consider this lot “un-buildable”. To step back and consider this logic is to find that there are no physical and practical constraints but only legal and definitional constraints. The history of the Abstract of Findings shows that the reasons for the barrier to development were not only supported by but wholly introduced by an attorney representing a NIMBY contingent. The language that is memorialized in the Abstract of Findings has for many years obstructed any commonsense development of this infill lot. Fortunately, there is a method to restore a commonsense and higher and better use for the property. That is to redesignate the lot to the SR-3 zone. The zone recognizes that unique properties can be dealt with more nuance than would otherwise be available by simple consultation of the surrounding zoning limitations. The applicant recognizes that one new infill cottage home will have negligible effects on the housing crisis. However, it will also have no real negative effects on the neighborhood that it finds itself in. Rather it will provide one new home that can house one more family and be of an immense value to those who will one day live in it. The applicant implores the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission to consider this Petition to redesignate the Subject Property from R-1-7000 to SR-3. EXHIBIT  Public Comments in support of development on Subject Property from December 10th, 2020 Appeal of a Decision Hearing March 18, 2021 To whom it may concern; I’m writing to enter my comments into the appeal hearing for the property located at 1782 South 1600 East in Salt Lake City. I own an investment property about a third a mile north on 1600 East and have been a Realtor for almost 30 years. I support the property owner’s petition to build a reasonable-sized, single-family home the flag-lot they own. Looking at the property it seems like a logical thing to do. We are greatly in need of additional housing and need far fewer non-food-producing plots that require costly irrigation and maintenance. The family has invested, and paid taxes in, this area for a long time and they’re really just looking to have each other nearby. I think that particular behavior should be supported whenever possible and natural. Thank you for your time and consideration, Melanie Soules Principal Broker Hard-Working Homes 4. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Publication Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:Grace Sperry To:Lindquist, Kelsey Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Date:Wednesday, April 26, 2023 12:47:40 PM PLNPCM2022-01138 &PLNCPCM2022-01139 Dear Kelsey and Elizabeth, I had planned to attend this evening’s meeting but due to a recent death in my family, will not be able to do so. Therefore, I am writing to recommend that Anthony Arrassi’s request to build a single family home on his property be approved. I have watched over the years many unusual properties being approved for single family use or commercial use in the Westminster and Sugarhouse neighborhoods. A case in point would be the four homes recently built on the property at 2660 South Highland Drive. None of those homes are on more acreage than the Arrassi proposed home and all overlook the surrounding homes and all have very small driveways leading to the garages. All those homes are now benefitting the neighborhood and raising the value of the properties in the area. This new single family home would do likewise. Please grant this request for permission to build a new single family home at 1782 S. 1600 East, Salt Lake City, UT . Thank You, Grace Sperry Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council and Former Chair of the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Sub-Committee. Grace Sperry Board of Directors Adan Carillo Alessandro Rigolon Atticus Edwards Christian Harrison Jordan Atkin Matthew Morriss McCall Christensen Rosa Bandeirinha Staff Turner Bitton Executive Director 801-564-3860 turner@slcneighbors.org April 24, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division RE: Petition Number PLNAPP2020-00725 Dear Ms. Lindquist, It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors. SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors is a network of Salt Lake City residents working for affordable housing for all income levels through policies that are pro-housing and pro-tenant. We are writing in support of the proposed rezone request for the subject property. We believe that this rezone request is illustrative of unfair and inconsistent application of land use policy to restrict access to desirable neighborhoods such as Sugarhouse. We believe that it is absurd to defer to a master plan established 22 years ago to dictate the future of a property that could provide much needed housing in a highly desirable area of the city. We further believe that while the subject property is unique, it is deserving of a more valuable purpose than providing off street parking. Salt Lake City’s forthcoming Housing SLC plan and the Thriving in Place study provide two policy goals that we believ e support the development of housing on this unique lot. Specifically: 1) Housing SLC Goal Alignment #1: Increase opportunities for homeownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities for low to moderate income households. Based on the size of the subject property, the likelihood that the home constructed will be smaller means that it will likely be more affordable than other properties in the neighborhood. This provides an opportunity for lower income or first-time homebuyers to establish roots in the neighborhood. The construction of this type of infill housing promotes stability in the neighborhood and will make our whole city stronger. 2) Thriving in Place Alignment: Increase housing everywhere. The subject property also aligns with the findings of the Thriving in Place study which found that housing of all kinds is needed citywide. The existing master plan for the area was written at a time with significantly less pressure in the housing market than there is today. We believe that the master plan is detached from the current reality and that any reasonable reading of current city needs would indicate the need for infill housing such as this proposal. Most other master plans in the city call for infill housing and pointing to a document approved 22 years ago as a basis for a decision about future housing goals fails to address the significant need for more housing. Furthermore, to continue to allow the subject property to languish with no valuable purpose harms the future of the neighborhood. We encourage the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council as a matter of fairness and reflecting the significant need for new housing in Salt Lake City. While this proposal will not solve Salt Lake City’s housing crisis, it is indicative of how neighborhoods with significant resources can constrain the housing supply citywide resulting in areas with fewer resources bearing the brunt of a growing city. Sincerely, Turner Bitton Executive Director SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors NEOFITOS ARCHITECTS April 25, 2023 Kelsey Lindquist Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Ms. Lindquist, My name is Angelo Neofitos. I’m an architect and entrepreneur in Salt Lake City. I’d like to express my strong support for Anthony Arrasi’s proposal located at 1782 South 1600 East. (PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNCPCM2022-01139) I like to keep up with development news in our city and when I heard about Anthony’s proposal I was really intrigued by the challenge it poses to Salt Lake’s ideas about development. This is a proposal that questions preconceptions and assumptions. Anthony’s intentions define the spirit of Salt Lake City and our city’s curiosity to break our notions of the past. We are a city experiencing tremendous change. We’re constantly hearing about rapid population growth, the lack of affordable housing and, most recently, about inflation taking over our daily lives. This is a moment in history where we have to become resourceful to survive. In 2014 the United States Environmental Protection Agency released a document titled “Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development”. In this document, the EPA explained the challenges and benefits it foresees facing infill land development in US cities. One of the challenges that the EPA describes is that, “Infill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process.” Salt Lake City cannot afford to let it’s citizens continue to struggle with antiquated zoning codes that promote notions and lifestyles of the past. By prescribing to zoning codes established over 25 years ago, Salt Lake City stands to encumber its future majority population. The EPA states that, “With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties and many sought their own home for the first time. As of 2012, this generation comprises the largest segment of the rental housing market. With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is larger than the baby boom generation. It will continue to grow with new immigrants because most arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.” Anthony is a member of this community and he wants to establish roots and become a homeowner in Salt Lake City, and contribute to everything our great city has to offer. This is not a time to let infill lots with any potential go to waste. What we choose to do with our resources during these critical moment in our economy and history will define our future. Our city and citizens must be resourceful in a time when land has become very scarce. Salt Lake City needs to ask itself when and why, its current zoning codes were established; and can it afford to enforce stale codes which do not meet our citizens needs? Sincerely, -Evangelos Neofitos Resource: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-06/documents/developer-infill-paper-508b.pdf 222 South Main Street 5th Floor - Salt Lake City UT 84101 +1 801.231.9978 • evangelos@neofitos.design • www.neofitos.design COMMENTS 1782 E 1600 South Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Dear Judy, My wife and I live on the 1500 block of E. Blaine Avenue and we want to voice our opposition to any change to the zoning currently in place. This means we are strongly opposed to changing the SR-3 zoning that would allow the current owner to build an additional home structure and / or an ADU. This zoning should stand: this property is one lot, not two, and further, setback and depth restrictions mean this is an unbuildable property. The property is not zoned for these uses and never has been. We purchased our home on this street because we wanted to live in a less dense neighborhood. The current owner of 1782 South 1600 East is seeking to increase density at the expense of the neighbors and neighborhood solely to benefit her own pocketbook. We've heard suggestions the owner wants to rezone to help 'increase the amount of affordable housing stock in the city'. You might ask her now much she charges for the rent on the ground floor unit of her duplex (it was $2700 per month last year) and ask her how much she is going to charge for next year (it's $2900 per month). Her previous tenant moved out because the rent became unaffordable. So, if she's really interested in providing affordable housing, she should be reducing the rent, not increasing it. Further, if she is indeed committed to more affordable housing, you might ask if she has created a mother-in-law apartment in her existing single family home--her current legal residence, and if she plans to build an ADU in the backyard of her current legal residence. That would be a starting point, not trying to wring more dollars out of an existing property that is in no way a "home" for her--it's purely something she considers as a commercial opportunity. Finally, this is the third time that this owner has sought to rezone the property, and the third time the neighbors have had to mobilize to speak out to prevent two or three houses being built on one lot. This is not a hardship case: it's purely an example of a selfish absentee landlord seeking to line her pockets at the expense of the neighbors who live in owner-occupied homes on Blaine Ave and on 1600 East. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer PS--one clarification: We are opposed to changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District with a corresponding Master Plan change. Hal & Ingrid Previously, we had sent you the following email, below, in italics. Let us add in new, additional comments here (in regular font). We are extremely opposed to changing the zoning from R1/7000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) Zoning District with a corresponding Master Plan change, because if the zoning amendment is approved then there could be at least four--and up to six rental units on a property the city currently considers to be one lot: 1572 E. Blaine Avenue in Salt Lake City. Currently, there is a duplex on the property. New rules allow for an ADU to be built on that property. Then, if the rezone is approved, creating a new lot, that property could also house a duplex and an ADU or a single-family home and an ADU. The potential for this much higher density development on what currently is one lot is completely out of character for the neighborhood. It also sets a dangerous precedent. What if the other neighbors on the street, who have large lots, sell and the new owner(s) claim that two lots could be created out of one R-1 lot because, well, why not? The current owner of 1572 E Blaine seems intent on negatively impacting the quality of life for the seven neighbors whose property abuts the lot in question. No one wants the rezone. Zoning exists to preserve the stability of neighborhoods. The planning commission should consider whether the desire of one property owner, who lives in Olympus Cove, to rezone a lot historically zoned as one lot should be allowed, as it will open the door to potentially create a small rental village at the expense of those living in owner-occupied homes, who are united in their opposition to the rezone. Sincerely, Hal Crimmel Ingrid Weinbauer To Whom it May Concern, I am writing this letter in support of the Arrasi family to build a modest home on the vacant lot of 1782 South 1600 East. As a lifelong resident of Wasatch Hollow, I can attest to the fact that this is a wonderful place to call home. The community is close-knit, the schools are excellent, and the amenities are plentiful. However, I also understand that the cost of living in this neighborhood has become increasingly expensive over the years. These increasing costs along with the scarcity of buildable land has made Wasatch Hollow, Progressive Heights and a majority of Sugarhouse become very difficult for many people to afford. As someone who inherited my childhood home and was fortunate enough to avoid the rising costs of living in the area, I understand how difficult it can be to find affordable housing in our community. This is why I fully support the proposed plan for the subject property. By doing so, the Arrasi family is not only creating an affordable home for their children but also providing an opportunity for others to potentially live in this neighborhood in the future. Lastly, from my discussions with the Arrasi family, I understand the home will be proportional in size to the lot, and the building design will compliment the surrounding homes using materials and colors that will blend in with the neighborhood. Furthermore, they have assured me that they will be mindful of the potential impact that the construction may have on the local environment, and will take steps to mitigate any negative effects. A modest home would not only provide an opportunity for affordable housing, but it would also help to maintain the character and charm of our neighborhood. Overall I believe a new home built will be a greater asset to the neighborhood than an unusable vacant lot. I want to express my support for the proposed project and wish the Arrasi family all the best with their plans. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Sincerely, Marley Bramble Wasatch Hollow Community Council Second Vice Chair Agentia Jan Thomas 04-19-23 Judy our concern is the width of the alley way for the access of emergency vehicles. According to existing standards, we understand the width is to be 22 foot wide, however the existing driveway entrance is only 19 foot 11 inches. This could limit the access for fire trucks, if the zoning is changed to SR3 and a house is built on the lot. Also adding a house or an AUD adds to the weekly issues of garbage pickup, where will the cans go in front of the Blaine Ave address? Another concern we have due to the ALLEYWAY being our access to our property for over 65 years the number of cars which will be going in and out at all hours. And in closing, we thought that a plan of what Blaine LLC is wanting to build on the lot would be shown. But all we have been told is it will be a modest home. From that description the zoning should not be amended to SR3. Thank you for all the many hours you work for the neighbor hoods in Sugarhouse. Regards, Dean and Jan Thomas 1580 Blaine Ave. Rebecca Davis Wed, Apr 19, 9:50 PM (12 hours ago) I am strongly opposed to the requested rezone from R1-7000 to SR-3 for the property located at 1782 S 1600 E. I own and live in the home west of this property - 1564 E Blaine. If the rezone is approved, the oversized garage that straddles the property line dividing 1572 E Blaine and 1782 S 1600 E will be demolished. That will create the problem of light pollution that will affect me and other neighbors to the west of me. The level of the rear of the 1572 E Blaine Ave lot was raised when the oversized garage was built. Lights from vehicles coming west down the driveway from 1600 East and turning north on the lot for parking will shine onto my back porch, into my living room, kitchen and backyard. The vehicle lights will illuminate four properties that slope downhill to the west from my property. The requested rezone is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The application for zoning amendment references language from Plan Salt Lake "Increas(ing) the number of medium density housing types and options" (PSL pg. 19) and "Enabl(ing) moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate" (PSL pg. 21). Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex does not reflect a moderate density increase in housing. Potentially adding two ADUs and another duplex is not a "small inflll opportunity" as described in the Zoning Amendment when it references Growing SLC - A Five Year Housing Plan 2018- 2022. This is a neighborhood of single family homes, several duplexes and a fourplex located at the bottom of Blaine Avenue next to 1500 E. Rezoning this one property as SR-3 sets a precedent that could negatively change the character of the neighborhood. As current owners sell their properties, new owners could request zoning changes from R1-7000 to build multiple dwellings on existing lots. Our neighborhood would never be the same. Its character would be destroyed. It would be a mistake to open the door to this possibility by approving the application for rezone to SR-3 at 1782 S 1600 E. Rebecca Davis 1564 E Blaine Ave SLC UT 84105 Wed, Apr 19, 9:55 PM (12 hours ago) Judi, The proposed change in zoning will impact seven homes that this plot of land touches. We bought our home two years ago, our understanding at that time was that the property to our back was a single lot, and if fitted in with the surrounding homes. There was maintained grass and a patio area for use by the occupants. During our two years in our property there have been multiple parties and BBQ’s in the patio area, with music late into the night. To say in the application that this is an undeveloped lot is inaccurate, there are facilities in place and they are used by the occupants. The application claims that the neighborhood has changed immensely. But in reality that claim is baseless if you consider the block on which they are planning to build. As the application clearly shows all the homes are built on large lots with facilities like garages, patio’s, vegetable gardens and grass. This applies equally to 1782 S 1600 E. I oppose the application as written. There is no plan on what the developer would do if the change in zoning was approved. There is also adequate provision within the current city ordinance that would allow the developer to expand the use of the land and meet the objectives of the application to provide an additional single family unit, with access from 1600 E. Regards, Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone Sent from my iPad Pro Denise Dubek Wed, Apr 19, 10:06 PM (12 hours ago) to Hello Judi, I am writing about the request by Blaine properties to re zone 1782 S. 1600 E. to SR-3. I urge the city to consider why this request is causing some stress and safety concerns for me and by the current neighborhood. As I have researched the request, I feel strongly that this potential change could create many safety hazards. The current driveway that leads to the property is too narrow for a large firetruck to drive down. General driveway standards in residential districts according to SLC.gov website regarding residential driveways, should have an approach of six (6) feet from abutting property lines and ten (10) feet from street corner property lines. In front and corner side yards, driveway approach widths shall not exceed twenty two (22) feet in SR-1 and SR-3 residential districts. This driveway doesn't meet this criteria. Due to the close proximity of the current homes in this neighborhood, a fire could easily spread to one of our homes, before a firetruck could get down the narrow, unmarked driveway. Also, where would trash bins get placed for pick up? The request to rezone and create an unwanted dwelling to be built in the middle of our current properties is just a bad consideration. I strongly oppose the request to rezone this property. Thank you for your understanding and for your willingness to consider my concern. Regards, Denise Dubek Property Owner 1792 S. 1600 E. SLC, Utah 84105 Elena Kondrashova Wed, Apr 19, 10:08 PM (12 hours ago) to me To Whom it May Concern, As relatively new Sugar House residents whose backyard backs directly to the Subject Property we were surprised to find out that there was a possibility of a separate lot existing in such an unusual and constrained configuration. The area in question seemed to be an organic extension of the Blaine Property and the two combined fit quite well with the neighborhood’s general layout. It is precisely this neighborhood’s unique characteristics that made Sugar House an attractive home for our family. This is a place with strong community ties, respectful, family friendly environment, modest home sizes and great historical heritage. All of the above are potentially threatened by the unscrupulous buildout. In fact, the applicant states the parcel should be developed to the “highest and best use while maintaining general neighborhood character.” We believe this is pertinent and already achievable through existing regulations that allow for construction of an accessory dwelling unit on the Subject Property. This view aligns well with the referenced Five Year Plan that seeks to increase housing while minimizing impact to the community. It is our experience that the immediate community is deeply troubled by the proposed amendment, concerned about the lack of concrete construction plans and potential profit prioritization above all else. Without definitive information on the subsequent construction post potential zoning changes we oppose the amendment. Regards, Elena Kondrashova & Simon Harrison 1569 E Downington Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 andrea jimmie Wed, Apr 19, 10:51 PM (11 hours ago) to Judi.Short To Whom It May Concern, I have many concerns and issues regarding the possibility of rezoning the property but my biggest concern is a Firehazard. If there was an ADU what would happen if there was ever a fire? With the recent fire on 1100east and considering all the people who were forced to leave their homes, what would happen if something like that happened? There is not enough room for a fire truck and paramedic to come down that small side street and turn around safely. If the property is rezoned, the possibility of 6 rental units and people driving down the small street where my child plays, rides her bike, and walks her dog is a huge concern. Our neighborhood won't be safe anymore. There are too many unsafe people in the world and the government does nothing to protect our children. I had plans to live in this house for a long time and I never in my wildest dreams would have thought there could be a house or duplex built in my back yard , in between my home and the neighbors. I would no longer feel safe letting my child outside for the fact of the safety of playing outside is not safe due to possible traffic and the simple fact of privacy. It gives me anxiety and stresses me out with the possibility of having to move if that is approved. I'm a single mom and never had plans on moving out of this house. Do me a favor and walk into your back yard and imagine a duplex or building with multiple people living in that building living there. Ask yourself if that is something you would okay with and want for your neighborhood. Sincerely, Andrea Jimmie 1600 east resident Larry Wright Wed, Apr 19, 10:52 PM (11 hours ago) to me Dear Judi I met with Anthony Arrasi and Stephanie Arrasi (property owners requesting the zoning change to SR-3) this afternoon with Camille Thorpe to review their development plans for the lot. The purpose of the meeting was to gather information about future development and to discuss possible negative effects development would have to the neighbors. This lot shares property lines with seven property owners. We walked the property and talked about the height allowable for structures and the impact on the neighbors. We reviewed the setbacks for a structure and how that would affect the neighbors. We covered all the impacts that the neighbors has concerns about. I measured a tree up to 20' to provide a visual reference point for the neighbors so that they could imagine a structure at least that height overlooking their backyards. Anthony did not have a development plan established yet because of the expense, not even a hand drawing of the proposal of a single-family home showing some type of design features. Is it 1 or 2 stories? Is the plan for it to be a modern type home, bungalow, or a cottage style? I had no information to take back to the neighbors other than Anthony wants to build a modest single-family home. Anthony told us that, one way or another, a structure will be built on the property. It will be either a single-family home or a 1000 sq.foot ADU. The neighbors have a choice on which one. The city has deemed that this lot is one lot. Since the Arrasis provided no development plan to evaluate, I request that the planning committee deny the zoning request to change the current zoning from R-1-700 to SR-3. The city recently made changes to allow an ADU on a lot with a duplex already in place; this will adversely affect the neighbors. My property is two doors west of the lot in question, and its value will go down. So will the property values of all seven adjacent neighbors. Just because the city makes it possible to build an ADU on your property dosen't make it the right thing to do. Thanks Larry Wright Ann Wright Wed, Apr 19, 11:03 PM (11 hours ago) to Dear Judi, In regard to the property at 1782 S 1600 E, I would like to state that I oppose rezoning to SR-3. Because of the number of neighbors impacted by any development of this lot, I believe that an SR-3 zoning would give the property owners carte blanche to overdevelop the lot. This entire block is zoned R-1-7000, and anything that occurs on this property should reflect that. There should be more restrictions, not fewer, especially in regard to height specifications. Between this lot and the neighboring lot (to the west) there is a grade change 2 to 4 feet. Please consider the impact of a two story building with minimal setbacks upon that neighbor, not to mention the six other neighbors sharing property lines with the lot in question. To zone the property in question SR-3 would create the potential for future abuse in the event that the lot is resold. It could be developed any way the owner chose. Legally speaking, the lot could accommodate a duplex and an ADU. But that does not make it right. If you were to come walk the lot you could easily imagine the adverse impact of that sort of development on the adjacent homeowners. Please walk in our shoes. The following pattern keeps occurring in our city as the development boom continues: the developer makes a verbal commitment to honor a request for a height restriction, or a setback, a “modest bungalow or cottage,” but when the construction starts these commitments are abandoned. Suddenly, in a neighborhood of single-story dwellings, footings for a two-story structure appear, and the resulting structure throws shade on gardens, violates privacy, obstructs views, and lowers property values. Surely, the people who live in the neighborhood should have some say in the changes imposed on them by investors. Thank you, Ann Wright Dina D Dear Judi, My name is Dina DeWeerd and I reside at 1548 East Blaine Avenue. I am two blocks west of the proposed lot to be rezoned. My husband and I searched for three years for a great neighborhood, close to our jobs to raise our family. As we searched we saw an undesirable trend of investors buying and stacking as many homes possible on what was originally a single family lot. We chose not to purchase there. We were drawn to the charm of Sugarhouse and the R1-7000 zoning was a major factor in our decision to purchase this home in 2009 as we were no longer looking for a high density living situation. I am opposing the request to re-zone 1781 South 1600 East for the following reasons: The request to rezone one lot, is not keeping with the character of the neighborhood that is zoned entirely RI- 7000. The request to rezone, in hopes of building another home behind an investment property does not keep with the character of the neighborhood. Also, this lot has been declared unbuildable by the city in the past. The potential now for ADU’s to be added to the existing investment property and proposed new home, would not represent a moderate density increase in this area. May I ask you to please listen to the voices of the people who LIVE here and who's daily lives will be affected by the decisions of one owner who does not live in the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Dina DeWeerd camille thorpe 1:39 AM (8 hours ago) to , Larry, Rebecca (Thank you, Judi = ) Rezone request to SR-3 1782 S. 1600 Ea Camille Thorpe 1784 S. 1600 Ea Thank you for your consideration, If this were a simple case of “NIMBYISM”, the only owner who could claim it would be – me. My address is 1784 So. 1600 East and this is IN my backyard. But as you can also see there are concerns from seven (7) other neighbors who would be adversely impacted by a change to SR-3, and touching this lot, too. NIMBY is beyond all our backyards and becomes a question of dangerous precedent- setting for other neighborhoods in Sugarhouse. I encourage the Planning Commission and City Council to not approve this zoning change. Normally zoning changes are for an area, not just for one unique spot. Our neighborhood is not opposed to more neighbors. But we are opposed to having this small, unique lot setting precedence for the broader community. And what would the legal definition of a “modest bungalow” be anyway? That unknown factor of what could be built (and added upon) at 1782 S. 1600 East is another reason this neighborhood does not want a SR-3 zoning change. Another reason I am opposed to rezoning here is because it will require so many variance requests that there would be very little chance for governance on any changes. Both of the two-story structures Anthony has talked about are too tall. The ground has already been raised 4-feet. A one-story structure might be a solid compromise indicating that the owners have heard their neighbors, understood the neighborhood place, and appreciate that their current desires could detract from what makes Sugarhouse Sugarhouse. #Not keeping with the character of the neighborhood. This zone change proposal could have long lasting effects on those who live here, and determine who will choose to live here, or not. Kind regards, Camille Thorpe | 8:30 AM (1 hour ago) to me Hi Judi – A few thoughts… +++ The applicant has not provided enough information about his intentions to enable his neighbors or the SHCC to form an opinion about the merits of the project. At our meeting on April 17, it became clear that neighbors were uncertain about plans for shared driveway easements, disposition of a large garage that crosses proposed new lot lines, and buildable area/setback/height requirements on the L-shaped lot that the applicant wishes to create. We recommend that the applicant: 1. Defer his review with the Planning Commission 2. Create a site plan of his vision for the two lots that meets the requirements of the proposed R3 zoning 3. Discuss this site plan with neighbors 4. Return to SHCC LUZ for further discussion Judi, As a neighbor in close proximity to the subject property, I am voicing my opposition to the proposed Zoning change for several reasons. The 4,815 sf lot is odd-shaped and a large portion would be un-buildable due to access constraints. With a width of SHCC Letter to PC 1782 Blaine Avenue.docx www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1 April 19, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCM2022-01083 and PLNPCM2022-01139 We received a request for a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for the parcel at 1782 South 1600 East. The property owner anticipates building a single-family dwelling on the property. The property is currently zoned R 1/7000 (Single Family Residential) and they wish to change it to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). This was one of five items on the SHCC Land Use Agenda April 17, with many people in attendance, approximately 6 from this neighborhood, including the petitioner. If the property is rezoned, then the petitioner can begin to design a building(s), which may or may not need to come back through the Planning Commission. We all know we have a group of housing plans coming before the Planning Commission and City Council which are intended to make it easier to develop additional housing for the citizens of Salt Lake City. This lot has been declared unbuildable twice before, but with the new SR-3 zone, may be able to fit in a dwelling of some sort. Part of the problem is the strange shape of the lot, and the difficulty of figuring out how to place a dwelling, while still having adequate access for fire and other neighbors who use either of these “alleys” to access their property. The current duplex on the parcel is not affordable, according to the neighbors, and they know building a new building will be very expensive, so the new units, whether it is one home or an ADU or a duplex, will by definition not be affordable. You can read the attached comments for more information about what exists on the lot currently, including a very large garage (24’ x 56’ according to the Salt Lake County Assessor) that is quite tall right on the property line, that is not well-maintained. There is a lot of animosity from the neighbors about this long-standing problem, and it seems they have not been able to communicate with the petitioners. We recommend that you have two options. Either you deny this request, or ask that the petitioner to develop plans with drawings and sign a development agreement that spells exactly what they will build in terms of one building or two, height and dimensions, and location on the parcel, before this goes to the City Council. We think this should include something that says what the rental cap will be, so as to meet the city’s goals of building more affordable housing. In addition you need to get the fire department to sign off on whether the driveways are adequate for them to get in and fight a fire. fewer than 47 feet, the required SR-3 setbacks would further limit construction. This would create a very different yard for the proposed dwelling, compared to the neighborhood at large. I do have additional concerns over emergency vehicle access with the narrow driveway, and a sharp turn to access the proposed dwelling. Especially during winters with high snowfall...There's nowhere to put the shoveled snow. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you for your public service. Craig Craig Schriber 1532 E. Blaine Ave, SLC 84105 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00026 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to amend the zoning ordinance that would prohibit drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. Currently, drive-throughs are permitted for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed changes prohibiting drive- throughs are not citywide; they apply only to the Sugar House Business District. The proposal is to prohibit new drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 and CSHBD2) by removing the permitted use designations in these districts from the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030 Salt Lake City Code). In addition, the proposal calls for modifying Section 21A.40.060 Salt Lake City Code clarifying that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Under the proposal, existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District would become legal nonconforming uses and could continue operating. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council. The Commission reviewed the proposal during its April 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which three people spoke. The comments were generally in support of the proposal and some suggested potential exceptions for financial institutions and pharmacies. Commissioners voted 10-1 in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner who voted against the proposal did not indicate why he was opposed. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Page | 2 Planning staff included the image below indicating where the current 12 drive-through facilities are located in the Sugar House Business District. Existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to allow new drive-throughs for new pharmacy and financial institution uses in the Sugar House Business District as a permitted or conditional use as raised in the Planning Commission Public Hearing. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Planning staff found the proposed text amendment supports principles found in Plan Salt Lake and the Sugar House Master Plan including: •reducing auto dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips •promoting a “pedestrian-first” walkable community •reducing greenhouse gas emissions •a balanced economy Page | 3 •encourage people-focused development Planning noted “The proposed amendment will contribute towards the implementation of the above- mentioned goals and policies by preventing an increase in the number of automobile-dependent uses, encouraging pedestrian-oriented development, and facilitating small business clusters in a similar manner to downtown areas.” (Planning Commission staff report page 5.) Consideration 2-Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment on New and Existing Uses If the amendment is adopted, businesses would not be allowed to construct a new drive-through in the Sugar House Business District. Existing drive-through facilities would become legal nonconforming uses and allowed to continue until voluntarily removed or deemed to be abandoned. Nonconforming uses are defined as “any building or land legally occupied by a use at the time of passage of the ordinance codified herein or amendment thereto which does not conform after passage of said ordinance or amendment thereto with the use regulations of the district in which located.” (Chapter 21A.62.040 Salt Lake City Code.) If a nonconforming drive-through use is proposed to change to another nonconforming drive-through use, the Appeals Hearing Officer would determine whether the new use would be a similar land use type as the existing use. Planning provided an example of a bank in the Sugar House Business District with a drive- through requested a change of use to a restaurant with a drive-through. Under that scenario, a process outlined in City Code requires a hearing by an Appeals Hearing Officer, and staff review of applicable drive- through facility regulations including stacking lane standards, and the requirement that internal circulation patterns keep traffic from backing onto the street or block access to required parking spaces on the lot. Consideration 3-Use Analysis During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people utilized drive-throughs as a convenient way to get goods and services while maintaining social distancing. Some businesses without drive-throughs adapted by dedicating parking spaces for online or phone order pick-up. Others provided a delivery option, limited the number of customers allowed inside, or scheduled appointment times. Planning staff acknowledged drive- throughs provide community benefits, but businesses can be successful without them. Access for those with disabilities or who may have difficulty leaving their vehicle is an important consideration. Planning staff noted the importance of equity discussed in Plan Salt Lake with an initiative to “pursue equitable access to privately provided services and amenities across the City.” Planning reiterated that under the proposal existing drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business District will be allowed to continue. They also noted other nearby zoning districts on 2100 South outside the Sugar House Business District such as Corridor Commercial and Community Business that would continue to allow drive-throughs. Planning provided the following map showing where drive-through facilities are permitted, prohibited, or permitted for some uses. In general, drive-throughs are prohibited in residential districts or in areas where the district purpose statement emphasizes walkability. Drive-throughs are permitted or conditional uses in major commercial only districts and some transitional/support districts. Page | 4 Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division In their recommendation to the Planning Commission, Planning staff stated “The proposed amendment implements professional best practices, does not conflict with other applicable State of City Code, and aligns with the City’s zoning purposes by promoting a walkable community in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed amendment also furthers the purpose of the city’s policies and goals, including those in the applicable master plans.” (Planning Commission staff report page 13.) ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment D (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies A proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not Applicable Page | 5 The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • August 24, 2022-Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition. • January 26, 2023-Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner. • February 17, 2023-Petition posted to the Planning Division Online Open House webpage. • February 6, 2023-Notice emailed to Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. • March 1, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 boundaries. • March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee. • April 14, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to City and State websites. • April 26, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • June 9, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • June 21, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. City Council // July 18, 2023 SUGAR HOUSE DRIVE-THROUGH TEXT AMENDMENT PLNPCM2023-00026 •This petition initiated by Planning Commission to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). REQUEST 21A.26.060: CSHBD SUGAR HOUSE BUSINESS DISTRICT (CSHBD1 AND CSHBD2): Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business District. Legend:C = Conditional P = Permitted 21A.40.060: DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY REGULATIONS: B. Applicability And Permit Requirements: 2.Drive-through facilities may be authorized as accessory uses to permitted uses or conditional uses as when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in part III of this title,specific district regulations for residential,commercial,manufacturing, downtown,gateway,and special purpose districts when developed in accordance with the standards of this section. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution P P P P P P Financial institution with drive- through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Restaurant P P P P P P Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 21A.33.030: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS: This minor modification is proposed to clarify that drive-through facilities must be expressly permitted in the land use tables. Nonconforming Uses •The proposed amendment will not affect the ability of existing businesses with drive-through facilities to continue their normal operations. •Nonconforming uses are continued to exist. Use can be remodeled and may be allowed some expansion and changes. •When a nonconforming drive-through use is proposed to change to another nonconforming drive-through use, the request would be subject to determination by the Appeals Hearing Officer. Salt Lake City // Planning Division EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES Benefits of Drive-Throughs •Business access for individuals with disabilities. •Convenient access to services while social distancing. Other Considerations •Individuals without access to a vehicle may benefit from a walkable community. •Other social distancing options available (delivery, parking for online order pick-up, appointment times, etc.). •Existing drive-through facilities will continue to operate within the Sugar House Business District. •This proposal is not a citywide amendment. Drive- through facilities will continue to be allowed in other zoning districts throughout the city. Salt Lake City // Planning Division ARE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES ESSENTIAL? Drive-through Uses Not Appropriate for Walkable Districts •Areas with frequent drive-throughs can make pedestrians feel unwelcome. Economic Benefits of Walkable Districts •Increased tax revenue •Less costly maintenance •Increased goods and services produced •More money spent locally •More economically productive development pattern Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROFESSIONAL BEST PRACTICES Salt Lake City // Planning Division BUSINESSES IN WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Millie’s Burgers, 2092 S. 1000 E. BGR, 1202 E. Wilmington Ave. #120 Apollo Burger, 400 S. & Main St. (D-1) Beans & Brews, 268 S. State St. (D-1) MASTER PLAN POLICIES & INITIATIVES Plan Salt Lake Transportation & Mobility •“A transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” •“Automobile dependency increases air pollution and traffic, and encourages development that is designed for cars, not people.” •“Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips.” Air Quality •“Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” •“Minimize impact of car emissions.” Economy •“A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive.” Beautiful City •“A beautiful city that is people focused.” •“Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that is people-focused.” Sugar House Master Plan •“Implement a ‘pedestrian-first’ policy for the Sugar House Business District zone.“ •“Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable, attractive, harmonious and pedestrian oriented community.” •“Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented.” •“Retain the small scale of the Business District to maintain a more pedestrian friendly environment.” •“Ensure that new development is managed, balanced, and designed with multi-modal options so that automobile travel does not exceed the capacity of the street infrastructure within the Business District.” •“Support locally-owned businesses to operate within the Sugar House Business District.” •“Examine ways to preserve small businesses and provide incentives for developers to accommodate these businesses into new projects.” Salt Lake City // Planning Division ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00026, Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Andy Hulka, Principal Planner andy.hulka@slcgov.com or 801-535-6608 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to drive-through uses within the Sugar House Business District, as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Lisa Shaffer (Jun 21, 2023 11:43 MDT)06/21/2023 06/21/2023 The proposed amendment is generally focused on aligning the land use tables with the stated purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District “to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population.” The proposal is also intended to align with city goals related to reducing automobile dependency, improving air quality, and supporting the local economy. The amendment will not affect the ability of existing businesses with drive-through facilities to continue their normal operations. The Planning Commission considered the request at an April 26, 2023 public hearing and voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance text. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce on February 17, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. Staff attended the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee Meeting on March 20, 2023. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 3, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 17, 2023, to April 3, 2023. Staff received comments from five Sugar House residents in favor of the proposal and one comment from a nearby business owner opposed to the proposal. The Sugar House Community Council sent a letter supporting restrictions on restaurant drive-throughs but opposing restrictions on bank and pharmacy drive-throughs. This letter has been included as an exhibit. The Key Considerations section of the staff report discusses the issues and concerns that were raised by the public. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of August 24, 2022 (Petition Initiation – Click to Access) c) PC Agenda of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access) d) PC Minutes of November 9, 2022 (Briefing – Click to Access) e) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access) f) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Public Hearing – Click to Access) g) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Sugar House Community Council Letter (Submitted after publishing of staff report) 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 4 drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District) 5 6 An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City 7 Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition 8 No. PLNPCM2023-00026. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission 11 (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: 12 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060 13 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the 14 Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District 15 (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when 16 specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and 17 WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 18 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 19 petition; and 20 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that 21 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23 SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 24 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 25 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 26 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 27 the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which 28 row shall read and appear as follows: 29 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 30 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 31 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 32 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 33 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 34 the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall 35 read and appear as follows: 36 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 37 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 38 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 39 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 40 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 41 the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and 42 appear as follows: 43 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 44 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That 45 Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted 46 and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 47 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and 48 the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and 49 appear as follows: 50 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 51 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2. 52 That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 53 and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 54 2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized as accessory uses to permitted uses or 55 conditional uses as when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in 56 part III of this title, specific district regulations for residential, commercial, 57 manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose districts when developed in 58 accordance with the standards of this section. 59 60 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 61 first publication. 62 63 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. 64 ______________________________ 65 CHAIRPERSON 66 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 67 68 ______________________________ 69 CITY RECORDER 70 71 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 72 73 74 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 75 76 ______________________________ 77 MAYOR 78 ______________________________ 79 CITY RECORDER 80 (SEAL) 81 82 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 83 Published: ______________. 84 Ordinance amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (legislative) 85 86 87 88 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District) An ordinance amending the text of various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on April 26, 2023 to consider a petition initiated by the Planning Commission (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026) to amend Sections 21A.33.030 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and Section 21A.40.060 (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) of the Salt Lake City Code to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2) and to clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the 2 permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Financial institution with drive-through facility” use, which row shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant with drive-through facility” use, which row shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Retail goods establishment” use, which rows shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB 3 Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 4. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to remove the permitted use designation corresponding to the column in that table pertaining to “CSHBD” and the row in that table pertaining to “Retail service establishment” use, which rows shall read and appear as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District CN CB CS1 CC CSHBD1 CG SNB Retail service establishment P P P P P P P Furniture repair shop C P P P P P With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 SECTION 5. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2. That Subsection 21A.40.060.B.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Drive-Through Facility Regulations) shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 2. Drive-through facilities may be authorized when listed on the tables of permitted and conditional uses set forth in part III of this title, specific district regulations for residential, commercial, manufacturing, downtown, gateway, and special purpose districts when developed in accordance with the standards of this section. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending text regulating drive throughs in Sugar House (final) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 9, 2023 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2023-00026 August 24, 2022 January 26, 2023 February 17, 2023 February 17, 2023 March 1, 2023 March 20, 2023 April 14, 2023 April 26, 2023 June 9, 2023 Planning Commission voted to initiate the petition. Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner. Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage (Public comment period ended April 3, 2023). Notice emailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. Property owners and tenants within the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 boundaries were mailed an early notification of the proposal. Staff presented the proposed changes to the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use and Zoning Committee. Planning Commission agenda posted on City and State websites. Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 10-1 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00026 – The Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance to prohibit new drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2). Drive-through facilities for financial institutions, restaurants, retail goods and retail service establishments are currently permitted uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposed text amendment would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. (Staff Contact: Andy Hulka at 801-535-6608 or andy.hulka@slcgov.com). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Andy Hulka at 801-535-6608 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at andy.hulka@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00026. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL LETTER CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:July 18, 2023 RE: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment PLNPCM2023-00054 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Administration to amend the zoning ordinance related to the sight distance triangle, which is the area at street, alley, and driveway intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. The purpose of sight distance triangles is to allow drivers, pedestrians, and users of other transportation modes to see each other and stop safely. Chapter 21A.62.040 of Salt Lake City Code measures sight distance triangles as a triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two points. The code establishes a distance of 30 feet for corner lots and at the intersection of streets and large truck driveways, and a distance of 10 feet for passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk. The current code is silent on intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. The proposed amendment adds these intersections, as they have similar risks. In addition, the proposal adds sight distance triangle standards to Salt Lake City Code chapters 21A.36.020 applying to principal buildings and 21A.40.050 related to accessory structures respectively. The images below provide a representation of the proposed changes. Other minor changes are also proposed in the text amendment. These generally clarify fence regulations and add driveway distance requirements from a street intersection to all zoning districts. Under the proposal fences, walls, and hedges on developed properties without a principal structure would be limited to four feet in the front yard area, and six feet in the rear or side yard areas. Hedges are considered fences for zoning purposes and are included in the proposed amendment. The current proposal does not include landscaping and locations of trees. Heights of other plants within the sight distance triangle is included in a separate text amendment and will be consistent with current standards and the proposed amendment. Item Schedule: Briefing: July 18, 2023 Set Date: July 18, 2023 Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 Page | 2 Driveways for single- and two-family dwellings would be required to be a minimum of 20 feet from street corner property lines, and driveways for all other uses would need to be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its May 10, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Images courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 3 Page | 4 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. Are Council Members supportive of the proposed text amendment? KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Adding New Language and Clarifying Existing Language As discussed above, intersections of alleys with sidewalks and streets are being added as part of the proposed text amendment. In addition, language restricting principal and accessory buildings is being added to the for consistency in how the requirement is applied. Consideration 2-Noncomplying Fences and Structures Under the proposed amendment, continued use of legally existing noncomplying structures such as fences, buildings, and driveways would be allowed. They could be altered, expanded, and in some cases, replaced. The proposed addition of alley intersections with sidewalks and streets would also not impact these structures. Driveways closer to street intersections than allowed under the proposal would also be allowed to remain and be repaired. Noncomplying structures could be modified provided the changes do not make them more noncompliant. If a noncomplying structure is voluntarily removed or destroyed, a replacement structure would need to comply with the then current standards. Consideration 3-How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in Plan Salt Lake Planning staff referenced the transportation and mobility guiding principle in Plan Salt Lake which says in part “a transportation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and connecting people with places.” The sight distance triangle’s purpose is to improve safety by providing unobstructed sightlines at intersections of streets, driveways, sidewalks, and alleys. Incorporating language that includes all types of intersections, transportation modes, and structures will ensure consistent application of requirements and reduce potential for accidents. Additionally, Planning found that the proposed amendments support transportation and mobility initiatives found in Plan Salt Lake, and in particular, Initiatives 5 and 3 which are respectively “Make walking and cycling viable, safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City” and “Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.” Planning further noted the proposal is in line with guiding principle 1 of Plan Salt Lake “Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.” Planning staff stated “…the purpose of this proposal is to increase safety for all modes of transportation at all points of potential conflict.” Page | 5 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment B (pages 10-11) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies A proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 27, 2023 - Application accepted. • January 30, 2023 - Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner. • October 2022 - Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of the February 2023 petition. • February 15, 2023-Notice mailed to all community councils. • February 15, 2023-Application posted for the online open house. • March 20, 2023-Planning staff presented the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council. • April 27, 2023-Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. • May 10, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 17, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • May 23, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • May 30, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE TEXT AMENDMENT PLNPCM2023-00054 •Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle •Proposed changes to sections: •21A.62.040:update the definition of sight distance triangle. •21A.36.020 & 21A.40.050: apply standards to principal & accessory buildings •21A.40.120: regulations for fences, walls and hedges •Related provisions of Title 21A Recommendation: Council adopt proposal PROJECT REQUEST •Sight distance triangle: a clear zone area identified at the intersections of streets, driveways or alleys & streets, and driveways or alleys & sidewalks where obstructions are restricted •Purpose: increase safety for all modes of transportation at potential points of conflict BACKGROUND •Adding language: •Include alleys to the definition of site distance triangle •Height restrictions to apply to buildings and other structures in the sight distance triangle •Clarifying language •21A.44.060 –parking regulations •21A.40.120 –fence regulations PROPOSED CHANGES •Continued use of legally existing structures would not be impacted •Fences, walls & hedges •Buildings •Other structures •Subject to provisions of Chapter 21A.38 IMPACT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 05/30/2023 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/30/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 30, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00054 STAFF CONTACT: Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the zoning ordinance related to the sight distance triangle as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. Under the current code, sight distance triangles are measured as a triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two points. Currently the definition in the code establishes a distance of 30’ for corner lots and at the intersection of street and large truck driveways, and distance of 10’ for passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk. The code is silent about intersections of alleys and sidewalks and alleys and streets. Alleys intersecting with sidewalks and streets operate in a similar manner as driveways, and therefore presents similar risks to oncoming pedestrian, vehicular, or bike traffic. The proposed amendment modifies the sight distance triangle to include alleys in the standards. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (May 30, 2023 15:09 MDT) In addition to amending the definition, the proposed amendment will add standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. In the current code, the sight distance triangle is only referenced in the regulations for fences, walls and hedges. Because no reference is made in other parts of the code, other structures, including buildings, are currently allowed to encroach on the sight distance triangle areas. This creates inconsistent application of the clear zone standards and open doors to hazardous conditions at intersections. In addition to the changes mentioned above, the proposed ordinance will correct minor inconsistencies in the code and help achieve the purpose of the sight distance triangle. More specific information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission considered the request at a May 10, 2023 public hearing and voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council based on staff’s proposed zoning ordinance text. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations on February 15, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The proposal was presented at the March 20, 2023 Sugar House Community Council meeting and the overall response was support for the amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on April 1, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 15, 2023, to April 1, 2023. No public comment was received. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2023. The Planning Commission provided a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of MAY 26, 2023: Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff report EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Petition to Initiate LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. of 2023 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to the sight distance triangle.) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 8 to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle. 9 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a 10 public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall 11 (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44; 12 and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle; 13 and 14 WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 15 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 16 petition; and 17 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 18 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 20 21 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That 22 Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with 23 Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while 24 retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section: 25 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 26 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 27 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2 28 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate 29 safety concerns. 30 31 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That 32 Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 33 Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to 34 include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section: 35 D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the 36 Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this 37 title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve 38 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate 39 safety concerns. 40 41 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. 42 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 43 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 44 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 45 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the 46 following zoning districts: 47 a. Residential Zoning Districts: 48 (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 49 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property 50 line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the 51 primary entrance shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 52 (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 53 principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. 54 (3) On developed properties Where where there is no existing principal 55 structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in a front 56 yard area or six (6) feet in the rear or side yard areas. 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3 58 59 60 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 61 (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the 62 primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. 63 (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the 64 principal structure shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 65 66 (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the 67 height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in 68 the rear or side yard areas. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4 69 (3) Not withstanding (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(l) 70 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be 71 up to six (6) feet in height if when located between the front property line and the front 72 yard setback line. 73 (4) (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, 74 a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum six (6) feet in height may be placed no closer than 75 ten (10) feet from the property line. 76 (5) (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located 77 behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid 78 wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor 79 storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. 80 81 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3. 82 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 83 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 84 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 85 3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or 86 undeveloped lots may be up to six (6) feet in height, provided the fence is not closer 87 than five (5) feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than eighty percent (80%) 88 transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with 89 the height restrictions of this Ttitle. 90 91 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. 92 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 93 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, 94 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 95 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a 96 fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the Ssight Ddistance Ttriangle Rrequirements 97 of this Ssection. 98 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 99 erected to a height in excess of three (3) feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 100 the sight distance triangle extending thirty (30) feet either side of the intersection of the LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 5 101 respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 102 noted in sSection 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 103 b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges 104 may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the 105 front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any 106 required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side yard or 107 required rear yard to a height not to exceed six (6) feet. The zoning administrator may 108 require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to 109 provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 110 c. b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway 111 and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 112 thirty (30) inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in sSection 113 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 114 d. c. Sight Distance Triangle Aand See Through Fences: Within the area 115 defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) 116 open shall be allowed to a height of four (4) feet. 117 e. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for 118 driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 119 review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 120 requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 121 created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 122 123 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7. 124 That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings 125 and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read 126 as follows: 127 7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 128 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate 129 the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of 130 way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen (17) foot six (6) inch 131 setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, 132 and large truck driveways shall require a one hundred (100) foot setback from back 133 edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement 134 does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property 135 or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. 136 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6 137 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c. 138 That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, 139 Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be, 140 and hereby is amended to read as follows: 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: (1) Driveway Location in Residential Zoning Districts: With the exception of legal shared driveways, driveways shall be at least twenty feet (20') from street corner property lines and Driveways shall be at least five5 feet (5') from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway. (2)(3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum eight8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. (3)(4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 7 164 (4)(5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be 165 improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual. 166 167 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the 168 definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: 169 General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining 170 all other definitions in said section: 171 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting 172 two (2) points when measured as follows: 173 A. For corner lots: Extending thirty30 feet (30') from the intersecting line of each street 174 face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. Proposals in 175 commercial and industrial districts which have a minimum front or corner side yard 176 setback requirement, that seem to allow encroachment into the sight distance triangle, 177 shall be reviewed through the site plan review process by the city's development 178 review team. 179 180 B. For intersections of street or large truck and driveways or alleys: Extending thirty feet 181 (30') 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street face of 182 curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. 183 184 C. For alleys or passenger vehicle and light truck driveways crossing a sidewalk: 185 Extending ten10 feet (10') from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and 186 back edge of the sidewalk. 187 188 The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are 189 prohibited. (See illustration in sSection 21A.62.050 of this chapter.) 190 191 SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That 192 Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code 193 (Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety 194 and replaced with the following: LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 8 195 Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9 196 197 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 10 198 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 199 first publication. 200 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 201 2023. 202 203 204 205 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHAIRPERSON 206 207 CITY RECORDER 208 209 Transmitted to Mayor on . 210 211 212 Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. 213 214 215 MAYOR 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: By: Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054 pertaining to the sight distance triangle. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 10, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00054) to amend portions of Chapters 21A.36; 21A.40; 21A.44; and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to sight distance triangle; and WHEREAS, at its May 10, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.36.020. That Section 21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Provisions: Conformance with Lot and Bulk Controls) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while retaining all other subparts, tables, and notes in said section: D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve 2 alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate safety concerns. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.40.050. That Section 21A.40.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: General Yard, Bulk and Height Limitations) shall be, and hereby is amended to include the following subpart D while retaining all other text and subparts in said section: D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, all structures shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements as defined and illustrated in Chapter 21A.62 of this title. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may approve alternative design solutions that result in similar visual clearance and effectively mitigate safety concerns. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following zoning districts: a. Residential Zoning Districts: (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.40.120.E.4 of this code, a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas. 3 b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. (3) On developed properties where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas. 4 (4) Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height when located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. (5) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet from the property line. (6) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.120. Outdoor storage in the M-1 and M-2 districts are also subject to the provisions of 21A.28.010.B.3. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 3. Vacant Lots. Notwithstanding 21A.24.010.P.10.d, fencing to secure vacant or undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height, provided the fence is not closer than 5 feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80% transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with the height restrictions of this title. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.5 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges: Height Restrictions and Gates) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the sight distance triangle requirements of this section. a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 5 b. Intersection of Street and Driveway; Intersection of Alley or Driveway and Sidewalk; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 30 inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in Section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. c. Sight Distance Triangle and See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be allowed to a height of 4 feet. d. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7. That Subsection 21A.40.120.E.7 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Regulation of Fences, Walls and Hedges) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 7. Gates. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. This requirement does not apply to gates abutting alleys. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c. That Subsection 21A.44.060.A.6.c of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading: Parking Location and Design: Generally: Driveway and Access) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: c. Driveway Standards: All driveways shall comply with the following standards: 6 (1) Driveway Location: Driveways shall be at least 5 feet from any public utility infrastructure such as power poles, fire hydrants, and water meters. Except for entrance and exit driveways leading to approved parking areas, no curb cuts or driveways are permitted. (2) Distance from street corners: Driveways for Single and Two-Family Dwellings shall be located at least 20 feet from street corner property lines. Driveways for all other uses shall be at least 50 feet from street corner property lines. When the width of the lot is less than the required distance, the transportation director may approve modifications no greater than the minimum necessary to accommodate the driveway. (3) Driveway Widths: All driveways serving residential uses shall be a minimum 8 feet wide and shall comply with the standards for maximum driveway widths listed in Table 21A.44.060-C, “Minimum and Maximum Driveway Width”. (4) Shared Driveways: Shared driveways, where two (2) or more properties share one (1) driveway access, may be permitted if the transportation director determines that the design and location of the shared driveway access will not create adverse impacts on traffic congestion or public safety. (5) Driveway Surface: All driveways providing access to parking facilities shall be improved and maintained pursuant to the standards in the Off Street Standards Manual. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That the definition of Sight Distance Triangle in Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Terms: Definitions) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows while retaining all other definitions in said section: SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE: A triangular area formed by a diagonal line connecting two (2) points when measured as follows: 7 A. For corner lots: Extending 30 feet from the intersecting line of each street face of curb, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. B. For intersections of street and driveways or alleys: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the driveway or alley and street curb line, or edge of roadway where curbing is not provided. C. For alleys or driveways crossing a sidewalk: Extending 10 feet from each intersecting edge of the alley or driveway and back edge of the sidewalk. The purpose of the sight distance triangle is to define an area in which vision obstructions are prohibited. (See illustration in Section 21A.62.050 of this chapter.) SECTION 9. Replacing Illustration I of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.050. That Illustration I, the Sight Distance Triangle, in Section 21A.62.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Terms: Illustrations Of Selected Definitions) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Illustration I: Sight Distance Triangle 8 9 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinace regulating sight distance triangle APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: May 22, 2023 By: Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2023-00054 January 27, 2023 January 30, 2023 Application accepted. Petition assigned to Madison Blodgett, Associate Planner. October 2022 – Petition reviewed internally, and staff drafted language to support goals of February 2023 the petition. February 15, 2023 Notice mailed to all Community Councils February 15, 2023 Application posted for the online open house. March 20, 2023 Presented proposal at Sugar House Community Council meeting. April 27, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. May 4, 2023 Staff report posted to Planning’s webpage. May 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. May 23, 2023 Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00054 – Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at street, alleys and driveways intersections. The proposed changes will affect sections 21A.40.120, regulations for fences, walls and hedges, 21A.36.020 and 21A.40.050 to apply visual clearance to buildings, and 21A.62.040 to update the definition of sight distance triangle. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Madison Blodgett at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com or 801-535-7749) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Madison Blodgett at 801-535-7749 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at madison.blodgett@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00054. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/21/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/21/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/21/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Cultural Core Finance Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Cultural Core Finance Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Spencer Lawson member of the Cultural Core Finance Committee. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 21, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Culture Core Finance Committee Spencer Lawson to be appointed for a two year term, starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 4/5/23, 5:06 PM BCA-00437 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001UZ5qUAG/p 1/2 Close Window Print This Page Expand All | Collapse All BCA-00437 BC Boards and Commissions Application Name BCA-00437 Outcome Board Applied For Arts Council Case 00083686 Second Choice Owner SLCCRM Third Choice Stage New Profession Account Planner and Strategist, Penna Powers Previous Contact Yes Previous Contact Details I am a former employee of the Department of Economic Development and worked for the city of Salt Lake. How Heard Current Board or Commission member Applicant Applicant Spencer Lawson Applicant City Council District Applicant Email thespencerslawson@gmail.com Contact Spencer Lawson Applicant Phone Contact Email thespencerslawson@gmail.com Applicant Address 49 South 400 East 1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Questionaire Reason of Interest As a member of the arts community in Salt Lake City, I am a firm believer in the work that the Arts Council does. I have worked as an artist in 15+ different states and understand many different aspects of being a working artist. I also have a Bachelor of Fine Arts (in Theater) and a Masters of Business which gives me a unique perspective to the business side of the arts. Membership - Current member of the Stewardship committee of PBS Utah and frequently assist with on-air fund drives. Community Service - Working theatrical performer in the Salt Lake valley. - Involved with the Utah High School Theater awards, working as a judge and mentor - UHSAA certified judge/mentor for Debate and Drama - Guest Emcee for the Miss Utah organization Other Information References Reference 1 Name Lorena Reference 3 Name Lindsey Reference 1 Last Name Riffo-Jenson Reference 3 Last Name Smith Reference 1 Phone 18018593170 Reference 3 Phone 18016992288 4/5/23, 5:06 PM BCA-00437 ~ Salesforce - Unlimited Edition https://slcgov.my.salesforce.com/a7S5G000001UZ5qUAG/p 2/2 Reference 2 Name Laura Reference 2 Last Name Durham Reference 2 Phone 18015736174 Demographics Ethnic Group White/Caucasian/Anglo Gender Identity Male Disabled No Veteran No Languages Housing Rent ID as LGBTQ Yes Education Level Masters Degree Created By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 4/5/2023 4:54 PM Last Modified By SLCCRM Site Guest User, 4/5/2023 4:54 PM Files SpencerSLawson_RESUME Last Modified 4/5/2023 4:59 PM Created By SLCCRM Copyright © 2000-2023 salesforce.com, inc. All rights reserved. June 21, 2023 Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Please see the attached application and recommendation for Spencer Lawson for the Cultural Core Finance Committee-an interlocal six-person committee in partnership with Salt Lake County. This Committee is responsible for the fiscal oversight and strategic guidance of The Cultural Core-The Blocks. Having had the privilege of previously working closely with Spencer Lawson in the Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development, I can confidently attest to his remarkable dedication, expertise, and passion for fostering the arts in our city. Spencer possesses a rich arts background with a specific focus on theater, which has significantly contributed to his ability to think creatively and approach challenges with a fresh perspective. His experience in the theater industry has honed his skills in project management, collaboration, and effective communication. These qualities are invaluable in a board member, as they bring an innate understanding of the artistic process and the needs of artists within our community. One aspect that sets Spencer apart is his expertise in the marketing and communications realm. His proficiency in this area has been instrumental in elevating the visibility and outreach of numerous artistic initiatives. Through his strategic marketing campaigns and innovative promotional strategies, they have effectively attracted diverse audiences, strengthened community engagement, and facilitated collaborations between local businesses and the arts community. These skills will be key to the strategic objectives of placemaking and promotion of The Blocks. Importantly, Spencer has earned the unanimous recommendation from colleagues, and I am confident that Spencer would be a tremendous asset to the team. His unique combination of artistic expertise, marketing acumen, and dedication to community engagement makes him an ideal candidate for this important role. His insights, leadership, and unwavering commitment to the arts would undoubtedly contribute to the vision of a vibrant and thriving artistic landscape. Should you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this recommendation, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact Spencer will undoubtedly bring. Sincerely, Felicia Baca Cultural Core Contract Manager Salt Lake City Arts Council ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 7/5/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/5/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 7/5/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Anne Olsen member of the Business Advisory Board. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 July 5, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Business Advisory Board. Anne Olsen to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and ending on Monday, December 27, 2027. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/29/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/29/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/29/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Emina Alibegovic member of the Police Civilian Review Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 29, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Police Civilian Review Board Emina Alibegovic to be appointed for a three year term ending the first Monday in September 2026 and starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 6/29/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 6/29/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 6/29/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Justin Neville member of the Police Civilian Review Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 June 29, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for: Police Civilian Review Board Justin Neville to be appointed for a three year term, ending the first Monday in September 2026 and starting from date of City Council advice. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file City Council Announcements July 18, 2023 Information Needed: A. Riverside Park Baseball field lighting: •In FY2023 CIP, the Council approved $300,000 from parks impact fees to add four light poles and structures to the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park in District 1. There are currently three baseball fields and a fourth practice field. •The Larry H Miller Family Foundation has generously agreed to donate $218,000 in order to allow the City to expand the lighting project to 2 fields. •The money will be processed in budget amendment #1 which will come to the Council later this week, but the Administration is requesting Council approval to order equipment prior to the final approval of the budget amendment because of the long lead time for equipment purchases. ➢Is the Council ok with expanding the scope of this project to 2 fields with the LHM donation prior to the formal approval of BA #1? B. Breakfast in Celebration of EPA’s special focus on the Westside •Council Members Petro and Puy are organizing a welcome breakfast for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They would like the breakfast to be hosted by the Council in support of the EPA’s focus on the Westside. ➢Is the Council fine with using Council Office funds for the breakfast expenses? The breakfast is scheduled for July 26th from 7:30 am to 9:00 am. Local elected officials, UIPA board members, and community members will be invited as well. Staff will send out the updated appointment for Council Members’ calendars. C. Updated Council Photo: •Staff is trying to schedule a time prior to the upcoming Council Meetings to take a group photo of the full Council. ➢Options include August 15th (tentatively), September 5th or September 12th. What is the preference for all Council Members? D. Matsumoto Delegation Visit: •The Matsumoto Delegation will be visiting Salt Lake City from Saturday, July 22 to Monday, July 24 to celebrate the 65th Anniversary of our Sister City relationship. The following events have been planned for this visit, and we would like to confirm Council Members’ attendance. Please let Cindy or your Liaison know as soon as possible. Event Date/Time Location Event Description Council Members Attending Airport Greeting (RSVP needed ASAP) Saturday, July 22, 3- 5 p.m. Meet at the Hilton Salt Lake City Center (255 S West Temple St, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) and then head to SLC Airport with City team. Council Members will meet a City team at the Hilton Salt Lake City Center and then head to the airport to greet the Matsumoto Delegation when they land around 3:50 PM. Dan Meet & Greet Breakfast Sunday, July 23, 8:30-9:30 a.m. Salt Lake City and County Building, meet by east doors City will exchange gifts with the delegation, the Mayor will present a proclamation, and a group photo will be taken. Darin, Ana, Sarah Climate Change Panel Sunday, July 23, 5- 6 p.m. University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Moot Courtroom (Level 6) (383 South S University St, Salt Lake City, UT 84112) Mayor Mendenhall and Yoshinao Gaun of Matsumoto will discuss climate change the role cities play in managing the global challenge. Guests are welcome and must be RSVP’d. Darin, Ana, Dan Banquet Dinner Sunday, July 23, 6:30-8:30 p.m. Squatters Pub Brewery (147 W Broadway, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) A Sister Cities Celebration dinner will be held directly after the Climate Change Panel. All guests must bring a valid ID and be 21 years or older. Guests are welcome and must be RSVP’d. Darin, Ana, Chris Days of 47 Parade Monday, July 24, 8:30-11 a.m. Salt Lake City and County Building, meet by the bleachers at the east doors The Delegation will have a viewing area on the bleachers on the east side of the Salt Lake City & County Building. Ana, Chris, Victoria, Ale Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Potluck and Tree-Planting Event Monday, July 24, 12-2 p.m. International Peace Gardens (1160 Dalton Ave S, Salt Lake City, UT 84104) The Japanese American Citizens League will host a potluck lunch and tree-planting ceremony. Darin, Ana, Dan Closing Dinner Monday, July 24, 6- 8 p.m. Laurel Brasserie & Bar, The Grand America Hotel (555 S Main St, Salt Lake City, UT 84111) Closing dinner with the Matsumoto Delegation. Guests are welcome and must be RSVP’d. Darin, Ana, Chris, Sarah