Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/17/2023 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA WORK SESSION October 17, 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 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: 08:59:45 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.Ordinance: Northpoint Small Area Plan Follow-up ~ 2:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation- related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/NorthpointSmallAreaPlan. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 and Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 3.Ordinance: Historic Preservation Overlay District Text Amendment ~ 2:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The proposal would also amend the consolidated fee schedule. The proposed amendments would make the ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the Historic Landmark Commission in its administration, as well as create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. The proposed amendments would involve multiple chapters of the zoning ordinance related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and changes would apply citywide. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 1518 South 300 West ~ 3:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would vacate City-owned alleys situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue. The proposal would allow the property owner to redevelop the surrounding property, which would include the right-of-way within the proposed development. The proposed vacation will not impose access concerns as all of the subject properties that abut the alleys also have frontage on a public street. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jarod Hall, representing the property owner. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 5.Informational: Emergency Loan Program Repayment, Legislative Intents Follow-up ~ 3:35 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update about the Administration's progress fulfilling Legislative Intents, which were added to the Emergency Loan Program in September 2022. This program offered no-interest loans to local small businesses and nonprofits for short-term relief at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Tentative Break ~ 4:05 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action - 7.Ordinance: Open Space Lands Amendments ~ 4:25 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Open Space Lands Ordinance to allow more flexibility for removing certain properties from the Open Space Inventory. The amendments would provide more flexibility for granting utility easements and the sale or exchange of de minimis parcels. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 8.Informational: Utah Transit Authority TechLink Study - - The Council will receive a briefing from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) about the TechLink Study, which studies new TRAX connections in downtown Salt Lake City, Research Park, and potential operational changes. It explores changing the route of the red line TRAX with new service to the Granary District and Ballpark Area. It also considers adding a new orange line TRAX to connect the Salt Lake International Airport with the University of Utah and Research Park among other potential changes. For more information visit www.techlinkstudy.com. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - TBD Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Resolution: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards ~ 4:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards. The Council will review the Community Recovery Committee’s funding recommendations of twenty-three applicants for the $2,000,000 of available one-time awards. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10.Resolution: Amended Interlocal Agreement for 2023 Election Services Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution for an amendment to the election services interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The amendment is necessary to reflect the City Council District Seven special election. It defines the services the County will provide the City for the 2023 General Election, through the Ranked Choice Voting method, on November 21, 2023. The City will be responsible for any additional charges exceeding the estimated cost such as a recount which would be invoiced to the City after the election. For more information visit www.slc.gov/attorney/recorder/elections/. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11.Board Appointment Interviews for the Police Civilian Review Board ~ 5:15 p.m. 10 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board: •Ben Raskin •Thomas Walker •Antonio Esquibel FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 12.Board Appointment Interviews for the Historic Landmark Commission ~ 5:25 p.m. 10 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission: •Alan Barnett •Adrienne White •Jared Stewart FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 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 Thursday, October 12, 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 October 17, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlacePlanning •Planning Commission Hearings •Ballpark Station Area – Oct. 25th •Adaptive Reuse – Nov. 8th •Gas Stations near Water Bodies •Tentative Nov 29th •Community Benefits Requirements – Nov. 8th •Historic Landmark and Planning Commission Briefings •HLC Nov. 2nd and PC Nov. 8th •Historic Overlay Enforcement •Demolition in Historic Districts Regulations •Council Transmittal in Progress •Subdivision Code Updates •Daycare Amendments Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceRDA •Ballpark NEXT (District 5) •Community Visioning Events on Wednesday, October 18 at 6 -8 p.m.(Urban Indian Center) and Wednesday, November 15 at 6-8 p.m. (location TBD) Transportation & Sustainability Transportation •Community Electrified Transportation Study •Electrified Transportation Community Conversation on October 26th. •Capitol Hill Traffic Calming (District 3), •Rebuild three speed humps on lower segment of East Capitol Blvd. •Project information is available at https://www.slc.gov/transportation/caphill/ Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office – Love Your Block •2021-2023 Accomplishments •Hiring two full-time Neighborhood Specialists Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Location Date Time Honeysuckle Coffee Co.Oct. 25 10 a.m. -12 p.m. Glendale/Mountain View CLC Oct. 27 3 p.m. -5 p.m. October Community Office Hours Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in Place Homeless Resource Center Utilization: •Oct 9th-16th HRCs:Lots of People Encampment Impact Mitigation: •1700 South Resource Fair: •Friday 10/13 @ Pioneer Park •SLCoHealth- 23 vaccionations •Rescue Mission- 20 engagements •Ruff Haven- 9 interactions •My Hometown- 400 hotdogs •D4 - Clothing drive/ pastries •Mayor's Office- TSC discussions Kayak Court: Friday Oct 20th 9:30-12 Homelessness Update Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Homelessness Update Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet DATE:October 17, 2023 RE: Northpoint Small Area Master Plan PLNPCM2022-00687 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: February 21, 2023 Briefing 2: September 5, 2023 Briefing 3: Oct 17, 2023 Set Date: February 21, 2023 Public Hearing: March 7, 2023 Potential Action: TBD NEW INFORMATION At the September 5 briefing, the Council discussed the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan. Council Member Petro spoke about the public feedback she received from residents in the area and expressed a desire to move forward with the plan. That same night many individuals spoke during the general comment portion of the formal meeting about the draft plan. They encouraged the City Council to change the future land use map so more areas are identified for conservation. Some said a Transfer of Development Rights policy could help preserve the land for agriculture / wildlife habitat while allowing property owners the ability to receive market rate compensation for their property. Council Member Petro is asking the Council to consider moving forward with the Northpoint Small Area Plan in the following manner: 1. Keep the future land use map as currently proposed in the draft Northpoint plan 2. Initiate a zoning amendment that would create a new zone or zoning overlay that will implement the Northpoint Plan vision and goals. 3. State in the text of the Northpoint Plan that: a. Any potential rezones that may come to the City before the new zoning is adopted would be expected to enter into development agreements with the City to implement the vision and goals outlined in the Northpoint plan. Page | 2 b. Any annexations into the city that are finalized before the new zoning is adopted would receive the zoning designation of AG (Agricultural). i. Once the new zoning designation is adopted, property owners may submit a rezone petition for that new zoning designation and would go through the standard City process for zoning amendments. Proposal from constituents: •A collaboration between groups with a focus on preservation and conservation issues provided an alternative future land use map they would like the Council to consider adopting as part of the plan. The map calls for a greater portion of the area within the small area plan to be identified for the shoreline preservation area, including most of the property east of 2200 West. This group met with •Council Member Petro to explain their proposed changes to the future land use map. See Attachment F -Conservation/Preservation Group Proposed Northpoint SAP Map. •Additionally, they suggest a buffer of 300 feet along the Jordan River, North of I-215. Currently, the proposed buffer is 100-feet along the Jordan River. Planning staff expressed concerns that a 300-foot buffer could have regulatory taking issues if it did not also include some way to offset the limitation on the property, such as allowing clustering of development on other parts of the property. The information below (pages 4-11 ) for the September 5 work session briefing outlines policy questions the Council may wish to review and provide direction to staff on. Some questions were considered and discussed on Sept 5. The questions are outlined here for quick access, please see the memo below for full background on the questions. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. (New – based on Council Member Petro proposal) Is the Council ready to move forward with adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Plan according to the following steps: a. Keep the future land use map as currently depicted in the draft plan b. Initiate a zoning amendment to create a new zone or zoning overlay that will create zoning to implement the vision and goals outlined in the Northpoint Plan c. State in the text of the Northpoint Plan that any annexations into the city that are finalized before the new zoning is adopted would receive the zoning designation of AG i. Once the new zoning designation is adopted, then property owners may submit a rezone petition for that new zoning designation and would go through the standard City process for zoning amendments. The following questions were provided for the September 5 work session: 2. Does the Council wish to consider the request to increase the buffer along the Jordan River, north of I-215 from 100 feet to 300 feet? a. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for their feedback on this request, including if there are changes that would need to be made to the plan to successfully incorporate this request? Page | 3 3. Future Land Use Map Currently the draft future land use map calls for the area east of 2200 West to be Transitional Industrial. The Council may wish to consider all the options that have been raised pertaining to the future land use map, including: •Keep the plan as currently proposed – Light Industrial •Change the plan to support Residential in addition to Light Industrial in the transitional area •Change Plan to support Natural Open Space Which version of the future land use map does the Council support moving forward with? 4. Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? 5. City Led Annexation (more information in Section 3 below, September 5 Staff Memo) A large portion of the small area plan is in an unincorporated part of the County. For the past few years property owners in this area have been discussing annexing into the City. In March of this year the City rejected an annexation petition with the intent that the City initiates a more holistic annexation for this area. Some felt it was important to get the small area plan completed before moving forward with the annexation process. •Does the Council wish to initiate the City-led annexation? •Does the Council wish to request that the Administration seek Planning Commission input on the zoning consideration for the area? •Does the Council wish to initiate the annexation for all the unincorporated properties in this area, or to move forward with an incremental approach? 6. Changes made to the draft plan based on Council feedback During the briefing the Council requested the following changes be made to the draft plan. Planning staff provided the attached memo (Attachment A) outlining how the changes were incorporated into the draft plan. a. Stronger language throughout the draft plan i. Specific design standards and implementation section were updated by replacing "should be" with "shall be" and "encouraged" with "required”. b. Business Park Land Use/Zoning: i. Removed Business Park from Vision Map and revised the land use category to be Light Industrial rather than Business Park/Industrial. c. Distribution Uses i. Planning staff are seeking further direction from the Council on this issue. To limit distribution uses, an overlay zone could include a specific list of permitted Page | 4 and conditional uses that align with the plan, while prohibiting distribution and fulfillment uses. ii. Additionally, building gross floor area could be limited to under 150,000 square feet, and building height could be limited to under a specific height (such as 32 feet). iii. If the Council could initiate a zoning amendment that would implement these concepts (see Legislative Action in section 1 above). d. 3200 West development concerns i. The plan was updated to expand on the intent that new development cannot be accessed from 3200 West. e. Close or put a gate at 3200 West i. Based on current City policy, staff does not recommend closing 3200 West because the road would likely need to be sold to adjacent property owners. ii. Planning Staff does not recommend gating 3200 West as it could create unforeseen issues for property owners who use the road for access. f. Future Land Use Vision Map i. Update to show proposed buffer widths from waterways 1. Jordan River – 100 feet 2. Canals and Drains – 75 feet 3. Rudy Canal – already has a 200 foot no development easement The following information was provided for the September 5 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. September 5 Work Session Briefing The Council last considered the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan during the March 7, 2023, public hearing. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. Section 6 - Public hearing Summary below outlines public comments made during the meeting. Since the public hearing, different stakeholders, including property owners, met with some Council Members to discuss their concerns, proposed changes, and how to move forward with the draft plan. Since it has been almost 6 months since the last Council discussion on the draft plan, the follow up briefing on September 5 will serve as a reorientation to the daft plan and related issues. In order to get Council Member review and feedback on next steps, the staff report is outlined in the following sections. Section 1 – Policy Questions Section 2 – Changes Made to the Draft Plan based on previous Council input Section 3 - Proposed City-Led Annexation Section 4 - Related Planning Documents Section 5 - Public Comments / Requested Changes Section 6 - Public Hearing Summary Page | 5 2. Section 1 - Policy Questions Policy questions are listed in the first and by major category so the Council can review and have them in mind as they read the staff report. They are included again in their respective sections below. o Future Land Use Map (more information in Section 2 below) Currently the draft future land use map calls for the area east of 2200 West to be Transitional Industrial. Properties located in this area of the County are currently zoned Agriculture. This would convert the area to light industrial/manufacturing. The transitional designation is intended to mitigate the impact of those uses on the residential and agricultural uses. The Council received different requests to change the future land use map, so the area east of 2200 West tis identified for agricultural uses or to preserve the area for conservation uses. Other stakeholders requested residential be allowed in this area, in addition to industrial uses, and some have said the current proposed plan is the best option. Based on the requests from various stakeholders to either amend the plan, or keep the plan as currently drafted, the future land use map and eventual zoning would change depending on the Council’s decision. Much of the discussion has focused on the area east of 2200 West. Options the Council may wish to consider for the area east of 2200 West include: •Keep the plan as currently proposed – Light Industrial •Change the plan to support Residential in addition to Light Industrial in the transitional area •Change Plan to support Natural Open Space Does the Council support changing the draft plan’s future land use map to reflect any of the proposals by various stakeholder groups? o Future Zoning (more information in Section 2 below) Rezoning properties located within the small area plan boundaries is one way to implement the plan’s vision. During the work session briefing the Council asked Planning staff if there could be a limitation on distribution and fulfillment uses. Additionally, some public feedback suggested the City’s current M1 Light Manufacturing zoning district would not sufficiently take into account the unique needs of this area, and a new zoning district or overlay zone is needed to properly implement the vision of the small area plan. Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? Page | 6 •This could be accomplished with either an entirely new zoning district or an overlay. Planning staff could have discretion to move forward with whichever option they think is best. o City Led Annexation (more information in Section 3 below) A large portion of the small area plan is in an unincorporated part of the County. For the past few years property owners in this area have been discussing annexing into the City. In March of this year the City rejected an annexation petition with the intent that the City initiates a more holistic annexation for this area. Some felt it was important to get the small area plan completed before moving forward with the annexation process. ▪Does the Council wish to initiate the City-led annexation? ▪Does the Council wish to request that the Administration seek Planning Commission input on the zoning consideration for the area? o Response to Public Feedback Some residents requested the City slow down on the small area plan to give stakeholders time to research and potentially implement a proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area. Section 5 below goes into more detail about this request. ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for an update on discussions about the proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area? 3. Section 2 - Changes made to the draft plan based on Council feedback During the briefing the Council requested the following changes be made to the draft plan. Planning staff provided the attached memo (Attachment A) outlining how the changes were incorporated into the draft plan. o Stronger language throughout the draft plan ▪Specific design standards and implementation section were updated by replacing "should be" with "shall be" and "encouraged" with "required”. o Business Park Land Use/Zoning: ▪Removed Business Park from Vision Map and revised the land use category to be Light Industrial rather than Business Park/Industrial. o Distribution Uses ▪Planning staff is seeking further direction from the Council on this issue. To limit distribution uses, an overlay zone could include a specific list of permitted and conditional uses that align with the plan, while prohibiting distribution and fulfillment uses. ▪Additionally, building gross floor area could be limited to under 150,000 square feet1, and building height could be limited to under a specific height (such as 32 feet). ▪If the Council could initiate a zoning amendment that would implement these concepts (see Legislative Action in section 1 above). o 3200 West development concerns ▪The plan was updated to expand on the intent that new development cannot be accessed from 3200 West. Page | 7 o Close or put a gate at 3200 West ▪Based on current City policy, staff does not recommend closing 3200 West because the road would likely need to be sold to adjacent property owners. ▪ Planning Staff does not recommend gating 3200 West as it could create unforeseen issues for property owners who use the road for access. o Future Land Use Vision Map ▪Update to show proposed buffer widths from waterways •Jordan River – 100 feet •Canals and Drains – 75 feet •Rudy Canal – already has a 200 foot no development easement Policy Questions •Does the Council support changing the draft plan’s future land use map to reflect any of the proposals by various stakeholder groups? •Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? 4. Section 3 - Proposed City-Led Annexation A large portion of the small area plan is in the County. For the past few years property owners in this area have been discussing annexing into the City. In previous attempts the County has expressed the preference for the boundaries of the City and County to be cleaned up in this area. Since much of this area is identified in the City’s annexation plan, they felt it made sense for the City to lead any annexation efforts. In March of this year the City rejected an annexation petition with the intent that the City initiates a more holistic annexation for this area. The City’s Recorder’s Office has done some initial work on the City led annexation. This included a community open house on May 11th and informational letter distributed to property owners. Additionally, they have worked with the County to verify all requirements are being met to move forward with a potential annexation. Attachment B - City-Initiated Annexation Update outlines the next steps the City may take if the Council is ready to move forward with the annexation petition. It should be noted that the Council could choose to change the boundaries of the annexation. The entire area depicted does not need to be annexed all at once. But ultimately the goal is to clean up the boundaries between the city and county jurisdiction in this area. The zoning of properties annexed into the City receive their zoning designation during that process. They do not go through the traditional rezone process. In previous annexation petitions the Council asked staff to send the petition to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation on the zoning. If the Council initiates an annexation petition for this area, it may wish to ask the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation on the zoning considerations. Page | 8 If the Council is ready to initiate the annexation, staff will work with the Attorney’s and Recorder’s offices to prepare a resolution which can be adopted at an upcoming Council meeting. Policy Questions ▪Does the Council wish to initiate the City-led annexation? ▪Does the Council wish to request that the Administration seek Planning Commission input on the zoning consideration for the area? 5. Section 4 - Related planning documents During some meetings with stakeholders the Salt Lake County West General Plan was raised for consideration. The West General Plan was approved by the County Council on May 10, 2022. Attachment C – SL County Future Land Use Map shows the area identified for potential annexation into Salt Lake City is proposed as agriculture use. From Attachment C – SL County Future Land Use Map Page | 9 6. Section 5 - Public Comments, requested changes Attachment D is a letter submitted to the City and County in advance of the March 7 public hearing. The letter outlines recommended changes to the Northpoint Small are plan in order to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. The group of stakeholders that submitted this letter also set up some small group meetings with Council Members to go over their concerns. The letter outlines the concept for a Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area which is depicted in the map attached to the letter and shown below. Page | 10 The letter requests the Northpoint Small Area plan be amended so that some of the properties would be preserved and the development rights be transferred to another area of the City. This is a concept known as a Transfer of Development Right (TDR) program. TDR is a tool identified in the land preservation section of the small area plan. According to the small area plan, page 42: TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. The administration has expressed support to explore the possibility of a Great Salt Lake shoreline preserve. However, at this time it is not clear if that process has started. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is an update on the shoreline preservation discussions. Policy Question ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration for an update on discussions about the proposed Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area? Another comment submitted requested the city update the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District (AFPP) because they believe new information suggests it should be updated. The resident who submitted the letter on behalf of a property owner in the Northpoint area said they would pay for the costs to update the overlay district. The letter also suggests residential dwellings could be allowed in this area and the plan would need to be updated to allow residential uses east of 2200 west. Policy Question ▪Does the Council wish to ask the Administration/Airport staff for their feedback on the request to update the AFPP? 7. Section 6 - Public Hearing Summary The minutes of the public hearing provide a summary of comments made during the March 7, 2023, public hearing. They can be found in Attachment E – March 7 Public Hearing Summary of Public Comments. Many people spoke both in support and in opposition to the draft plan for a variety of reasons. Some felt the draft plan was ready to be adopted as currently written while others felt it needed more work to ensure environmental issues were adequately addressed. The following information was provided for the March 7 public hearing. It is provided again for background purposes. Page | 11 Work Session Summary At the February 21 work session briefing, Council Members raised questions about the impact future development may have on the residents in the area due to increased traffic, as well as impacts to air quality, and the environment. Some felt the Plan was a good attempt at balancing and protecting the current residents and the environment, while providing the growth and development that is likely to come. Some expressed concerns the plan was too flexible and asked Planning staff to consider making changes that require the type of development the city wants to see in this area. Other ideas raised included creating a fund to help residents pay for impacts and damage to their homes and property that may occur due to construction and looking further into the potential to use transfer of development rights in this area. On a related note, in recent weeks the Council office has received many questions and complaints about the traffic impact on 2200west due to the development in the area and 2900 west not being completed. The Council also discussed some of the implementation strategies they would like to see prioritized such as removing the BP zone, mapping, and increasing the buffers between the wetlands and river, and including stricter language that would keep 3200 west a gravel road. Council members indicated they would like to have a follow-up work session after the public hearing to go over any potential changes they would like to see included in the draft plan. The public hearing is scheduled for March 7 The following information was provided for the February 21 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. In 2020 the Council allocated $100,000 to update the master plan for this area to help plan for the increased development pressures going on in this area of the city. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: •The limit on distribution land uses be removed. •The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Page | 12 Mayor Mendenhall submitted a letter with the transmittal that recommend the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. The mayor noted in her letter “this could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses [distribution] where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development” (Transmittal letter pages 5-6). Key Concepts Identified in the Plan Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outline the key concepts of the plan and potential action items the City can take to implement the plan. •Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. •Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. •Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. •Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. •Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. •Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. Changes to Plan noted by Planning Staff. Page 4 of the transmittal letter notes planning staff recommends making a few modifications to the draft forwarded by the Planning Commission. •Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” - Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. •Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. •Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space - In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. Page | 13 •Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Does the Council support including these changes in the final draft of the small area plan? Policy Questions Below are some policy questions the Council may wish to consider as you review the draft plan and bring up during the briefing with the Administration. 1.Implementation a. Are there specific implementation steps outlined in the small area plan the Council would like to initiate? See Implementation section below (page 5) for outline of key items and pages 2-3 of the draft plan for details. b. Does the Council wish to take steps to ensure future development will abide by development recommendations outlined in the plan, if any petitions come to the city before the zoning changes are adopted? i. Consider using development agreements for zoning petitions in the process Does the council wish to support initiating any of the key implementation actions recommended in the master plan? 2.Development Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (Pages 20-29). a. Some CMs have mentioned conditions included in the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District (21A.34.140) may be a good template to consider for development in this area of the city. b. Some of those standards include: i. Lighting – all lighting shall be shielded to direct light down and away from edges of the property. ii. Roof color – light reflective roofing with minim solar reflective index iii. Landscape – shall consist of native plants, remove noxious weeds, iv. Glass Requirements – use glass design elements to reduce bird collisions. v. Fencing – see through fence that is 50% open. c. Some have asked about the possibility for the city to require solar panels be included in a future development. d. Additionally, in the NWQ overlay, certain permitted uses are limited. Do the development standards outlined in the plan successfully address the council’s concerns about mitigating the impact of development in this area of the city? Page | 14 3. The mayor recommended that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. Does the Council support the Mayor’s and Planning staff recommendation to limit distribution uses in this area? Outline of the Draft Small Area Plan Land Use Categories The future land use map includes the categories outlined and shown on the map below. •Natural Open Space •Transitional •Business Park / Industrial •Airport Page | 15 Design Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (pages 20-29). These standards include: • Buffering and setbacks for existing residential uses and wildlife and wetland habitat • Standards for new development o Grading limitation, Fencing / Walls, Dark Sky Lighting, • Water Conscious Development Page | 16 o landscaping, stormwater management, • Airport Conflict Mitigation o Noise, land use compatibility • Visual Design • Standards for Transitional Areas o Industrial land use mitigation - noise, odor air quality, traffic, and loading • Standards for Natural Open Space o Wetland Design Standards – planting, trails / boardwalks, Implementation (Chapter 3) The implementation plan identifies three-time sensitive actions that should be prioritized (pages 2-3). • Services and Infrastructure o Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 west and Construct 2900 West • Natural Environmental / Preservation o Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space • Built Environment/Design o Adopt Development Code Updates Additional implementation actions are identified on pages 34-35. These include items such as creating a local utility plan, updating the major streets plan, environmental impact standards, annexation, etc. Tool Kit The plan includes a variety of tools that will help implement the small area plan (pages 38-53). Some of those tools include land preservation, regulatory, incentive based, land acquisition, and financial. Public Process The public process started in summer of 2021 up to the planning commission public hearing on December 14, 2022. During that time the outreach included numerous steering committees, community council meetings, online questionnaire, Council update and Planning Commission briefings. The full details are outlined on pages three of the transmittal letter and the chronology is on page 11. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: City Council Members From: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner Date: March 9, 2023 Re: Northpoint Small Area Plan During the briefing held on February 21, 2023, the City Council provided guidance and direction for changes to the draft Northpoint Small Area Plan. The following memorandum is a response to the comments and requested changes: 1. Stronger Language: The Council expressed concern with the flexibility of the plan’s wording and directed Planning Staff to make the plan language stronger. The plan was revised to address these concerns. Specifically, the Design Standards and Implementation sections have been updated by replacing "should be" with "shall be" and "encouraged" with "required." In some instances, statements were fully rewritten where necessary. Generally, master plans are considered advisory documents unless explicitly stated in the ordinance. To clarify the status of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, a statement has been added to page 7 of the plan, as well as Section 2 of the adopting ordinance, indicating that it is intended to be a binding document. Status: changes made 2. Business Park Land Use/Zoning: Removed Business Park from Vision Map and revised the land use category to be Light Industrial rather than Business Park/Industrial. Status: changes made 3. Distribution Uses: At the work session the City Council asked for more information on what distribution uses are and what limiting them means. Distribution and fulfillment uses refer to businesses that primarily handle the storage and transportation of goods and merchandise, rather than producing them on site. The zoning code includes the following definition, however, there may be other uses that may fall into the distribution category: WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION: A business that maintains an inventory of materials, supplies and goods related to one or more industries and sells bulk quantities of materials, supplies and goods from its inventory to companies within the industry. A wholesale distributor is not a retail goods establishment. If the Council wishes limit distribution and fulfillment land uses, a Northpoint specific overlay zone could be created. This would allow for a unique set of standards to be applied to the Northpoint area, without requiring amendments to other relevant sections of the code or negotiation on a project-by-project basis. To limit distribution uses, the overlay zone could include a specific list of permitted and conditional uses that align with the plan, while ⚫ Page 2 prohibiting distribution and fulfillment uses. Additionally, building gross floor area could be limited to under 150,000 square feet1, and building height could be limited to under a specific height (such as 32 feet). Alternatively, special provisions could be included in the M-1 zoning district that would apply specifically to the Northpoint area. However, this approach presents challenges, as someone could propose a different zone, and it may be less efficient in terms of time and resources since an overlay zone may still be necessary to adopt the design standards presented in the draft plan. Status: direction needed 4. 3200 West: What does “development is prohibited from facing 3200 West” mean? This was intended to mean that new development cannot be accessed from 3200 West and that impacts associated with development (vehicle egress, signage, lighting) would be at the front of the building facing the new 2900 W north-south collector street. The plan was updated to expand on the intent of this statement. Additionally, the Plan language was modified to emphasize that 3200 West will remain unimproved (using “will” rather than “should”), and the Major Street Plan map was modified to clarify that 3200 West will remain unimproved. Status: changes made 5. Can we close or gate 3200 West? 3200 West falls on the Salt Lake City boundary and is split in the middle with the east half in Salt Lake City and the west half in Salt Lake County. Additionally, a portion of 3200 West at the south end of the project area is fully within Salt Lake County’s jurisdiction. To vacate or close 3200 West, Salt Lake City would need to annex the entire portion of the road. Additionally, it is unclear if the city can close or vacate the road without requiring the adjacent property owners to purchase it. Current policy, the City Council’s 1999 Street Closure Policy, is to sell the underlying property for fair market value. If 3200 West is not vacated and remains a public street, there could be legal issues with gating or limiting access to the public. While the policy established in the draft plan is that 3200 West remains a dirt, unimproved road, it is still a necessary access road for maintenance and utilities for the airport and power utility easements. Therefore, Planning Staff does not recommend gating 3200 West as it could create unforeseen issues for property owners who use the road for access. Status: changes are not recommended 1 The following are typical sizes for the uses outlined. - Major Distribution Center: 500,000 to more than 1.5 million square feet - Large Fulfillment Center: 150,000 to more than 500,000 square feet - Smaller Local Fulfillment Station: 50,000 to more than 150,000 square feet Source: NJ State Planning Commission Office of Planning Advocacy, Distribution Warehousing and Goods Movement Guidelines. September 2022. https://nj.gov/state/planning/assets/pdf/warehouse-guidance.pdf ⚫ Page 3 6. Vision Map: The Vision Map was updated to show the proposed buffer widths from the Jordan River (100 feet on each side) and canals and drain (75 feet on each side). Of note, the Rudy Canal already has a 200 foot (total) no-development easement. Status: changes made 7. Revise Wetland Buffer to Remove Width Flexibility: The City Council provided direction that allowing reduced buffer widths is not appropriate. The Draft Plan was updated to remove language that would allow flexibility of the wetland buffer width and established a firm 300- foot buffer from wetland boundaries. To clarify, wetlands identified on the Vision Map were sourced from the Utah Geological Survey with data derived from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands should be used as a guide and delineation will be required at the time of development permit. Status: changes made 8. Transfer of Development Rights: During the Council's discussion, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) was raised as a potential land preservation tool. It is already listed as a recommended tool in Chapter 4 of the plan. However, further direction is needed from the Council on whether they want to pursue the development of a TDR program within the plan or as an implementation step. If either action is taken, it would likely require funding for a consultant to conduct a financial analysis and identify a method for calculating the development potential that can be transferred, as well as determining where the transferred development potential can go (receiving areas). Creating the receiving areas would also require a public process, and it is unclear whether the community would support it, or if the finances would result in successful development rights transfers. Status: direction needed 9. Community Benefit/Development Agreements: The Council discussed setting up a framework that would require a developer or contractor to set aside money in case of damage or lawsuit. After discussing this with the Attorney’s Office, we do not believe that this is something that we can require and do not recommend its inclusion in the plan. Generally, this is a civil matter that is handled through insurance claims or other means. However, information could be provided to the public at the beginning of construction, such as contact information for insurance claims. Status: changes are not recommended 10. Bird-friendly Design: During the work session, bird friendly building design was mentioned. Planning Staff reviewed the plan and realized that this was not included in the design standards, although it is something that is necessary to mitigate impacts associated with new development in the area. The following standard was added to the plan: Follow bird-friendly window and building design by mitigating reflective and transparent conditions. New construction and major renovation projects shall incorporate bird-friendly building materials and design features, including those ⚫ Page 4 recommended by the American Bird Conservancy publication Bird-Friendly Building Design. Status: change made The full revised draft Northpoint Small Area Plan is attached for reference. MEMORANDUM TO SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO: City Council Chair Mano City Council Vice Chair Petro DATE: August 2023 FROM: Salt Lake City Recorders Office Thais Stewart, Deputy City Recorder – Operations Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder CC: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Blake Thomas, Community & Neighborhood Department Director Laura Briefer, Public Utilities Department Director Bill Wyatt, Airport Department Director Chris Donoghue, City Surveyor Nick Norris, Planning Division Director Katherine Lewis, City Attorney SUBJECT: City-Initiated Annexation Update Pursuant to the Legislative Intent outlined in the motion denying the Annexation Petition/Application titled Legacy Business Park (PLNPCM2022-00937), the City Recorder’s office has compiled the next steps as outlined in UCA 10-2-418, for a City-Initiated Annexation of the area located near the northwest City boundary lines near 2200 West and 3200 North. Proposed Next Steps: 1.City Council: Consider a resolution for the annexation (a proposed map and resolution have been included as Exhibit A) 2. Optional: Planning Commission input and public hearing on zoning considerations for the area 3.Recorder’s Office: Send a letter to North Salt Lake City identifying the area planned for annexation and request determination from their leadership due to the overlapping territory of the Annexation Plans of Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City 4.City Council: Set the date for the public hearing 5.Recorder’s Office: Complete the noticing for the annexation request and subsequent public hearing and protest period (if the resolution is adopted noticing must start 14 days after the adoption and at least 3 weeks before the public hearing) a.Protest period beings when the notice is published and ends the day of the public hearing 6.City Council: Conduct the Public Hearing 7.City Council: Consider adoption of an ordinance identifying the zoning and confirming the desired annexation area 8.Recorder’s Office: If adopted, submit documents and ordinance to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and complete other notification steps Background: The following steps have taken place since the April 3rd, 2023, memorandum: 1.The boundary map was updated to include properties within the proposed Northpoint Small Area Plan. 2.Community Open House held on May 11th at the Regional Athletic Complex to inform property owners and answer questions regarding the annexation process. 3.Informational letter distributed to property owners 4.Salt Lake County verified requirements of §10-2-418(2) have been met to move forward with a City-led annexation without a petition. Note: The City Recorder’s office has been contacted by a property owner currently working towards the annexation of their properties into North Salt Lake and Davis County. Salt Lake County approved this move prior to the timing of this request and there is no expiration to that approval. The property owner has requested the City consider removing their parcel from the annexation area on behalf of Salt Lake City. Exhibits: A.Proposed resolution B.Draft of the public hearing notice Exhibit A: Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ANNEX CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED PROPERTIES NORTH-NORTHEAST OF THE SALT LAKE CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND NEAR THE SALT LAKE COUNTY BORDER WITH DAVIS COUNTY PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 10-2-418 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-2-418 allows a municipality to annex unincorporated areas without an annexation petition under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, some owners of real property north of 2100 North Street and adjacent to 2200 West Street in unincorporated Salt Lake County near the Salt Lake County-Davis County border (the “Properties”) have expressed interest in annexing their land into Salt Lake City’s corporate limits; and WHEREAS, collectively, the Properties are contiguous to the corporate limits of Salt Lake City and are identified within an expansion area described as “Study Area 1 - West Airport” in the city’s annexation policy plan titled, “A MASTER ANNEXATION POLICY DECLARATION for Salt Lake City, Utah” adopted in 1979 and as shown on the map accompanying that plan titled, “SALT LAKE CITY Annexation Policy Declaration Proposed Future Boundaries”; and WHEREAS, a majority of the area consists of residential or commercial development with fewer than 800 residents; and WHEREAS, in addition to the privately-owned land in the proposed annexation area, over 200 acres of the Properties are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation, the majority of which was acquired through federal grants for such land to be used for airport purposes; and WHEREAS, the Properties constitute an unincorporated peninsula, as that term is defined in Utah Code Section 10-2-401; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake County Council approved an annexation near Rose Park Lane with the contingency that Salt Lake City make efforts to annex all of the unincorporated areas to the west and north of the Property; and WHEREAS, most of the area in the proposed annexation have received some Salt Lake City municipal-type services for many years and continue to receive those utility services; and WHEREAS, as part of an effort by private property owners to annex a portion of the Properties into North Salt Lake City in recent years, North Salt Lake City amended its annexation policy plan in 2021 to include some of the proposed annexation areas into that city’s proposed expansion area; and WHEREAS, some owners who sponsored the effort to annex into North Salt Lake City are now supportive of annexing into Salt Lake City’s corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 10-2-418(2) requires that unincorporated areas that are within the expansion areas of more than one municipality must receive the consent of all other municipalities whose annexation policy plans include the subject area in their respective expansion areas in order to annex the area; and WHEREAS, in pursuing its intent to annex the Properties, Salt Lake City acknowledges that it must receive the consent of North Salt Lake City before annexation of the Properties can be completed; and WHEREAS, because the Properties are within Salt Lake City’s expansion area in its 1979 annexation policy plan and because the Properties are collectively congruous to Salt Lake City corporate limits, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this resolution of intent to annex the Properties identified in Exhibit A hereto is in the city’s and private property owners’ best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That Salt Lake City intends to pursue annexation of approximately 463.25 acres into Salt Lake City pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-2-418. DATED this ______ day of ________________, 2023. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ________________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By:___________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Resolution intent to annex properties per 10-2-418 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 18, 2023 N3 2 0 0 W N3200W N3200W N32 0 0W N3 200W N 32 0 0 W N3 2 00W N32 0 0 W N3 2 0 0 W Reclamation Ditch W2100N N 32 00W NPerimeter W3300N Re clamationDitc h W2100 N NPerimeter W3300N Reclamation Di tch W2100N NPerimeter S e wag e Ca n al SewageC a n al Jordan Riv er WCenterSt N2 2 0 0 W W31 30N W3300 N N 2 2 0 0 W R e clamationDitch N2 2 0 0 W W2670 N N2 2 0 0 W Re c lam a tio n D i tc h N2 2 0 0 W R eclamationDitch Re c l a m a t i o n D i t c h N 2 2 0 0 W N2 2 0 0 W N2 2 0 0 W W2100N J o r d an River Jordan Riv e r WCenterSt S 12 0 0W Jo r d a n R i v e r D r Se w ag e Canal J o r d a n R iv e r S 1 2 0 0 W 215 Rec lamationDitch 215 215 W2670 N Le g a c yPkwy Re clamationDitch 215 NR ose ParkL n 215 NRo sePa r kLn 215 NRos eP arkLn 25 215 W2100N NRoseP a rkLn N 2 18 0 W WCenterSt R i v e r b e n dW a y N1100W L e g a c y P k w y Le g a c y P k w y JordanRiver S 1 200W Rive rb en dWa y Legacy Pk wy Le gacy Pkwy J o rd anRiv er JordanRiver 215 LegacyPkwy Leg a c y Pkwy Leg acyPk w y 27 JordanRive r Jordan River Jo rda n River J o r d a n R i v e r Jo r d a n R iv e r W Center St 27 J o r d an River SR ed wo od Rd Jo rdan Riv er SR edw oo d Rd NR ed w oo dR d N Redwoo d Park L n NR e dw oodRd NR ed wood Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, Salt Lake County, Maxar Rd , Microsoft 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.07 Miles Proposed AnnexationHunter Stables City-Initiated Annexation SLC/SLCO/Davis County Boundary Legend Exhibit B: Draft Public Hearing Notice SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON [date resolution gets adopted] the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution __ of 2023 indicating the intent to annex the unincorporated properties North-Northeast of the Salt Lake City International Airport and near the Salt Lake County border with Davis County pursuant to UCA 10-2-418. A public hearing will be held by the City Council to accept comments regarding the proposed annexation. Date: (notice must be published within 14 days of the adoption of the resolution and give at least a 3-week notice to the public hearing) Time: 7:00 PM Location: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah The municipal legislative body will annex the area unless written protests to the annexation are filed in the City Recorder’s office by the owners of private real property that: (A)is located within the area proposed for annexation; (B)covers a majority of the total private land area within the entire area proposed for annexation; and (C)is equal in value to at least 1/2 the value of all private real property within the entire area proposed for annexation All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building. For more information, including electronic connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings or call 801-535-7654. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. The proposed legislation is available for review through the following methods, using file number Z [assigned file number]: •Electronically: https://tinyurl.com/proposedleg •Physical Copy: Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office Published: [date published], Utah Public Notice Website. KEEP POSTED UNTIL [date of hearing] MEMO - City Initiated Annexation August 2023 Final Audit Report 2023-08-21 Created:2023-08-21 By:Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAwrQ74gg43TDcwv15UsrM1Y3PcH10AoEj "MEMO - City Initiated Annexation August 2023" History Document created by Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) 2023-08-21 - 6:28:05 PM GMT Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-08-21 - 6:29:24 PM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) E-signature obtained using URL retrieved through the Adobe Acrobat Sign API Signature Date: 2023-08-21 - 7:02:58 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-08-21 - 7:02:58 PM GMT TAYLORSVILLE RIVERTON KEARNS BLUFFDALE SOUTH JORDAN HERRIMAN WEST JORDAN COPPERTON Data Sources: Salt Lake County Planning & Transportation, Rio Tinto Kennecott Great Salt Lake Camp Williams ML Yellow Fork Canyon Rose Canyon RR MN AG ML MPC RC MB MPC C R MPC I MN MPC MM MC MC MPC MM I MN I INLAND PORT SC L Limited Development Until Post- Mine Closure (2040+) Unincorporated Boundary SLCo Boundary Municipalities Inland Port** Future Land Uses AG - Agriculture C - Commercial MM - Mountain Multi Use I - Industrial L - Lake MPC - Master Planned Communities MC - Mountain Communities ML - Military MN - Mining MB - Mine Buffer RC - Recreation Conservation R - Residential RR - Rural Residential SC - Shoreline Conservation (AG & Habitat) 0 2.5 51.25 Miles Future Land Uses* AG MB MM *Due to the unknown timing of mine closures future land uses are subject to change. This map should periodically be updated based on input from landowners, stakeholders, and the public. **Inland Port is shown for reference purposes only SALT LAKE CITY WEST VALLEY CITYMAGNA 48 West General Plan Chapter 2 - Land Use Figure 2.10 Future Land Use Map UTAH WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION Northpoint Small Area Maps and Narrative Submitted via email 3.2.23 To: Salt Lake City Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council, and Salt Lake County Regional Development Re: Improvements Needed in Northpoint Small Area Plan – Highlighting Conservation Values Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Salt Lake City Council members, Dina Blaes, Director of the Office of Regional Development and Helen Peters, Director Salt Lake County Regional Planning & Transportation: Please accept and fully consider the enclosed maps and comments on behalf of Audubon Rockies, FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, Utah Waterfowl Association, and the Jordan River Commission. Collectively, we appreciate the efforts of the Mayoral office, Planning Commission, and City Council to develop these lands thoughtfully as the state of Utah experiences unprecedented growth. With that in mind, we respectfully submit these comments and associated maps for your consideration as you develop a more robust Northpoint Small Area Plan. The unique scenic qualities of these lands are not only highly valued by residents but are a strong attractant to new potential residents. Great Salt Lake wetlands and riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River not only provide a recreational asset and moneys for the City and County but are incredibly important for maintaining water quality and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitat for resident and migrating wildlife. Agricultural lands support the economy, also support wildlife, and are deeply part of Utah’s culture. Thus, efforts are needed to preserve agricultural lands, healthy wildlife habitat, and functioning ecosystems. In addition to increasing property value1, these areas will increase the 2200 West Corridor’s resiliency to drought and floods. The state of Utah has been proactive in efforts related to addressing the declining condition of Great Salt Lake. We hope that the following content, which highlights the conservation areas - wetlands and uplands of the Great Salt Lake shoreline – will similarly result in your leadership to preserve these resources and the traditional uses of the landscape. 1 Review of the impact of urban parks and green spaces on residence prices in the environmental health context. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490231 Maps of Important Conservation Areas Figure 1. GSL Wetlands Relative to the Northpoint Small Area. Juxtaposition of ecologically sensitive areas of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem (wetlands and uplands of the Southshore area) and the developed landscape are illustrated. Utah Geological Survey wetlands data (shown in greenish yellow) were used to illustrate the close proximity of GSL wetlands to the Northpoint Small Area plan area and the rest of the Salt Lake City boundary (https://gis.utah.gov/data/water/wetlands/ 2021). These wetland data are not indicative of wetland jurisdiction designation, but are important for showing habitat identification and hydrologic connectivity with Great Salt Lake. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data were validated by UGS by examining aerial imagery, on-the- ground assessment and field verifying to improve accuracy of the NWI data. Among the areas of interest to our organizations is the proposed Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA), located within the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The SHA begins in the northwest corner of Salt Lake City’s Northwest Quadrant and includes the entire Natural Area designated in the Salt Lake City Northwest Quadrant Master Plan (adopted 2016, http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/NorthwestQ/NWQ.pdf). The proposed SHA, outlined in orange with white diagonal lines, is primarily composed of privately held land used for agriculture, duck clubs and other wildlife conservation, and a small amount of residential land. Some of the land is owned by the Federal government. Taking actions to preserve the natural character of the area, its traditional uses and open space, are critical. We acknowledge that there are vested property rights within the area that need to be respected. We propose the City develop financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain the open space and historic cultural heritage of these identified lands within the Northpoint Small Planning Area. An example tool is a Transfer of Development Rights Program, although there are additional good land preservation tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Natural Area, outlined in green, is nested between conservation lands to the west and duck club conservation and agricultural lands to the north, and creates a boundary between sensitive lands and the Utah Inland Port Authority (outlined in black). The Natural Area includes many wetland features formed by an abandoned portion of an ancient Jordan River delta that are hydrologically connected to Great Salt Lake. From there, the SHA goes through wetlands managed for duck hunting and connects in an eastward direction outside the north perimeter of Salt Lake City International Airport with a portion of the Northpoint Small Area, outlined in brown. From the Northpoint Small Area, the SHA continues in a northwestern direction connecting with uplands that are largely agricultural and surrounded by prime Great Salt Lake wetland habitat on the western and northern sides and is adjacent to the Jordan River and Legacy Nature Preserve on the eastern side. This portion is mostly within Salt Lake County and already designated part of the SHA of the Salt Lake County West General Plan (2022)2. The green cross-hatched areas in the Northpoint Small Area indicate areas where Land Preservation Tools identified in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan could be applied to conserve land to implement low-impact development to neighboring communities and transition to an ecologically relevant buffer to Great Salt Lake wetlands. Figure 2. Great Salt Lake Shoreline Heritage Area. These areas are of local and global conservation value. NGO conservation areas are colored purple, and duck club conservation areas are within the green area. It is important to note that agricultural use is located throughout both areas, and that both areas have significant greenbelt status. a) Whether NGO, duck club, or agricultural, all serve an important role in sustaining the ecological health and cultural heritage of the area. The conservation and duck club areas together contain approximately 20,000 acres of managed Great Salt Lake wetlands of different types. b) BirdLife International has identified over 13,600 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) worldwide. Five of them are designated at each bay of Great Salt Lake, including Farmington Bay and its wetlands. These IBAs form the core of a wider network of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)—critically important sites for the persistence of global plant and animal diversity. c) One key function of Great Salt Lake wetlands and nearby uplands is all the habitat resources they provide the hundreds of avian species that depend on them. Each year, birds come to the lake by the millions and as we are witness to habitat loss on the lake due to long-term drought and habitat loss, managed wetlands become an increasingly critical resource for migrating and nesting birds. These wetlands contribute to the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Designation of Great Salt Lake. d) Many of the wetlands are also designated by the 2009 Utah Legislature as a Migratory Bird Production Area (MBPA). As Max Malmquist, Audubon’s Saline Lakes Program, wrote in the March 16th 2021 Audubon Rockies Newsletter: “The 2021 amendment of this law sets further protections of MBPAs: “The act calls for counties in which MBPAs are located to encourage the continuity, development, and viability of these areas, and gives them the “highest priority of use” status, which highlights their importance to migratory birds. Many MBPAs are directly adjacent to Great Salt Lake, are essential in maintaining continuity among wetlands, and play a key role in water inflows to the lake.” 2 The Shoreline Heritage Area (SHA) originally designated in the Salt Lake County West General Plan (SLCWGP, adopted 2022) “consists of the Great Salt Lake and wetlands, agricultural lands, shoreline and waterfowl habitat, and agrarian residential” (SLCWGP Plan Area Map, Figure 1.3, pg. 7, and pg. 22). Additional Ecological Considerations Components of the area being considered in the Northpoint Small Area Plan is central to the continued productivity and ecological value of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the riparian areas and wetlands of the Jordan River. By preserving its existing natural character and traditional land uses in a robust plan, the outcome will: establish a robust natural boundary between mounting pressures of the developed landscape that burden people, wildlife and their habitat alike with unsafe air, water, noise, and light pollution provide a natural barrier to invasive plants and pests that threaten agricultural lands and wildlife areas prevent impacts to hydrological connectivity with the lake and sustains other important wetland functions such as groundwater recharge and flood attenuation prevent the built landscape from reaching the edge of Great Salt Lake wetlands and the lower reach of the Jordan River The guiding principle for Ch. 6, the Natural Environment in Plan Salt Lake is to minimize impact on the natural environment (adopted 2015). “Over the next 25 years, we will strive to protect and restore critical wildlife habitat, sensitive natural lands, and open space. These environments are crucial to water supply and quality and to the ecosystems that sustain us. We will work to preserve and restore riparian corridors in and around our community.” An improved Northpoint Small Area Plan that considers the cultural and ecological benefits of preserving the aforementioned lands will not only apply the above guiding principle, but result in a development scenario that is more resilient to changing environmental conditions and economically sound. Landowners within the Northpoint Small Area currently zoned BP can utilize financially incentivized land preservation tools that maintain open space and the cultural heritage of the land. could participate in a Transfer of Development Rights Program, is one of many tools prescribed in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Chapter 4, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022) that maintain open space. Land proposed for development in the Land Preservation Tools Area (green cross-hatched): will be entitled to review and opt for land conservation tools in Chapter 4 of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, pg. 45 of Plan Salt Lake, and other principles put forth in Blueprint Jordan River Refresh (2022). will allow for some low-impact building, with the ultimate goal of minimizing impacts associated with built environments to nearby families and ecologically sensitive areas. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and welcome the opportunity to work together in the future to address the challenges of balancing these various values along the 2200 West Corridor Sincerely, Heidi M. Hoven, PhD Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary Audubon Rockies 231 W 800 S, Ste E Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Heidi.Hoven@audubon.org rockies.audubon.org/gillmor Lynn de Freitas Executive Director FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake 150 South 600 East, Suite 5D Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 https://www.fogsl.org/about/about-friends Soren Simonsen, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP Executive Director Jordan River Commission PO Box 526081 Salt Lake City, UT 84152-6081 sorensimonsen@utah.gov JordanRiverCommission.com MyJordanRiver.org Jack Ray Utah Waterfowl Association j.ray.pine@outlook.com https://www.facebook.com/groups/263929757011728 Cc: Rachel Otto Chief of Staff OFFICE of the MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Rachel.Otto@slcgov.com WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM WWW.SLC.GOV Councilman Darin Mano Chair, City Council SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION darin.mano@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV Cindy Gust-Jenson Executive Director, Office of the City Council at SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Cindy.Gust-Jenson@slcgov.com Jason Wolf Director of Canyons Management 2001 S. State Street S2-100 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575 JWolf@slco.org https://slco.org/regional-development/contact-us/ Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Wetlands Relative to the the Northpoint Small Area Plan Utah Geological Survey Wetlands Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 1 Duck Clubs SLC Corp Conservation Areas Shoreline Heritage AreaDavis C o . Salt L a k e C o . Dav i s C o . Salt L a k e C o . Shoreline Heritage Area GSL Shoreline Heritage Area Shoreline Heritage Area Northwest Quadrant Natural Area Boundary SLC Corp Duck Club Conservation Northpoint Small Area Land Preservation Tools Area Utah Inland Port Authority Boundary HB2001 Ü01.5 3 4.50.75 Miles Figure 2 Attachment E March 7, 2023 Summary of Public Hearing Comments Summary of Comments in Support • No data showing the development would have a negative impact to the Great Salt Lake • Industrial development was a positive for the area • The distance from 2200 West to the Great Salt Lake was greater than portrayed • The beauty of the plan was that it gave everyone the ability to do with their property as they saw fit • Lack of infrastructure that would allow a housing development in the Northpoint area • Property needed to be put to use • Thanked staff for hard work on the plan • Agriculture used and polluted water more than warehouses • Thanked the Council for listening to everyone • Residential values were going down in the area • Areas should be zoned to accommodate the Airport with commercial zonin g • Land values should increase due to the industrial zoning • Plan promoted sustainable building guidelines • Lack of available land increased rental rates for businesses and small business took the brunt of the problem • Would create high paying jobs for citizens of Salt Lake City • Plan included aspects that protected the wetlands and Great Salt Lake • Great middle ground for those residents that wished to stay and those that wished to sell for future development • Residents would be completely surrounded by warehous e zoning and the plan took into account those residents that wished to remain in area • Requested to approve the plan without restrictions for light industrial and as scheduled Summary of Comments in General Opposition • Salt Lake did not need additional warehouses • There was no transportation options for the area other than cars which would increase pollution • Similar cities with warehouse developments were now trying to fix the problems these developments caused • The uniqueness of the area needed to be protected • Complete a comprehensible review of the impacts of development in the area before the plan moved forward • Providing City services to the area would be difficult • Jobs would be menial and not necessary as there were plenty of jobs to be had • Requested the Council send the plan back to the drawing board and make sure it was not negatively impacting the area • The area was one of the last oases in Salt Lake that was being turned into warehouses • There was no reversing the impact of development when the land was gone • Development would impact air quality and health/well being of the citizens of Salt Lake • Loss of almost 60 single family residences was not appropriate • Thanked the Mayor for intervening with distribution centers in the area • The plan would impact the Rudy Reclamation facility • Plan would hollow out many of the natural aspects of the land and harm the nesting sites of migratory birds • 3200 West should remain unpaved and gated • Encouraged Council to develop conservation programs to protect the w etlands, open spaces, air quality, Great Salt Lake and wildlife throughout the entire area • It was imperative that the citizens did not want this development • Wait until the Inland Port was up and running before this development was done • Plan was not sustainable • Support plans that helped the area and did not deter from the natural beauty of the State • Safety for residents along 2200 West was imperative • A community should have been constructed, not a warehouse district • City should take into consideration the impacts the development was having on the current residents • Business Park zoning afforded the restrictions the community wanted in the area • Create an ordinance that would place restrictions on this development to protect the wetlands, lake and neighborhood • A comprehensive review of the shoreline was needed to look at the impacts this development would have on wetlands and air quality • Need more open space, trails and parks, not warehouse space • Council Members were the representatives that should look to the future to determine what was best for the City • The Great Salt Lake should be designated as a National Park • Uniqueness of the area should be protected not committed to industrial development • Protect the Jordan River in the area • Plan Salt Lake goals needed to be adequately reflected in the plan • Plan was inconsistent with the conservation goals and land preservation in the area • A 180-day moratorium on more development was a great idea • Housing should be a priority, not forcing people from their homes • Creation of a green belt around Salt Lake • Please vote no on the plan Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 17, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com 801-535-7780 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The update of the plan was funded to provide guidance on anticipated development in the area and to address annexation-related issues in the area. The Northpoint Small Area Plan adopted in 2000 includes the following goal: The purpose of the Northpoint Small Area Plan is to eliminate potential land use conflicts with the Salt Lake International Airport while preserving and enhancing the existing agricultural lifestyle. The original plan identifies land use issues related to the airport, agriculture, business park development, the environment, and infrastructure. The plan includes a land use map that identifies most of the land west of 2200 West as Business Park and the majority of the land east of 2200 01-31-2023 01-31-2023 West as Agriculture. The plan includes land that is located outside of the city boundaries for the purpose of future annexations. A 2019 development proposal to develop land in unincorporated portions of Salt Lake County along 2200 West for residential purposes was submitted to Salt Lake County. This proposal triggered an annexation proposal for the land to be annexed into North Salt Lake City because both the county and city land use regulations prohibited residential development so close in proximity to the airport. In response to the proposed annexation, the City Council funded an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The purpose of funding the update was to address development pressure in the plan area and to address potential annexations of unincorporated land. The RFP process started in December 2019. The RFP was scheduled to be published at the end of March 2020. Due to uncertainty related to the pandemic, the RFP was paused and not released to the public. The money was reallocated to the 2020-2021 budget cycle. The RFP process was relaunched in January 2021 utilizing the same RFP document that was produced in 2020. The RFP selection team included representatives from the Planning Division, the Airport, Transportation Division, Engineering Division, and a member of the Westpointe Community Council. After interviews, the selection committee chose Logan Simpson. The contract with the consultant was finalized in May 2021. A transmittal was sent to the City Council in July 2021, to satisfy the process identified in Resolution 14 of 2020. That briefing included the scope of work, timeline, and public engagement plan. SMALL AREA PLAN KEY CONCEPTS: The Northpoint Small Area Plan will guide the future development of the area by presenting a vision map, design standards and guidelines for private development throughout the area. The plan provides action steps the city can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. Key concepts of the draft plan include: • Identifies appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. • Identifies appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts on residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitats, and other uses within the area. • Recommends design standards to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Image 1: Northpoint general vicinity • Updates future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. • Amends the Major Streets Plan for the area to include a new north-south collector (2900 W), a future airport road going east to west connecting to 2100 North, and to indicate that 3200 West is to remain an unimproved roadway. • Recommends a Northpoint-specific development code that codifies the recommended design standards and includes incentive-based tools for open space preservation. PROCESS: The plan update process began in 2021 with a series of one-on-one engagement sessions with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county-specific staff. The goal of these engagement sessions was to provide attendees with a forum to identify the assets and weaknesses of the plan area and to explore the future of the area. A Steering Committee was also formed to provide specific guidance on the area and to review draft recommendations for the plan. The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from government agencies, landowners, environmental groups, etc. In addition, the engagement process included a public open house, two community event pop-up tables, Westpointe Community Council presentations, two public questionnaires, and a property owner-specific questionnaire. The Planning Commission met to review the small area plan first through a work session on July 27, 2022, and then again on October 26th, 2022 for a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission tabled the draft plan at that meeting with direction to allow additional time for public input and to consider revisions to the recommended wetland buffer. In response, Planning Staff met with the Westpointe Community Council at their November 9th meeting and engaged with stakeholders through email and one-on-one meetings. Modifications were made to the draft in response to the direction received from the Planning Commission and additional public input. Key changes included the addition of an action item to develop a Northpoint -specific development code, revisions to the wetland buffers that would allow some flexibility in buffer width in exchange for mitigation measures, and the addition of language that would limit distribution and logistical land use and promote manufacturing land uses. The Planning Commission reopened the Public Hearing at their December 14, 2022 meeting. During the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed limit on distribution land uses, if this limitation was necessary, and if there is a market for the area to be primarily manufacturing land uses. While there was some disagreement among members on this subject, they ultimately voted to remove the limitation on distribution land uses. The Commission also discussed wetland buffers and emphasized that open space preservation around wetlands is of high priority and recommended a 300-foot buffer rather than 200 feet. Planning Staff also recommended some minor changes to the draft in the Staff Report that were brought up in public comments. The Commission did not report concern with these changes, and the conversation generally indicated support. The Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council (7-2) with the following modifications: - The limit on distribution land uses be removed. - The wetland buffer is expanded to up to 300 feet instead of up to 200 feet. Based on the conversation, the Commissioners who voted no did so because one would like to see more open space preserved and does not support the vision for light -industrial development, and the other indicated that they were not in support of removing the limitation on distribution uses. PROPOSED DRAFT: The draft forwarded to the City Council includes modifications to the draft plan that address the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission, as well as the recommended changes proposed by Planning Staff based on public comment: - Page 10: “The Plan Area…is nestled between wetland spillover from the Great Salt Lake…” o Deleted the word “spillover” as it implies excess, wasted, low value, and is not an ecological term. - Page 24: Added "and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features" to the sentence addressing building color and materials. While colors that blend in with the natural surroundings are essential, there may be additional contrast mitigation techniques that are necessary and appropriate in specific areas such as the land close to 3200 West. - Page 32: Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space o In addition to lands adjacent to the Jordan River mentioned in the text, open land and wetlands along 3200 W was also added as an area for priority open space preservation. - Included the notation on the vision map regarding wetland applicability (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) on page 35 as well. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) d) PC Agenda for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) f) PC Staff Report for October 26, 2022 (Click to Access) g) PC Agenda for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) h) PC Minutes for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) i) PC Staff Report for December 14, 2022 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) City Council Public Hearing Notice 3) Northpoint Small Area Plan Draft 4) Public Comments Received ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 January 30, 2022 Dear City Councilmembers: As you consider adoption of the Northpoint Small Area Plan, per City Code section 2.06.035.C.2, I am submitting a letter for your consideration. Section2.06.035 allows the city administration to provide a different recommendation than the Planning Commission by submitting a letter outlining the mayor’s position as part of the administrative transmittal. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is such a case. On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Northpoint Small Area Plan with two modifications. First, to remove Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses in the plan area; and second, to increase the development buffer from wetlands from 200 feet to 300 feet. I applaud the Planning Commission for their dedication to preserving and protecting wetland areas by increasing the buffer width; however, I am concerned that removing the limit on distribution land uses will negatively impact the existing rural characteristics of the area, potentially increase the amount of air pollution generated by the future use of land in the area, and expand the amount of land in the City that is available for warehouse and distribution uses. The Northpoint plan boundary is unique within Salt Lake City and any future planning should be sensitive to the existing context and rural nature of the area. While development of the area is ongoing and that pressure will likely continue in the future, planning should promote an appropriate transition of land uses that can coexist with the existing rural residential and agricultural uses, as well as minimize impacts to the environment and natural habitat. Planning must also consider appropriate land uses to reduce exposure to air pollution created by airplanes taking off and landing from the Salt Lake City International Airport, especially as the airport considers lengthening existing runways that will further impact the Northpoint area. There are nearly 17,000 acres of land in Salt Lake City that are currently zoned M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. It is the largest zoning district in the city in terms of acreage, while also one of the least restrictive in permitted and conditional land uses. There are no limitations on warehousing or distribution uses. If more area is allowed to develop with these uses it likely increases the amount of air pollution generated in the city through an increase in semi-truck traffic and requires more resources to maintain city streets. I recommend that the City Council consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to limit distribution land uses to prevent the area from becoming primarily a warehouse and distribution center. This could be achieved by limiting the development of such uses where they are not currently allowed by zoning. This is a vital step to implementing the city’s vision – one that respects the existing residential and agriculture properties, the environment, and wildlife, while allowing for appropriate light-manufacturing development. This vision can be achieved through prioritizing and expanding the recommended Northpoint specific development code, which is identified as a critical action item in the plan. Expansion of ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 the code recommendation could include limiting building footprints, lot coverage, and building height to encourage a greater mix of land uses and prevent large scale buildings that are only suitable for distribution. Additionally, the Council could consider restricting or limiting the uses in the land use tables within the Northpoint development code. In addition to my recommendation above, please consider the Northpoint Small Area Plan guidance for zoning assignment of annexation in the area. In future review of annexation petitions, I request that the Council also consider the recommended Northpoint Small Area Plan policies and development code in any development agreement to ensure the vision for the area is respected and realized. Thank you for your consideration, Erin Mendenhall Mayor SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan) An ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on December 14, 2022 on a petition by the City Council to adopt an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan as a geographically-specific part of Salt Lake City’s general plan required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and WHEREAS, at its December 14, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan. That the Northpoint Small Area Plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as required by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting the Northpoint Small Area Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney December 16, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” Northpoint Small Area Plan 1. CHRONOLOGY Northpoint Small Area Plan Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00687 May 2021: Contract with the consultant, Logan Simpson, finalized July 22, 2021: City Council briefing August 2021: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the project and stakeholder interview opportunities August 2021: Logan Simpson (consultant) held one-on-one meetings August 2021: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. August 12, 2021: Steering Committee meeting November 10, 2021: Westpointe Community Council presentation February 17, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 4, 2022: Steering Committee meeting April 29, 2022: An informational postcard was mailed to property owners within the study area informing them of the upcoming workshop and providing them with a QR code to obtain more information and take a property owner questionnaire. March 2 – 30, 2022: Property Owner Questionnaire March 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation May 16, 2022: Draft Concepts public workshop May 17 – June 30: Draft Concepts Online Questionnaire was available to the public June 27, 2022: Steering Committee meeting July 22, 2022: Draft Plan published and noticed for public review July 27, 2022: Planning Commission briefing August 2, 2022: Logan Simpson and Salt Lake City Planning Staff attended the Westpointe Night Out event. September 20, 2022: City Council briefing on the draft plan October 18, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing October 26, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 9, 2022: Westpointe Community Council presentation November 16, 2022: Revised Draft Plan published for Planning Commission public hearing December 14, 2022: Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation December 15, 2022: Ordinance request sent to City Attorney’s Office December 16, 2022: Signed ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00687 – Northpoint Small Area Plan – A request by the City Council to revise and complete an update to the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is generally located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2000. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation-related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following link: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2022/10/13/northpoint-small-area-plan/ As part of their review, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00687. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. (P 19-19) 4. NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DRAFT NORTHPOINT Small Area Plan Salt Lake City Adoption Draft, January 2023 DRAFT 2 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................4 Location .................................................................................................................6 Plan Context and Purpose .....................................................................................7 Guide to this Plan ...................................................................................................8 Executive Summary .............................................................................................10 Chapter 2 The Vision ....................................................12 Constraints to the Vision .....................................................................................14 Land Use Categories ............................................................................................15 Vision Map ...........................................................................................................16 Design Standards ................................................................................................18 Chapter 3 Implementation ...........................................30 Critical Path Implementation Items ....................................................................32 Additional Implementation Items ........................................................................34 Chapter 4 The Toolkit ....................................................36 Using the Toolkit ..................................................................................................38 Land Preservation Tools .......................................................................................40 Financial Implementation Tools ..........................................................................46 DRAFT Appendix A Existing Conditions Appendix B Public Input Appendix C Constraints Analysis Appendix D Full Financial Analysis Appendix E Major Streets Plan Amendment DRAFT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6 Location The Northpoint Plan Area is located just north of Downtown Salt Lake City, near Farmington Bay and the Great Salt Lake. The Plan Area is bounded to the east by Interstate 215 and is comprised of mainly agricultural, industrial and residential uses. Northpoint lies within the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, adjacent to vital environmental resources including the Jordan River and playas and wetlands associated with the Great Salt Lake. Over half of the property in Northpoint is currently under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County and consists of agricultural uses, business park development, industrial and commercial zoning. Environmental considerations greatly influence the future growth and development of the area. Directly south of Northpoint is Salt Lake City International Airport, which provides opportunities for and constraints to the potential development within Northpoint. The airport continues to expand through ongoing renovations and is currently being guided by the 2022 Salt Lake International Airport Master Plan. Its proximity is a defining factor of the Plan Area. Northpoint is also adjacent to several recreational areas including the Wasatch Mountain Range, with its many trails, the Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, and the Salt Lake City Regional Athletic Complex. Introduction Overview Graphic 1.1 | Northpoint Plan Area DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 7 Esri,H ERE,Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMapc ontributors,andt he GISu serc ommunity Jurisdiction Plan Context and Purpose In 2000, a Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted with goals to eliminate potential land use conflicts between the Salt Lake International Airport, future development, and the existing agricultural lifestyle. Other notable planning efforts for this region include the 1992 Northwest and the Jordan River/Airport Plan which address the Northpoint Plan Area, the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Jordan River, the Salt Lake Airport, and surrounding land; the 2020 Blueprint Jordan River Plan which illustrates a cohesive vision for the River as it stretches through multiple jurisdictions; the 2021 Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan; and the 2021 Salt Lake County West General Plan. The northwest portion of Salt Lake City is limited by multiple layers of constraints, mostly environmental, but also due to airport activity, connectivity, and social equity issues. It is one of the largest growth areas for the City, but quite possibly, the most difficult to develop. This Plan addresses the natural environment, built environment, and community attributes. Many factors contribute to constraints facing the area, however many attributes act as opportunities. The Northpoint Small Area Plan Update is a response to the rapid pace of growth and change in the northwest portion of Salt Lake City and the anticipated new business park and light industrial uses in the area. The key goals of this Plan are to: »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the plan area. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Graphic 1.2 | Northpoint Jurisdictions Salt Lake City Salt Lake County DRAFT 8 Guide to This Plan Plan Salt Lake Northpoint Small Area Plan Land Use Code and Zoning Ordinances Design Standards Incentives Tools and Actions Introduction This document is intended to support Salt Lake City’s overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake while also providing tailored tools to help the Plan Area grow appropriately. Once the Northpoint Small Area Plan is adopted, its supplemental recommendations will guide applicants to develop within the scope of the Community’s Vision. This plan should be referenced when discretionary land use decisions are being made. These recommendations include, design standards, land acquisition tools, regulatory tools, and incentive based tools. Master plans detail the vision, policy, and framework of the community that will guide growth and development over time. As the plan area transitions from greenfield and rural residential to industrial and business park, this plan outlines specific design standards and action steps the City can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 9 Public Process This planning process included one- on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and City and ounty staff, a public open house, two public questionnaires, and a property owner- specific questionnaire. With several applications active in the Plan Area at the time this project started, it became apparent early on that habitat preservation and residential quality of life were primary concerns. This shaped the Plan, shifting focus from land use recommendations to tools available to the City to preserve habitat, mitigate impacts of new development on residents, water and air quality, and wildlife, and determine appropriate improvements to existing infrastructure. 195 820 DRAFT 10 Executive Summary The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a detailed master plan for the Northwestern Community of Salt Lake City. The Plan Area contains large amounts of underdeveloped land, nestled between wetlands from the Great Salt Lake to the west and urban growth to the east. Additionally, parts of the Plan Area are fragmented with unincorporated County land and airport-owned property. A clear plan is needed to address the development pressures in the Plan Area, which continue to increase despite natural constraints. The Northpoint Small Area Plan aims to guide future development based on the previously adopted community plans and future land uses that the City has identified as appropriate to the area. While many property owners intend to retain their property as agricultural land, redevelopment and new development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial and manufacturing. The Plan contains three elements to guide growth into the future: Vision Map The Northpoint area has experienced growth that can conflict; industrial development adjacent to agriculture and residential uses, and developments adjacent to or abutting critical habitat areas (i.e. wetlands and upland). Industrial development has begun, and is expected to continue, to creep into this area of Salt Lake City. Understanding this reality, the Northpoint Vision is to balance the anticipated growth of light industrial and manufacturing uses with the existing and continued residential and agricultural uses of the area. This will be accomplished through outlining mitigation strategies for high-impact development directed at preserving quality of life for residents and the natural environment. Design Standards The design standards are directly connected to the anticipated future development in the area. Building and site design have the ability to affect built environments in impactful ways. When applied with a clear vision in mind, design standards can shape development that reduces visual and physical land use conflicts. The standards touch on each land use designation and provide clear direction as to how the area should be built. Although the standards are separately outlined in the plan, they are implied to be implemented with the other action items. Implementation What separates the plan from a design standards manual, is the comprehensive action items that are addressed in the implementation chapter. The action items range from strategies to best preserve open space and critical habitats, recommends further study for service and infrastructure needs, annexation of unincorporated properties within the Plan Area, and funding tools that will help the Plan Area grow responsibly. These elements can be applied to the area as a whole and provide different initiatives aside from traditional zoning regulation guidance. There are three action items identified as “critical path”, being the most critical to complete once this plan is adopted. These action items are: »Services and Infrastructure | Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W »Built Environment and Design | Adopt Development Code Updates and Codify the Design Standards Herein »Natural Environment and Preservation | Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 11 Goals of this Plan »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Vision Map Categories See more on page 16 Key Design Standards See more on page 20 Critical Implementation See more on page 32 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Areas where development is limited to passive recreational amenities TRANSITIONAL Areas that are currently residential. New development will be subject to impact mitigation measures BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL Areas anticipated to develop as Business Park and Light Industrial AIRPORT Areas owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport Limit maximum building frontage along 2200 W Maintain buffers between new development and existing wetlands, canals, drains, and the Jordan River Maintain a 65-foot buffer between new development and existing residential Allow clustering of buildings to maximize buffers Emphasize appropriate building materials and encourage native landscaping Services and Infrastructure Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 W and construct 2900 W Built Environment and Design Create a Northpoint specific development code and codify the Design Standards Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring sensitive lands as city-owned open space How Will We Get There?DRAFT CHAPTER 2 THE VISION 14 Constraints to the Vision As discussed in Chapter 1, the Plan Area consists of several development constraints ranging from sensitive wetland habitat to airport influence zone regulations. Mapping these constraints is a crucial first step in determining the areas most suitable for new development and identifying areas that should be preserved as habitat and open space. The Constraints Map illustrates the results of this analysis and may be used to prioritize sensitive lands for preservation or acquisition. For a detailed analysis of development constraints and opportunities used in this analysis, see Appendix C. Constraints reviewed in this analysis included: »Designated Wetlands »Salt Lake City International Airport-Owned Properties »Utility and Open Space Easements »Airport Influence Zones (A, B, C) »Viable Agriculture »Airport Noise Contours Using the Vision Map and Design Standards The Vision Map in this chapter is intended to show where additional standards are necessary to ensure future development is compatible with existing residential, agricultural, and sensitive habitats. To use this chapter, review the Vision Map and accompanying Design Standards. It is intended that the following design standards be incorporated into Salt Lake City Zoning and Development Code to apply to new development in the Plan Area. The Northpoint Vision Overview Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ¯ Most suitable for development Least suitable for development NORTHPOINT CONSTRAINTS MAP Graphic 2.1 | Constraints Analysis for Northpoint DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 15 Natural Open Space Purpose: Natural Open Space areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. The Natural Open Space district aims to connect critical habitats in the least fragmented way possible considering development trends in the Plan Area. Applicability: These areas include designated wetlands, uplands, existing recreational amenities, and areas connecting them. All designated wetlands, uplands, and other sensitive lands fall under the Natural Open Space district. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, trailheads, and small parking areas to serve recreational uses. Adjacent land uses will be subject to mitigation. Transitional Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the impacts of Business Park/Industrial development on residential and agricultural properties. Applicability: New development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial with a focus on manufacturing land uses. There are no properties in the Plan Area that are identified for new residential development. Use Standards: Residential properties shall be subject to natural habitat impact mitigation standards such as buffering critical areas from all development. Should any residential properties transition to BP/Industrial, all BP/Industrial standards will apply. Business Park/Industrial Purpose: Business and light industrial development is anticipated in the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area will convert to light industrial, manufacturing, or business properties. Applicability: The BP/I district applies to properties that do not contain significant constraints such as wetlands, uplands, existing residential, or other major limitations. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be reviewed closely for impact to existing residents and sensitive lands and may require additional mitigation designs focused on protecting the natural environment and quality of life of existing residents. Airport Purpose: These areas are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport, though there are no plans currently to develop these areas. Applicability: The Airport district applies to properties that are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport. Use Standards: Development in these areas should be limited to passive recreational opportunities, natural open space, and utility and infrastructure needed for the Salt Lake International Airport. Land Use Categories DRAFT 16 Protected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland* Natural Open Space Business Park / Industrial Transitional Land UsesProtected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Airport *Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Vision Map is intended as a general guide for wetland areas, but specific wetland delineation should be done when land is developed. Identification of wetlands primarily involves the determination of three factors: the predominance of wetland vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and signs of hydrology. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 17 Without Design Standards With Design Standards Smaller buildings facing existing residential and major roadways, largest buildings in the middle of development. Greater attention to building design (i.e. building materials, lighting, landscaping, etc.). Allow clustering of buildings in favor of preserving connected habitat and critical open space. No restrictions on building size near/facing existing residential. Typical industrial development styles can disturb natural habitat with disruptive materials, lighting, hazardous landscaping and fencing, etc. Minimum lot sizes and open space requirements force buildings to be oriented in an inefficient way, taking up more native land than needed. EFFECT OF DESIGN STANDARDS DRAFT 18 Design Standards Land Use Business Park/ Industrial Transitional Minimum Setback of New Development Designated Wetlands up to 300 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Canals and Drains 75 ft 75 ft Jordan River 100 ft1, 2 75 ft1, 2 Existing Residential 65 ft 65 ft Maximum Continuous Building Frontage on 2200 W 400 ft 250 ft 1 | Should preserve uninterrupted connection between wetlands and uplands 2 | Should include and maintain a planted stormwater mitigation element such as a bioswale Setbacks and Buffers Buffers and setbacks are intended to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and provide important habitats for wildlife that utilize buffer areas. While setbacks shown in this document are intended to extend from the natural feature (i.e., designated wetland or canal) to any impervious built surface of new development (i.e., sidewalks, parking lots), specific details will be determined when the setback is adopted into code. Setbacks from natural features may include landscaping and stormwater management. Required setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential are intended to extend from new structure to existing residential structure(s). Setbacks from residential structures may include sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A maximum building length along 2200 West is recommended to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial development on longstanding agricultural and residential uses, as well as maintain habitat connections. Smaller setbacks in the transition area are intended to allow flexibility for residential development under the existing zoning. As development intensity increases with the development of business park or light industrial land uses, the greater setbacks apply. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 19 Preferred Buffer for Development Adjacent to Wetlands/Uplands * When buffer is applied during development of a property the City must consider the potential for a regulatory taking of property. DRAFT 20 Design Standards 1 | Habitat Mitigation Standards 1.1 | Grading Limitations Considering limitations to grading can help minimize impacts to native vegetation. It is important for only areas planned for development to be cleared and graded as it can allow for natural drainage courses to be maintained and reduces the need to manage stormwater flows. ◊ Soil cover or ramps shall be included to allow for movement of wildlife through the drainages. ◊ Excavation methods such as installation of underdrains should be considered. ◊ Vertical drop structures and concrete lined channels should be avoided. ◊ Use of large angular rip-rap for erosion control should be limited. ◊ Non-structural features that also provide riparian habitat should be considered. ◊ Where possible, development should relate the building to the natural site by stepping buildings and avoiding mass leveling of the site. 1.2 | Fencing and Walls Fences and walls can be barriers to wildlife and impede the movement of wildlife between habitat areas. Although fencing can be used to exclude wildlife, it should be applied in very specific areas that do not restrict larger wildlife movement and migration patterns or access to food, water, shelter, or potential mates. ◊ Fencing shall be permeable to allow for the safe passage of animals and facilitate wildlife movement through existing or constructed wildlife corridors. ◊ Natural barriers for privacy purposes shall consist of natural materials where possible, such as boulders, densely-planted vegetation, or rip-rap. ◊ Decorative fencing features that could be hazardous to wildlife shall be prohibited including: »Pointed or narrow extensions at the top of fences. »Wires that may entangle animals. »Hollow fence posts that are open at the top when birds or other small animals may become entrapped in an open cavity. Standards for All New Development Graphic 2.3 | Native Landscaping DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 21 1.3 | Dark Sky Lighting Lighting is an important element in built environments that allows for a perceived sense of safety at night. However, without appropriate design and placement, outdoor light fixtures can sometimes be inefficient. Outdoor lighting in the Plan Area should be designed in a way that benefits the built environment without negatively impacting the natural environment. Artificial lighting can disrupt wildlife’s natural patterns and behaviors. Graphic 2.4 | Dark Sky Friendly Lighting ◊ Lighting in non-functional spaces is prohibited (i.e. architectural and landscape lighting is not necessary for function of built environments). ◊ Light fixtures with motion or heat sensor may be used to keep lights off when lighting is not required. ◊ Lighting should consist of International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved fixtures. ◊ Electronic message centers (EMC) shall be switched off completely after 11pm (or 30 minutes after the close of business for on-premises signs, whichever is later), and remain off until one hour before sunrise. ◊ EMCs applications for traffic and safety information shall be exempt from curfew. ◊ Light fixtures shall be selectively placed and fully shielded (i.e. light shall only be emitted downward and not above an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the light source). ◊ Lights shall be directed away from natural areas. ◊ Lighting shall use timers to automatically turnoff outside of hours of operation. ◊ Outdoor lighting shall be a color temperature of 3,000 kelvin or less.DRAFT 22 Design Standards 2 | Water Conscious Development 2.1 | Landscaping Regulating native species in landscape design can lead to low-maintenance and water-wise environments that reflect the natural environment in the built environment. Additionally, habitat value can be increased when landscaping isn’t overly manicured. However, weeds and invasive species should be controlled so that they do not compete with native species for necessary water and nutrients. ◊ Landscaped areas shall follow Low Impact Develpoment (LID) principles. ◊ Landscaping shall consist of native, adaptive, and drought-tolerant plantings. ◊ New construction shall follow the Salt Lake City Tree Protection and Preservation Policy. ◊ Landscaping shall not require modifications to the native soil. ◊ Minimize irrigated landscape areas and utilize naturalized swales. ◊ Fertilizers and herbicides shall be prohibited. ◊ Development adjacent to wetlands and uplands shall adhere to the buffer requirements herein and include on-site stormwater management. Graphic 2.5 | Stormwater Runoff Design 2.2 | Stormwater Management As undeveloped land becomes developed with hard surface materials, loss of permeable surfaces will have a direct affect on stormwater runoff. It is essential to avoid stormwater contact with industrial materials and activities and to avoid point-source pollution and degradation of the wetlands, uplands, and other natural habitat. There are comprehensive best management practice guides that can help applicant navigate the best solution for the specific use. ◊ Significant new development resulting in a change of land use shall include environmental impact mitigation measures and align them with current executive orders and master plans. ◊ Embankments and spillways shall be designed and approved by engineers that specialize in stormwater management and ecologically friendly design. ◊ Stormwater systems shall not diminish water flow to wetlands. ◊ Sedimentation systems may be used. »Sediment systems are more efficient with pollutants associated with metals, organic compounds, and other oxygen-demanding substances. There are limitations with sediment systems as small particles do not always settle therefore the substances in the industrial stormwater discharge should be evaluated prior to implementation. ◊ Detention ponds may be utilized with an underdrain to outlet to allow water to slowly release into proper stormwater systems. ◊ Retention ponds may be utilized to regularly contain water on site and via infiltration. ◊ Infiltration systems may be utilized to capture and infiltrate runoff in order to reduce runoff volume. »i.e. Infiltration Trenches, basins, bio-retention systems and underground infiltration tanks. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 23 Graphic 2.9 | Porous Surface Street Edge Graphic 2.8 | Native Landscaping Graphic 2.7 | Bioswale Graphic 2.6 | Bioswale 3 | Airport Conflict Mitigation Aviation adjacent to the Plan Area has been around for many years. Similarly to the rest of Salt Lake Valley, the Airport, too, has grown and anticipates further growth into the future. It is important to account for current and future impacts. 3.1 | Noise Regulation programs like Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise, should be implemented on airport owned properties as to mitigate the impacts of noise. This program was established by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and sets forth the measure that a specific airport operator has taken to reduce the impacts of noise. 3.2 | Land Use Compatibility Local land use planning such as this plan can better prepare for the implications of planning around airports, and other airport- related development. Land use decisions around the airport properties should account for the impacts and determine whether the proposed use is appropriate. This can be hindered when multiple jurisdictions regulate the surrounding lands, however, there are tools such as annexation to consolidate regulatory authority and ensure that only appropriate land use decisions are made.DRAFT 24 Graphic 2.10 | Natural Design Elements Graphic 2.11| Natural Building Materials Graphic 2.12 | Interior Courtyard 4 | Visual Design Conscious design can help enhance compatibility between various uses and ensure that development fits in with the surrounding natural environment as best as possible. ◊ Units (and open space required by code) shall be organized or “clustered” in an efficient manner on properties where doing so will allow for larger habitat buffers. ◊ Building frontages along 2200 W shall not exceed 400 ft in length. ◊ Uninterrupted horizontal expanses of 100 ft in length of any opaque material, including opaque glass, shall be prohibited on building frontages visible from public streets. ◊ Natural building materials, colors, and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features shall be included in the exterior of buildings to mitigate the contrast of the built and natural environment. ◊ Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. ◊ Mechanical systems/equipment shall be shielded with barriers such as foliage and fences. ◊ Common design elements shall be included in Business Park-zoned development. »Designs should have a variety of unit sizes to accommodate different uses and the structural layout should also allow for flexibility.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 25 Standards for Transitional Areas Development within Transitional Areas will be held to the standards previously mentioned with the following additional standards. 1 | Industrial Land Use Mitigation As industrial developments increase in the Plan Area, it is essential to recognize the compatibility issues associated with industrial land uses and be able to mitigate issues through building and site design. Industrial developments intrinsically contain issues with noise, odor, dust, traffic, light, air quality, and visual/design elements, therefore mitigation is necessary. 1.1 | Noise Industrial uses can have implications on noise that can affect adjacent land uses and also the natural environment. Noise can be classified into two different types: airborne and structure borne. Airborne is from the source to the receiver and can travel in all directions whereas structure-borne is vibrations through materials. Regardless of noise type, mitigation efforts should be in place prior, during, and after development. The following strategies are ways to mitigate the unwanted and unnecessary noise impacts due to industrial development. ◊ Noise impacts shall be mitigated by absorption, barriers, and/or damping. »Absorption works towards dissipating airborne acoustic sound waves. The best sound-absorbing materials are acoustic foam, fabric panels, or underlayment. Common building materials do not absorb most sound whereas softer materials, such as carpet, foam padding, and fiberglass insulation are more efficient in dissipating noise. »Physical barriers such as a berm or spatial separation that account for height, distance, thickness, and material type can contribute to the extent of mitigation. »Damping reduces acoustic vibration within a structure or wall. ◊ Building masses such as U or L shaped forms are preferred as they can contribute to noise mitigation through spatial separation. ◊ Interior courtyards or garden spaces should be incorporated as they can be an effective noise mitigation strategy by providing quiet and light-filled spaces. ◊ Vegetation should be high and dense when used for noise mitigation for significant effectiveness. ◊ Air-conditioning units should be substituted for pressurized plenum space where possible. A plenum is a separate interior space provided for air circulation for heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning. Graphic 2.13 | Existing Residential in the Plan AreaDRAFT 26 Design Standards 1.2 | Odor Unlike other externalities of industrial uses, odor can be difficult to measure due to its subjective nature. However, there are some measures that can be taken to address the duration, frequency, intensity, and location of noxious odors. ◊ Mitigating odor should start at the source of the emitter, such as food operations, traffic emissions, chemical facilities, mechanical equipment pollution, and material handling. Operational and engineering best practices can mitigate odors prior to being released in the environment. ◊ If emissions cannot be prevented, various solutions can be applied such as: »Plantings and trees to absorb and mask unpleasant smells as well as act as visual screening. Additionally, plantings can act as ozone generator which eliminates odorous substances through oxidation and are low maintenance. (Odor mitigation foliage include field maples, peace lily, serviceberry, sansevieria). »Dispersion to reduce consolidated emissions. Dispersion can look like increased separation between odor source and receivers to allow for dilution or contain the dispersion in an enclosure to prevent odors dispersing. »Location of open tanks and storage piles. Limit the presence of smells such as locating open tanks and storage piles away from residential and high-occupancy areas. »Structure design elements. The operability and placement of windows and doors can also prevent intrusion of odors. 1.3 | Air Quality Encouraging and supporting occupants that engage in sustainable processes and produce minimal emissions is the most effective way to mitigate air quality issues. In circumstances where this is unavoidable, exhausting air with ventilation can be effective and dilution can be used to mitigate the impacts ventilation can have on the surroundings. ◊ Apply in-room air cleaners and vegetation barriers to help mitigate localized air pollution. ◊ Use air filters and electronic air cleaners such as ionizers in duct-mounted and portable cleaners. »i.e. activated carbon is an adsorbent media air filter. ◊ Green roofs may be incorporated to address on-site and off-site disturbances. ◊ Extensive venting should be used when possible. ◊ Operable windows should be used to provide direct ventilation where they do not conflict with noise mitigation strategies. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 27 1.4 | Traffic and Loading Industrial development brings different vehicular traffic expectations. The challenge lies in balancing street level, building, and occupant needs. It is essential that industrial land uses contain loading and unloading infrastructure as the traffic associated with the use can have compatibility issues with adjacent non-industrial uses. Certain elements such as parking, loading bays, elevators, access points, noise, and aesthetic can have implications on the area. Establishing design standards can allow for the mitigation of incompatibilities between the movement of people, vehicles, and goods. ◊ Spatial Separation: Land uses that produce heavier traffic scenarios shall be placed away from residential units. ◊ Vertical Stacking: Flat-roof style structures may be implemented for upper-floor parking and loading. ◊ Access: Access shall be allowed from more than one side of a site to allow for better separation of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle access to reduce the risk of collisions and large distribution vehicles. ◊ Laneways: Laneways shall be sensitive to pedestrian spaces by carving out walkable space in the building mass. This includes vegetation, dark sky-friendly lighting, and amenities for pedestrian use. ◊ Shared lobbies: Mixed-use buildings (including industrial and/or office spaces) may require shared lobbies to foster community and interaction among tenants. »It is important to ensure that there are not substantial conflicts between uses that have safety implications. ◊ Location: Additional considerations for industrial and non-industrial compatibilities includes proximity to future public transit which can reduce parking demands and activate streets for more complete neighborhoods. These locations should be evaluated if public transit plans are implemented in the Plan Area. Graphic 2.14 | SLC Air Quality DRAFT 28 Design Standards Standards for Natural Open Space Natural open space consists of critical habitat, regionally significant agriculture, and connecting open spaces. Development in these areas is restricted to passive recreational amenities. 1 | Wetland Design Standards 1.1 | Planting Wetlands are home to very beneficial habitats that can support carbon sequestration and improve water quality. As development increases, mitigating the impacts on wetlands is essential for the area. Plant species is an example of a simple design standard that can be incorporated into properties in a close proximity to this critical habitat. ◊ Encouraging and/or requiring native plant species can promote healthy wetland habitat in the face of increasing development. ◊ Non-native/invasive species mitigation: Upkeep of vegetated areas should be a continuous effort of property owners. This includes proper management of invasive and non-native plant species that may have a negative impact on the natural wetland habitat. »Utilizing natural mitigation techniques should be encouraged as to avoid run-off from herbicide and pesticide product. Graphic 2.15 | Outdoor Pavilion Graphic 2.16 | Natural Landscaping Graphic 2.17 | Nature-Inspired Design Graphic 2.18 | Birds at the Great Salt Lake Graphic 2.19 | Education Center DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 29 1.2 | Trails and Boardwalks Integrating boardwalks and trails adjacent and into wetlands can provide educational and leisure activities for the community in and beyond the Plan Area. Access to these critical areas must be designed in a way that protects the natural habitat while also providing experiences that are otherwise experienced by only a few individuals. It is important to take inventory of the wetland and partner with ecologists before implementing a trail system. ◊ Working group: Educational and recreational programming is a welcomed amenity, however, start up can be difficult without willing partners and active volunteers. Establishing a working group can help implement a well-rounded, comprehensive wetland program. ◊ Trail Kiosk and Parking: Integrating educational and recreational opportunities with the wetlands can benefit those beyond the Plan Area. Therefore, establishing a trail kiosk and parking area will provide more convenient access to this amenity area. ◊ Connectivity: Connecting the wetlands to the upland environment can help the user experience the relationship between the two environments. ◊ Signage: Creating a recognizable sign program can help users identify the trails and remain on trail. The program can also include interpretive signage that indicates points of interest, or educational information about the wetlands and uplands. ◊ Trail type: It is important to evaluate what type of trails are appropriate in and around the wetland to mitigate the impacts on the natural environment. Purposeful design can also help mitigate unnecessary costs for development and maintenance. »Trails rather than boardwalks are appropriate in areas where there is raised ground through the wetland or around the wetland. Soft-surface trails require little investment. »Boardwalks are needed where adjacent lands are flat (vegetation is tall) and allows for the ground beneath to remain somewhat natural. Graphic 2.23 | Wildlife Viewing and Fishing Access Graphic 2.22 | Informational Signage Graphic 2.21 | Boardwalk-Style Trail Graphic 2.20 | Natural Multiuse Trail DRAFT CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION 32 Implementing the Vision Implementation refers to the actions Salt Lake City should take to ensure the Plan Area develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. The most time-sensitive implementation actions are included as critical path items. Following the critical path items is a list of additional action items recommended to achieve the vision of this Plan. A critical element in planning for any area is considering water sources and needs. Any development in this area must adhere to Salt Lake City water-related plans and policies. Critical Path Items Critical path items are actions that should be abided by the City prior to and as development occurs. Each critical path item will fall into at least one of the following categories: built environment/design, services and infrastructure, and natural environment/preservation. These categories were identified throughout the planning process and are integrated into the various sections of the Plan. The following items are classified as an immediate need, as development pressures area already present in the Plan Area. Services and Infrastructure Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Various City Departments 2900 W is intended to be developed with the Scannell-Swaner Subdivision and will serve as an additional major arterial road in this Plan Area. The redevelopment of 2200 W and the construction of 2900 W should consider increased vehicle volumes and incorporate pedestrian and biking infrastructure. Below is a list of potential funding opportunities for this action. For a detailed analysis of these tools and their applicability in the Plan Area, see the Financial Implementation Analysis in Appendix D. »Tax Increment Areas »Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) »Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) »Impact Fees »Municipal Energy Tax Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There has been a large amount of support for the preservation of open space in the Plan Area, as it serves as a cultural and historical landmark for the region and critical habitat for wildlife. Acquiring and preserving available open space in this area for passive recreation is a high priority. Land adjacent to the Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 West should be a high priority for preservation. For a list of recommended land acquisition tools, see Chapter 4. Implementation Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 33 Built Environment/Design Adopt Development Code Updates Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There are several zoning designations within the Plan Area including Light Manufacturing (M- 1), Business Park (BP), and Agricultural/Rural Residential (AG-2, AG-5, and Salt Lake County A-2). Although some properties will likely remain agricultural or rural residential, it is anticipated that this area will slowly redevelop into primarily light manufacturing with some preserved open space areas. General Development Code Updates The simplest way to encourage development consistent with the City’s vision for the Plan Area is to adopt minor edits to these zoning categories. While the City Council may eventually adopt an overlay for the Plan Area, the following Zoning Code updates are “low-hanging fruit” the City can quickly implement. »Review landscape requirements to prohibit turf lawns and encourage native plantings in keeping with wetland preservation, particularly in interface areas. »Consider a reduction in minimum lot size if clustering for preservation areas. »Reconsider setbacks in the zoning code if preserving native habitat, allow more flexibility of the building envelope. »In the BP zone, eliminate the requirement of an agricultural buffer in favor of an environmental buffer (keep residential proximity protections when agriculture is a residential use). »Amend the Riparian Corridor Overlay zone to include wetland protection buffers. »Amend the Lowland Conservancy Overlay zone to include canals and drains in the Plan Area. Northpoint Specific Development Code The preferred approach to implement the vision for the Plan Area is a Northpoint-specific development code. A Northpoint-specific code should include: »Adopting the Design Standards from Chapter 2 of this document, which includes the recommended setbacks and buffer areas, landscape requirements, building materials and design standards, etc. »Incentive-based tools for preserving open and sensitive lands, such as allowing an increase in the maximum building façade length if preserving a larger amount of open space or buffer area than required. DRAFT 34 Create a local area utility plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Require a local area utility plan to determine future Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) service availability and to ensure utility services can be provided based on the anticipated future land use associated with new development. City policy is that upon the development of a property, the developer will be required to identify and provide all utilities necessary to serve their development, including water, sewer, and stormwater. A local area utility plan shall be provided to SLCDPU for review to support any development application, to ensure adequate service availability, and to identify impacts on existing systems. Amend the Major Streets Plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Transportation Division Amend the Major Streets Plan to reflect the removal of 3200 W as a major road. While shown as a local road on the proposed amended map, it is anticipated that 3200 W will remain an unimproved dirt road and barrier for adjacent wetlands to the west. New development should be prohibited from facing 3200 West. Additionally, the amended map includes the proposed roadway alignment of 2900 W and the realignment of 2100 North to access the airport. See Appendix E for the recommended amendments. Develop environmental impact standards and align them with current executive orders and master plans. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department Create standards for new development that mitigate the impact of said development on nearby habitat and sensitive areas. These standards may include elements such as water saving best practices, dark sky ordinances, landscaping requirements, etc. Additional Implementation Items The following list includes recommended key action items to achieve the vision for the Northpoint Plan Area. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 35 Require a buffer of at least 75 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem and impact to this habitat area by new development should be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring there is an adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies up to a 300 foot buffer from wetland areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay Zone or a new Northpoint specific development code. In developing the updated code, the City should consider identifying priority wetland areas and applying the maximum buffer to the highest priority wetlands. Reduced buffer widths may be appropriate based on the condition, function, and goal of the specific wetland buffer. Additionally, the City should allow flexibility of wetland buffers through incentive based tools. For example, the buffer width could be reduced through mitigation measures that include native vegetation restoration. Coordinate with Salt Lake County to provide efficient police and fire services in the Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: City Council To provide adequate emergency services to this area, the development of a joint Police/Fire station may be required in the Plan Area. Coordinate with the Police and Fire Department to acquire funding and land in the Plan Area for a new shared facility. Support the annexation of contiguous parcels within the Plan Area. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The City supports the annexation of contiguous parcels in this Plan Area for future development and redevelopment. DRAFT CHAPTER 4 TOOLKIT 38 Using the Toolkit The Northpoint Small Area Master Plan process spanned fifteen months and included one-on-one interviews, workshops, and other public events. As expressed by project participants, key desired outcomes for the future of the Plan Area include: »Create a program to support a variety of incentives to maintain or improve property values while preserving open space. »Identify a future land use plan that allows industrial and business development while maintaining quality of life for existing residential areas and preserving natural habitat. »Locate future development in a manner that can support the efficient provision of city services. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce impacts to the environmental features and wildlife habitat associated with the Great Salt Lake. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. »Recommend tools to acquire and/or preserve open space. »Recommend strategies to improve traffic flow and safety on 2200 W. These desired outcomes suggest that while development in the Plan Area is in high demand, policies and strategies need to ensure that development is designed and arranged in a manner that respects the area’s sensitive landscape. Toolkit Overview DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 39 A variety of tools have been developed to protect natural open space and locate, configure, and design new development in a manner that protects both existing habitat and natural open spaces. The preservation tools described and analyzed in this Chapter represent existing and potential strategies for the protection of habitat and open space in the Plan Area. Tools have been categorized as regulatory, incentive, or land acquisition. This is not an all-inclusive listing of tools, but an inventory that details each potential tool, and provides examples. In addition to land preservation tools, this chapter covers financial tools available to fund improvements to or reconstruction of 2900 W. The benefits and limitations of each tool have been compiled from a number of sources, including university research, other localities’ experiences, practical knowledge, and reports by individuals who have made their own evaluations. The implementation tools presented in this Chapter constitute a menu of options that can be considered to achieve the objectives of this Plan.DRAFT 40 Land Preservation Tools Regulatory based tools may be used to protect sensitive lands and agricultural areas within the Plan Area. These tools could be implemented by Salt Lake City through adoption of new zoning and subdivision ordinances. Development Code Updates Code updates establish supplemental land development requirements within a specific area requiring special attention, such as an environmentally sensitive area. Clustering of Lots and Open Space/Cluster Development Clustering is defined as a development pattern typically for residential use, in which homes are grouped together rather than evenly dispersed over the land as in a conventional development. Benefits Limitations »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in design for developers »Can apply to multiple areas within a city »Time and cost effective »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures Benefits Limitations »Protects the natural resources of an area »Creates wider wildlife buffers »Creates opportunity for greater profits by consolidating required open space into larger, more impactful sizes »Reduces impact of development on watersheds »Reduces cost to provide municipal public services depending on how clustering is accomplished »Additional zoning requirements »Not a permanent solution to protect land from development pressures »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developersDRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 41 Special Standards and Design Guidelines Additional regulations in new development or redevelopment projects can include standards for elements like lighting, landscaping, building materials, noise, and landscape buffers. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Allows flexibility in site design while preserving area character and sensitive lands »Additional zoning requirements »May not be a mandatory tool; thus there may not be assurance that desired project designs will be implemented by developers »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce unless bonus criteria are clearly spelled out in an ordinance or policy document Sensitive Landscape Studies Studies can determine additional steps that should be taken to mitigate impact of new development to existing habitat. Benefits Limitations »Helps mitigate impacts of new development on existing habitat and wildlife »Easily implemented »Offers insight into specific site requirements for mitigation »Additional zoning requirements »Can be difficult for local officials to enforce because requirements and study results may vary based on specific sites of participants were in support of clustering lots and open space of participants were in support of development code updates of participants were in support of sensitive landscape studies of participants were in support of special standards 47% 30% 62% 37% Regulatory Based Tools DRAFT 42 Incentive Based Tools Conservation Easements Conservation easements are voluntary and legally binding agreements between a landowner (public or private) and a qualifying organization (also public or private), in which permanent limitations are placed on a property’s use and development. Conservation easements limit land to uses identified in the easement, and thus protect it from development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowners may receive income, estate, and/ or property tax benefits »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners »Since program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land or specific areas to be protected Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) TDRs are tools that establish areas within a community for preservation (sending zones), and additional growth (receiving zones). Sending zones can be areas of agricultural land, open space, or other properties important to preserve. Receiving zones are areas that the community has designated as appropriate for additional or increased development. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development pressures »Landowner is paid to protect their land »Local government can target locations effectively »Utilizes free market mechanisms »Land remains in private ownership and on tax rolls »Can be complex to administer »Receiving area must be willing to accept higher densities »Can be a difficult program to establish, especially in areas without city zoning »May require cooperative agreements among several local governments to establish sending and receiving zones Incentive based tools are voluntary and mostly based on the willingness of the landowner to sell title or an easement on their property. Where public access and use are desired, fee- simple ownership control is preferred through donation, purchase, or bargain sale of land to a government entity, conservation organization, or public charity. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 43 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) PDRs refer to the purchase of development rights on certain parcels of land by a unit of government or a non-profit entity. Once purchased, a conservation easement is placed on the property. Benefits Limitations »Permanently protects land from development »Landowner is paid to protect their land, while allowing for ongoing use »Local government can target desirable locations effectively »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Program is voluntary »Can be costly for local unit of government, therefore land is generally protected at a slower rate »Land remains in private ownership, typically with no public access »Because the program is voluntary, it can be challenging to preserve large tracts of contiguous land Preferred Development Sites Also known as priority or target development areas, these are locations that have been identified by a local government as favored for residential, commercial, and office growth based on adopted growth management policies and plans. Development can involve new construction, redevelopment, and/or adaptive reuse of buildings. Local governments may offer incentives, such as reduced fees or increased housing density to developments in these areas in order to make them more attractive to developers. Benefits Limitations »Land remains in private ownership and on the tax rolls »Local government can target locations effectively »Can be low cost to local unit of government »Can be a difficult program to establish and administer »Not a permanent solution, delays development in sensitive areas »Tax incentives may not provide enough compensation for many landowners of participants were in support of conservation easements of participants were in support of TDR Programs of participants were in support of PDR Programs of participants were in support of Preferred Development Sites 56% 30% 47% 25% DRAFT 44 Land Acquisition Tools Mutual Covenant A mutual covenant is an agreement between adjoining landowners to control future land uses through mutually agreed upon restrictions. Lease A lease is an agreement between agency and landowner to rent the land in order to protect and manage sensitive resources. Benefits Limitations »Permanent covenants can be enforced by any of the landowners or future landowners of the involved properties »Significant incentive to comply with restrictions, since all parties are aware of use controls »Can reduce property taxes »Loss in market value from mutual covenants does not qualify as a charitable deduction for income tax purposes »High cost Benefits Limitations »Low cost approach to site protection »Landowner receives income and retains control of property »An alternative for preservation-minded landowners not ready to commit to sale of permanent easement »Restrictions can be included in the lease to direct the activities of the conservation agency on the land »Short-term protection strategy »Leases are not permanent Acquisition and management of open space can be combined with regulatory measures to broaden the effectiveness of a preservation program. These tools preserve open space and their functions in the long-term. Although typically the most expensive solution, acquisition is the strongest and surest means of protection. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 45 Land Exchange Land exchange is the process by which land sought to be protected may be exchanged for another parcel that is more suitable for development Benefits Limitations »Lower acquisition costs »Scattered properties can be exchanged for a single, larger parcel »Complicated process »Not widely known and rarely used »Subject to IRS regulations »Property owners must be willing to participate, and properties must be of equal value »High cost Land Banking/Land Purchase Land banking occurs when land is purchased and reserved for later use or development. Land could be leased for immediate use (e.g. agriculture or athletic fields) or held for eventual resale with restrictions. The local government functions as a land trust. Benefits Limitations »Local government proactively identifies and purchases resource land »Lowers future preservation costs by working as a defense against future increases in land prices, speculation, and inappropriate development »High cost »Requires large upfront expenditures »Public agency must have staff to handle land trust functions of acquisition, management, lease, or resale of participants were in support of Lease Agreements of participants were in support of Mutual Covenants of participants were in support of Land Banking of participants were in support of Land Exchange 29% 31% 27% 38% DRAFT 46 Financial Tools Overview Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in the full Financial Implementation Report in Appendix D. This chapter contains with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. Market Analysis Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN). Based on vacant acreage in the Plan Area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates.DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 47 Financial Tool | Tax Increment Areas Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated Plan Area are split into two components: »(i)Base Revenues | The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and »(ii)Incremental Revenues | These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the Plan Area. If a Plan Area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the Plan Area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a Plan Area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the Plan Area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: »Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) »Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) »Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Plan Area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. DRAFT 48 Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of Plan Areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Plan Area” (CRA). Existing Plan Areas will be allowed to continue, but all new Plan Areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a Plan Area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the Plan Area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. »Relatively easy to create. »10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. »Flexible uses of funds. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 49 Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined Plan Area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. Benefits Limitations »Creates a new revenue stream. »Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. »Relatively easy to create. »Requires cooperation between at least two entities. »Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. »Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. »No affordable housing requirement. »Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. DRAFT 50 Tax Increment Bonds Tax Increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given Plan Area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted Plan Area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a Plan Area. »Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. »Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. »Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. »Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency. »Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types. »Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. »Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose. »Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 51 Financial Tool | Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Benefits Limitations »Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development. »Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. »Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. »Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. »Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally-allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. »Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. »Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs. »Ongoing PID governance »Can reduce the need for impact fees. »Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates »Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. »Cost is much lower than other development financing. DRAFT 52 Special Investment Areas (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. Benefits Limitations »Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond »Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment »No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created »Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator »Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance »The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA »Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge »Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 53 Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/ trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11- 36a which includes the following major steps. »Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee »Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee »Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing »Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Benefits Limitations »New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development »Adds additional costs to development »Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest »Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficienciesDRAFT APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS 56 Water and Air Quality Air Quality Salt Lake City is often faced with some of the worst air quality in the world. Major declines in air quality typically occur during the summer or winter due to the Salt Lake Valley’s unique geographical makeup and position. In the summer, wildfire smoke often travels east from California, Oregon, and the region’s mountain ranges adding to pollution from cars, industry, and other elements leading to harmful ozone levels. In the winter, close proximity to the Wasatch Mountains leads to temperature inversions in which cold air gets trapped under a layer of warm air, acting like a lid keeping pollutants from escaping. During the winter, air pollution sources are transportation (50%); area sources (e.g. gas stations, auto-body shops, etc.) (35%); and industry (15%). The Plan Area experiences these same seasonal issues with air quality, as well as consistent impacts due to proximity of both the Salt Lake City International Airport, and I-215. I-215 limits connectivity to residential neighborhoods and services in both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City. With few daily services, such as grocery stores, within the expanded area, residents contribute to higher trips and higher mile traveled, exacerbating air quality issues. Graphic 1.3 | Regional Air Quality | Source: AirNow.Gov Graphic 1.4 | SLC Air Quality | Source: Scott Winterton Deseret News Existing Conditions DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 57 Water and Wetlands The presence of wetlands adjacent to the Jordan River Delta and at the edge of the Great Salt Lake is the most pertinent environmental issue in the area. Roughly 75% of Utah’s wetlands surround the Great Salt Lake, providing environmental and socioeconomic benefit. The wetlands surrounding the Northpoint Subarea are part of an intricate and diverse ecosystem. Wetlands benefit the environment by acting as sponges to capture, store, and slowly release water, storm buffers, groundwater and aquifer recharge, and sediment traps. Wetlands also serve as critical habitat areas by providing food, shelter, and resting places. Wetland benefits extend to provide recreational and agricultural opportunities. Graphic 1.5 | Wetlands Surrounding Northpoint | Source: National Wetlands Inventory A portion of these wetlands are designated playas, categorized by their dry, hollowed-out form that fill with water during rainstorms and by underlying aquifers. The Great Salt Lake is the largest saltwater lake in the Northern Hemisphere, meaning as the playas fill and eventually evaporate, they leave large salt deposits behind. Freshwater forested and shrub wetlands are found adjacent to the area, and are typically associated with woody plants such as willows. The current historic high water elevation for the Great Salt Lake is 4,211 feet last reached in 1986, and causing dramatic flooding. As of November 2021, the Lake’s water level has dropped to the lowest in recorded history at 4,190 feet, likely due to the extreme drought conditions the state is facing. In response to the unpredictability of the Lake, most planning agencies identify the contour of 4,217 feet, as the limit of safe development. There are no sites within the Plan Area that fall below this elevation. DRAFT 58 Soil Types The soil types within Northpoint vary and provide considerations for the types of development that can be accommodated in the Plan Area. The soil types dominating the area are fine sandy loam, silt loam and silty clay loam. Most of these soils have a water table depth between zero and fifty inches and are subject to the effects of frost. These high water table depths affect drainage and compressibility which impact new development potential. In addition, the soil types that dominate the area can cause problems for septic systems and filter fields, making it harder to maintain water quality. Natural Environment Graphic 1.6 | Recreational and Natural Landmarks Near Northpoint Graphic 1.6 | Prime Agricultural Soil | Source: National Resource Conservation Service DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 59 Hazards The greater Salt Lake City area faces natural hazards that impact rate and location of development. As climate change continues to exacerbate extreme weather events, planning with these common hazards in mind can help maintain the safety and comfort of the community. Clean air and water supply are among the top concerns of Salt Lake residents. In August of 2021, Salt Lake City was ranked the worst air quality of any major city in the world by IQAir.com, prompting residents to take extra precautions. The Salt Lake County Health Department released tips to stay safe during extreme air conditions such as staying indoors with windows shut, avoiding exercise, and wearing masks outdoors. The area, along with many other parts of the state, is currently under exceptional drought conditions, with fire restrictions and irrigation allotment reductions in place. Salt Lake City also experiences threats of extreme heat, wildfire, debris flows, flooding and earthquakes. Graphic 1.7 | Utah Drought Conditions | Source: National Drought Mitigation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. Summer 2021 Drought Conditions The City of Salt Lake has proposed land use amendments to prevent large water users from being located within The City that may have a significant impact on The City’s water resources. The new limit for industrial and commercial land uses is 300,000 GPD (based on an annual average) of potable/culinary water. The limit applies to existing and new uses on a temporary basis until January 2022. DRAFT 60 Wildlife and Habitat The Great Salt Lake and surrounding wetlands are a crucial habitat for many species of animals. With 400,000 acres of wetlands, birds of regional and national importance are drawn to the area as a sanctuary for breeding and eating. Every year, millions of birds from 338 different species stop here to feed during migrations. Among the most common species observed in the Plan Area are the European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Northern Pintail, and Canada Goose. Although the Farmington Bay area is classified as freshwater, the northern-most regions of the Great Salt Lake can be composed of nearly 28% salt. This creates a wide diversity of habitats for many different plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and insects such as the Monarch Butterfly which is now on the endangered species list. European Starling DOMINANT BIRD TYPES IN NORTHPOINT Canada Goose. Red-winged Blackbird Yellow-headed Blackbird Northern Pintail DWR Bird Habitat Boundaries Graphic 1.8 | Dominant Bird Species in Northpoint Graphic 1.9 | Bird Habitat | Source: Department of Wildlife Resources GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 61 Organizations There are many organizations with interest in the Plan and surrounding areas, including the Duck Clubs, Salt Lake City International Airport, and Friends of the Great Salt Lake. The Friends of Great Salt Lake is a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and increase public awareness and appreciation. The Rudy Duck Club, founded in 1909 and named after the original land owner Frank Rudy, acquired land and associated water rights in the early 1900s to preserve the ecosystem for private duck hunting. Agriculture The top producing crops in Salt Lake City, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, are wheat, hay, vegetables, pumpkins, and sweet corn. Within the Plan Area, current residents also own a variety of livestock. The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within these lots there has been a pattern of subdividing larger lots into small lots for family members. There is a rich history of the agricultural lifestyle within Northpoint that the community desires to be preserved. According to the State Soil Conservation Service, the Plan Area contains prime farmland located north of 2800 North on the eastern side of 2200 West. Water Related Land Uses Graphic 1.10 | Water-Related Land Uses | Source: ESRI Living Atlas DRAFT 62 Built Environment Airport The Salt Lake International Airport, located just south of the Plan Area, is one of the busiest airports in North America. The airport is also a major hub for Delta airlines and provides approximately 370 flights per day from its location. As the airport inherently produces high noise volumes and air quality issues, it has a significant impact on the surrounding areas and determining appropriate land uses in Northpoint. The Salt Lake Airport recently adopted a new Master Planing process, the first since 1998, to provide guidelines for future airport development and to optimize existing facilities for future aviation demand and increase airport capacity. The resulting strategic vision illustrates locations for a third parallel runway and Concourse C which are not anticipated to be built within the next twenty years. The City has formally regulated the land uses surrounding the airport to protect the greater community and reduce negative impact. In 1971, zoning ordinances were adopted allowed within Northpoint and in 1983, the zoning ordinances were supplemented with regulations that prohibited incompatible uses like residential housing. Development Constraints Existing development within Northpoint experience consequences from their proximity to the airport and overhead flights. Some existing residences face increased risk for airplane crashes and high noise levels from the consistent flights. The Department of Airports recommends limiting the number of new residences allowed in Northpoint to reduce harm for the community in the future. The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) does not provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects located in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. As a result, this Plan considers alternative uses within those zones. The Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City own several parcels surrounding the airport that were purchased to preserve as undeveloped. This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area. Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NORTHPOINT BOUNDARY SLC Airport-Owned Parcels Graphic 1.11 | Parcels Owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport | Source: Assessors Parcel Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 63 including maximization of flight times between 7am and 10pm. It has also implemented adjusted flight routes in pursuit of reduced disruption. As residential uses should be limited in Northpoint because of these constraints, there are other uses and opportunities for development that are more compatible with the airport. Economic Contribution The Salt Lake City International Airport, is a key driver of the local and regional economy. Through protecting airport infrastructure and facilities from adjacent land uses that reduce or eliminate its ability to function at the highest capacity, the Salt Lake City International Airport can continue to act as an asset to the greater community. SLC Airport Noise Contours SLC Airport Protection Overlays Graphic 1.12 | SLC Airport Noise Contours | Source: SLC GIS Data Graphic 1.13 | SLC Airport Overlays | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 64 Land Use Industrial and Business Uses Within the Plan Area, there lies existing manufacturing zoning (M-1) that serves as a buffer between the airport and Interstate 215 (I-215). In July 2016, the City Council changed the zoning of properties located along 2200 W between 2100N and North Temple Street to Light Manufacturing (M-1) to implement area master plans and maximize economic development potential. Light Manufacturing (M-1) allows for light industrial uses that produce little to no impact on neighboring properties and results in a clean, attractive industrial setting. This use is compatible with the adjacent airport and is less impacted by the negative aspects of nearby I-215 than residential uses. The M-1 designation allows more types of business than the Business Park (BP) designations. The more significant differences between the two zoning districts are related to open space and building location requirements. The BP designation requires 15% open space, while M-1 requires no open space. M-1 also has reduced setback requirements. Approximately half of the Plan Area is designated BP. The intent of the BP designation is to provide an attractive environment for modern offices, light assembly and warehouse development, and to create employment and economic development opportunities in a campus-like setting. Graphic 1.14 | SLC and SLCo Zoning | Source: SLC, SLCo, and North Salt Lake GIS Data DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 65 Agricultural and Residential Uses The Plan Area contains several agricultural zones under both City and County jurisdiction, including Salt Lake City’s (SLC) AG-5 and AG-2, and Salt Lake County’s (SLCo) A-2 zone preserves agricultural uses on lots no less than two acres and, similarly, AG-5 provides for agricultural uses on no less than five acres. The A-2 zone allows for low-density residential and supporting agriculture as a conditional use, on a minimum lot size of one acre. Zone Minimum Lot Area Front Setback Primary Uses M-1 (SLC) 10,000 sq.ft.15 ft.Light Manufacturing BP (SLC) 20,000 sq.ft.30 ft.Business/ Office AG-2 (SLC)2 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family AG-5 (SLC)5 acres 30 ft.Agriculture/ Single-Family A-2 (SLCo)1 acre 30 ft.Single-Family Graphic 1.15 | Residential in the Plan Area DRAFT 66 Utilities Broadband The Plan Area is serviced by a mix of fixed wireless and wireline (cable, dsl and fiber)broadband internet. Within the census tract that Northpoint occupies, 10.60% of households are without internet access. The companies serving the area are Centurylink for local exchange, Rocky Mountain Power for electric utility territory and Dominion Energy for natural gas. The Utah Broadband Plan adopted in January 2020 set a goal to “Utilize best practices to encourage continued expansion of broadband deployment and increase speeds for everyone to 25 Mbps or better in communities throughout Utah”. The Plan Area currently has network speeds of 90.47/28.05 Mbps and its max advertised consumer download speeds are 10,000.00 Mbps. Active Building Permits and Recent Development There are currently a few active building permits within Northpoint that congregate along the 2200 W roadway and fall under the M-1 and BP zoning designations. A new development called Moonlake Farms has an active engineering permit and is among one of ten active permits for growing cannabis in Utah. There is also a new Industrial Building being built just north of the Sherwin Williams. Along the 2100N roadway, two new multi-tenant warehouse building have active permits as well. A key development proposal currently is the Swaner Subdivision, a 434-acre master planned development with about 5 million square feet of industrial on the C shaped parcel shown to the right currently zoned BP. This development would likely be cause for improvements on 2200 West to account for new increase in traffic. Another development conversation in this area is an proposed annexation petition for the land in the northeast section of the plan area. This proposed annexation was initiated by the landowners who wish to annex their land into Salt Lake City for the purpose of light industrial. A prior annexation conversation contemplated residential, however, that annexation was not pursued since Salt Lake City has determined that new residential would not be supported in the Plan Area. Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Ut a h I n l a n d Po r t A u t h o r i t y Proposed Swaner Subdivision Proposed North Salt Lake Annexation 22 0 0 W 2100 N 3200 N Graphic 1.16 | Active Applications DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 67 Industrial Wastewater The Salt Lake City Corporation’s pretreatment program oversees industrial wastewater discharged into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Industrial wastewater treatment, to reduce or eliminate conventional and toxic pollutants, prior to discharge into to the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) is required and regulated under the Clean Water Act. Salt Lake City is also undergoing redevelopment of its Water Reclamation Facility. The wastewater system will address new regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Utah’s Department of Water Quality to reduce pollution and transform aging infrastructures. The Water Reclamation Center is located about a mile to the east of Northpoint and is replacing the old structure, which was 55 years old. Service Areas The Salt Lake City Public Utilities service area covers most of Northpoint with the exception of a portion to the north, just south of the Jordan River and a portion on the southern boundary. The remaining area is considered unincorporated territory. Though there are few sewer lines to this area, development is encroaching from the southeast and slowly extending utilities with it. Many residential and agricultural properties in this area rely on septic sewer systems. Street Lighting Public Utilities within Salt Lake manages and maintains more than 15,000 street lights, including those in Northpoint. The few residences and commercial customers within the area support street lighting through a monthly user fee, included in the bill for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services. The initial capital improvement program for street lighting in 2012 included a metric of converting the City’s entire inventory to high-energy efficiency LED lamps by the end of 2021. The continuous lighting maps do not extend into the Plan Area likely due to the lack of development in the area and the irregular Salt Lake City boundary. Irrigation Canals There are several irrigation canals running through Northpoint that serve the greater Salt Lake City area. The Rudy Drain runs diagonally across the study area from its connection to the Greater Salt Lake in the upper northwest quadrant to the lower southeast quadrant. Running along the western boundary is the Salt Lake City Canal Sewage. The southern boundary has a Reclamation ditch just north of the international airport. Graphic 1.17 | Utilities in Northpoint | Source: SLC GIS Data DRAFT 68 Transportation The eastern edge of the Plan Area runs along I-215, which acts as the main transportation route for the larger area. As Northpoint currently has little development beyond a small portion of residential housing to the northwest and light industrial to the south, the transportation routes within the Plan Area consist mainly of gravel roads. 2200 W divides the area into clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. Recent development in the area has almost exclusively been, between the roadway and I-215. Other roads in the 2019 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts Plan Area include 3200W, a gravel road with minimal traffic that serves as the western boundary of the Plan Area, 3500N at the northern boundary, 2100N at the southern boundary, and several gravel and paved residential and commercial driveways. The main entries to the Plan Area are the exit from I-215 to 2100N from the south, and Center Street/3500N from the north. With increasing development pressure in the Plan Area, it will become increasingly important to make improvements to these interchanges and enhancements to 2200 W. Public Transportation The public transportation options that connect the Plan Area are limited. The 454 Green bus line extends to Airport Station on the south side of Salt Lake City International Airport but does not reach the Plan Area. The closest bus line to the area is the F522 Line running north/south on 2200 W. This bus line reaches the southern boundary and its final stop is near the Boeing warehouse. This bus line offers access to the light industrial and commercial businesses. This accessibility suggests that increasing the amount of industrial and commercial centers within the southern half of Northpoint would be supported by public transportation. Route 200 extends along Redwood Road to the southeast of Northpoint. However, this adjacent route is not Graphic 1.18 | Average Annual Daily Trips | Source: UDOT DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 69 accessible within a 15-minute walk of current homes of businesses within Northpoint. Bike Accessibility The major bikeways extending through the Plan Area are the Jordan River Trail, Parkway Trail, and a bike lane along 2200 W and 2100N. The bikeways along 2200 W and 2100N are designated medium comfort by Bike SLC. The painted bike lane disappears as the surroundings become more rural moving northbound through the Plan Area. These routes do not have high traffic but bikers must share the roads with vehicles in the same lanes. Economic Impact of Transportation Limited access to public transportation and the barrier of I-215 require households in the Plan Area to rely on personal vehicles or rideshare options to commute to and from work, errands, and schools. The Center for Neighborhood Technology recommends a household spend no more than 15% of their annual income on transportation. For a regional-typical household in this area, that means no more than $9,329. Households in this census block spend an average of $16,167- 175% higher than this benchmark. This is also higher than the Salt Lake City average of $13,211. Graphic 1.19 | Annual Driving Costs per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Graphic 1.20 | Utah Transit Authority Bus DRAFT 70 Less ResidentsM ore Residents 70 Northpoint Community Demographics Over the last decade, Salt Lake City has grown by roughly 14,000 new residents. Most of this growth has been concentrated in downtown Salt Lake City, Central City, and Sugarhouse, each of which grew by over 2,000 residents between 2010 and 2020. Northpoint falls within the Westpointe Community Council area, which saw a population decrease (-1.6%) over the last decade. Approximately 140 people live within the Plan Area in roughly 60 households. City Council District 1, which encompasses the Plan Area boasts the largest share of Hispanic or Latino Population (48%) of all Council Districts. Economy 105 people are employed within the Plan Area but live elsewhere, and 74 Northpoint residents commute out of the area for work. No residents both live and work within the Plan Area. Of the jobs within the Plan Area boundary, Wholesale Trade (30% of the jobs) and Transportation and Warehousing (22%) are the most common industries. In 2018, about 54% of those jobs within the Plan Area boundary provided less than $40,000 per year in salary, roughly 63% of the median household income for overall Salt Lake City residents at $63,971. 105 People Commute IN for work 74 People Commute OUT for work 0 People Live and Work in the Area Population by TAZ Graphic 1.21 | Commuting Patterns and Population | Source: U.S. Census 2019 Less Residents More Residents DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 71 Within and immediately outside of the Plan Area, major employers include the Salt Lake City International Airport, Amazon, and the Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement Center. Those who live in the Plan Area have a higher median household income than the City as a whole at $75,791 and tend to work in the service industry, transportation and utilities, or manufacturing. Housing There are about 60 homes within the Plan Area and 1,487 housing units in the associated census tract. Housing is concentrated east of 2200 W due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. Housing within the Plan Area is comprised entirely single-family housing units, some of which are agricultural properties. The Plan Area has a high rate of owner-occupied units at 85.4% and an average home value of $438,000. This is higher than the median price for the zip code as a whole at $346,900. The zip code saw a 24% increase in home prices between 2020 and 2021. The Center for Neighborhood Technology estimates that households within the Plan Area are spending on average, 47% of their income on housing and transportation costs every month. As Salt Lake County grows and expands west, combining housing and transportation costs into one number offers an expanded view of affordability by showing the impacts of a longer daily commute on the affordability of a community. The Center for Neighborhood Technology sets a housing and transportation spending benchmark of no more than 45% of a household’s income, rather than using the traditional rule of no more than 30% on housing alone. Funding the Future Salt Lake City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in May 2018. This increase will typically generate about $34 million a year in ongoing funding and is the first part of a funding strategy to address street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety. The Plan Area could benefit from funding for an affordable housing program and increased neighborhood safety. 47% Housing: 23% Transportation: 24% Graphic 1.22 | Housing and Transportation Costs as Percent of Income Per Household | Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology DRAFT 72 Community Amenities The Plan Area is bordered by the Jordan River connecting Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, and passing through three counties. Many sections of the Jordan River have access trails running parallel to the river and connect nearby parks. Although the Plan Area lies adjacent to the River, the formal trail stops to the to the east of I-215. Directly east of the Plan Area are the Regional Athletic Complex, Jordan River OHV State Recreation Area, Westpointe Park, Northstar Elementary School, and Northwest Middle School. Only one crossing of I-215 allows for access to these areas. As shown below, I-215 severely limits access to community resources like schools, religious organizations, recreation, and other gathering areas. JORDAN RIVER OHV STATE RECREATION AREA JORDA N RIVER CENTER STREET TRAILHEAD COLISEUM FITNESS SPECTRUM ACADEMY FOXBORO ELEMENTARY NORTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTHSTAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEWOOD PARK GUADALUPE SCHOOL SALT LAKE CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION REGIONAL ATHLETIC COMPLEX UNITY BAPTIST CHURCHWESTPOINTE PARK Graphic 1.23 | Amenities near the Plan Area I 2 1 5 B A R R I E R DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 73 Graphic 1.24 | Trailhead map of the Jordan River DRAFT APPENDIX B PUBLIC INPUT Appendix B: Public Input The public input process included various opportunities for engagement. One-on-one interviews with residents, developers, environmental groups, and city and county staff were conducted throughout the summer of 2021. Over 30 people attended a public open house in the spring of 2022, and two public questionnaires and a property owner-specific questionnaire were distributed over the course of the Northpoint Small Area project. The following is a record of the engagement and materials from the open house and survey results. Open House and Questionnaire Comments Report for Northpoint Property Owner Questionnaire Completion Rate:85.7% Complete 18 Partial 3 Totals: 21 Response Counts 1. What is your relationship with the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) Percent I own property here I live here I own a business here I work here 0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses I own property here 100.0%17 I live here 70.6%12 I own a business here 17.6%3 I work here 11.8%2 2. In the Northpoint area how important is the conservation of habitat and ecosystems to you? 77% Highly Important77% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Somewhat Not Important6% Somewhat Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 76.5%13 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Somewhat Not Important 5.9%1 Totals: 17 3. In the Northpoint area how important is commercial and residential development to you? 41% Highly Important41% Highly Important 6% Somewhat Important6% Somewhat Important18% Somewhat Not Important18% Somewhat Not Important 35% Highly Not Important35% Highly Not Important Value Percent Responses Highly Important 41.2%7 Somewhat Important 5.9%1 Somewhat Not Important 17.6%3 Highly Not Important 35.3%6 Totals: 17 4. Would you support conservation methods and tools that could provide financial compensation to landowners for the preservation of natural lands and habitats instead of development? 59% Highly Support59% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 24% Neutral24% Neutral 12% Highly Not Support12% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 58.8%10 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 23.5%4 Highly Not Support 11.8%2 Totals: 17 5. Would you support the continuation of existing land uses such as grazing, agriculture, habitat conservation, rural residential, and wildlife? 77% Highly Support77% Highly Support 6% Somewhat Support6% Somewhat Support 12% Neutral12% Neutral 6% Highly Not Support6% Highly Not Support Value Percent Responses Highly Support 76.5%13 Somewhat Support 5.9%1 Neutral 11.8%2 Highly Not Support 5.9%1 Totals: 17 ResponseID Response 4 No. 7 I am highly against any further building on the agricultural land out here. 8 The area is too close to the airport not to take advantage of this proximity to lessen the burden on existing infrastructure and lessen pollution. This can be done preserving habitat closer to the Great Salt Lake. 10 We need clean air and less big heavy trucks in this tiny road. We can't handle it. We pay our taxes just like everyone eon the east side we deserve more from the city. 13 Just because land in the area has always been zoned Business Park, it does not mean it should stay that way. I don't see how it was ever zoned BP or anything other than conservation when it is directly next to ecosystems that will be negatively impacted by development. I appreciate you asking for our opinions and for keeping the survey short, but I am somewhat disappointed in this survey as it feels lacking. It's not ideal to ask double barreled questions in surveys if you want honest answers. For example, my answer to supporting residential development is different than my answer to commercial development, but this survey can't reflect that. 14 I operate a recording studio off of 2200w and construction of anything will shut me down during construction and possibly forever. 15 Construction on 2200w is dangerous without some sort of alternate construction road in place before construction begins. 16 The area of 2200 west to 3200 west and 2100 north to 3300 north is a bird and wildlife refuge and one of the last open spaces in SL county. It needs to be preserved and not just overdeveloped like the rest of the valley is becoming. Thank you for your time. Robert Taylor 17 It would be the advantage of the area and ecology to think about NOT developing every lat inch of open space. This is a sensitive area. There is a high saturation of wildlife, migration and nesting areas here. It's a wetland. In a meet the committee was surprised to hear about the existence of wildlife. We see and experience it everyday. The delineation of preexisting residential areas should be recognized. This area was settled by ranchers and farmers who understood the doom of development. This area is a treasure and should be left alone OR very thoughtfully and carefully developed. The rate with which it is occurring now is always met with contempt and disagreement. There is another way and we should make a plan of best outcomes. 6. Is there anything you'd like to add? 20 I think the area can do both commercial and have some open space.. This area is not for residential? My opinion. I have seen residential next to airports and it's not nice at all.. 21 My family has been here for over 100 years. A lot of the older homes were built by family. Now with the restrictions of building and septic use. You can't let your children build a house on a 1/4 acre lot. I have had to have children move to wood cross to have there own home. The current restrictions render the ground useless for building anything. Yet keeping some space still for AG use. The bigger lots have all ready been sold to developers, the people left will be left with your open space weed patch and no money to move any where. ResponseID Response 7. Are you interested in recieving further information about this project and ways to get involved? 78% Yes please78% Yes please 22% No, thank you22% No, thank you Value Percent Responses Yes please 77.8%14 No, thank you 22.2%4 Totals: 18 Report for Northpoint Small Area Plan Questionnaire Completion Rate:54.7% Complete 41 Partial 34 Totals: 75 Response Counts 1. What is your affiliation with the Northpoint area? Percent I am a resident I work in the area I own property I am interested in owning property I am a business owner I visit the area Other - Write In 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Value Percent Responses I am a resident 29.7%19 I work in the area 17.2%11 I own property 31.3%20 I am interested in owning property 18.8%12 I am a business owner 9.4%6 I visit the area 25.0%16 Other - Write In 14.1%9 2. What is your level of support for special standards and design guidelines as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3. What is your level of support for requiring sensitive landscape studies as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 4. What is your level of support for development code updates as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5. What is your level of support for the clustering of lots and open space as a regulatory conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 6. What is your level of support for conservation easements as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7. What is your level of support for purchase of development rights (PDR) as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 8. What is your level of support for transfer of development rights as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 9. What is your level of support for preferred development sites as an incentive-based conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 10. What is your level of support for lease agreements as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 11. What is your level of support for mutual covenants as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 12. What is your level of support for land banking as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 13. What is your level of support for land exchange as a land acquisition conservation tool? Percent 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) 22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 59% Fishing Access Along the River 59% Fishing Access Along the River 37% Wildlife Viewing Areas37% Wildlife Viewing Areas 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 22% Interpretive/Education Center22% Interpretive/Education Center 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 29% Boardwalks29% Boardwalks Value Percent Responses amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 22.0%9 Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 48.8%20 Fishing Access Along the River 58.5%24 Wildlife Viewing Areas 36.6%15 Trails Along Natural Resources 48.8%20 Interpretive/Education Center 22.0%9 Interpretive/Educational Signage 26.8%11 Boardwalks 29.3%12 ResponseID Response My emphasis on maintaining open-space natural area rather than developing a park-like area. None Great ideas for the community. This is such a treasure that is Salt Lake City. The land needs to be preserved for future generations, plus people are not having children there may not be the need for more development such as empty commercial buildings. Once you destroy land for development, you cant reverse the damage. All of the above amenities are wonderful. However, who maintains them and fronts the development costs? The land being discussed does not naturally produce any of the above items pictured. We are old salt flats that grow things with a lot of encouragement. We have been trying to improve the ground for 50 years and have done a lot of good. However, one year of not planting and working hard takes away 50 years of work. The farms out here would not be successful if all of the farmers did not have other larger farms somewhere else or other businesses that help support the farm. I support whatever developments come to this area that give the land owners the best benefits of their property. I know everyone wants what improves their community but don't forget the land owners and the work they have done for lifetimes and they need their rights reserved as well. This ground work for homes and businesses family like the Rudy's .Drechsel's.Swaner's Hinkley's family farmed this ground but it's no longer feasible for making a living and the ground is there retirement you want to take it from them shame on you None - not appropriate in industrial areas. none - not appropriate in industrial areas None. Not applicable for an industrial area. Restrooms. Solar panels on roof. Art. Shade none, not appropriate for industrial area none, not appropriate for industrial area none not appropriate on my land no water or for industrial area Most of these are not appropriate for an industrial area. 15. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) - comments None, not appropriate for industrial area none-not appropriate for industrial area ResponseID Response 16. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) 15% Painted Bike Lane15% Painted Bike Lane 12% Buffered Bike Lane12% Buffered Bike Lane 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street Value Percent Responses Painted Bike Lane 14.6%6 Buffered Bike Lane 12.2%5 Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17.1%7 Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22.0%9 Street with Porous Surface Edge 48.8%20 Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29.3%12 Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 4.9%2 Typical Curb and Gutter Street 19.5%8 ResponseID Response Most of these options do not seem appropriate for 2200 West. What ever the design needs to implemented consistently rather than in piecemeal blocks. Such approach expensive and dangerous. We really don't need curb and gutter or sidewalks unless this area gets over developments by commercial buildings then we will need more for the residents. I do not think traditional curb and gutter are needed for the area, but some sort of drainage is needed. It is a popular biking path that needs more safety for cyclists. 17. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) - comments 18. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 24% Natural Building Materials24% Natural Building Materials Value Percent Responses Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22.0%9 LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs)24.4%10 Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 51.2%21 Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 26.8%11 Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29.3%12 Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 75.6%31 Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 34.1%14 Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls)29.3%12 Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22.0%9 Natural Building Materials 24.4%10 ResponseID Response Empyhasis on keeping natural habitat and implementing "green" approaches Wildlife and nature are friendly. dense and limited cars/roads One of the major safety issues would be for the migratory birds, because this area is wetlands that is being destroyed. You would have to put the lights and windows in consideration. Again, all very nice, all of the ideas that have been presented over the last several years get voted down. It seems impossible to present something that people will get on board with. I want the land owners to be able to develop their properties with the highest value and regular farming is just not a viable option economically. Walkable design. Sustainable design. No grass. 19. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? - comments ResponseID Response 5 Place a moratorium on development until the plan is in place. 6 The construction of 2800W to pull traffic off of 2200W 7 3200 West should remain unpaved. There should be a buffer/natural area along the eastern side of 3200 West. 10 Affordable Housing. Salt Lake City is missing a big opportunity to fill the gap in affordable housing by using the acreage in this area. We are in a housing crisis, there is almost no land left to build in Salt Lake, this is a HUGE opportunity that Salt Lake could miss to build more units that are desperately needed. This is not the time for us to complain about open space. Look at the Governor's initiatives and play your part. The mayor and city council of Salt Lake are all about helping the homeless, but if we don't build more housing units the homeless population will only rise. I think the direction that it appears we are heading with this questionnaire needs to be reconsidered to include more, dense residential units for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 12 Need to address annexation issues and multi-jurisdictional service coordination issues NEED TO SAVE CROSS E RANCH possibly by having SL County purchase property with funding from a variety of institutional entities including USU, LDS Church, SLCity, Davis County, NSLCity, and Open Lands foundationsl Need 6 mo. moratorium on new development until Northpoint Small Area Plan is completed. 13 Plan is a waste of tax payer dollars. The market will decide the highest and best use of land in the area. 16 Ive researched what has been going on out here over the last few years, with some property owners exploring being annexed into North Salt Lake because of the regulation barriers that Salt Lake City has shown. Find compromise with the landowners or SLC may lose some of this unincorporated land and development opportunity in this area. 19 This is an industrial area and business park zoning already exists and makes sense for this project. There are already protections in place of wetlands and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 2200W is already master planned with a 90' ROW road section. Developers who develop with frontage along 2200W are already required to improve and widen the sections of 2200 W that abut their property. Many of the single family home-owners in this area are already under contract to sell their property to business park developers. There is no reason to plan this area with the preservation of existing single family homes as a goal. 20. What else should the Northpoint Small Area Plan address? 22 The valley and particularly the westside is already saturated with air quality issues. Any commercial development should exclude air pollution inputs. Additionally, water supply and quality are major issues for the state and communities which callks for restrictions on water use and waste. 24 Update the community. 26 density and walkability is best for wildlife 28 Wetlands and the fact that they are endangered. There is becoming less space for wildlife. USDA has programs for Urban Agriculture. 31 Please don't forget about the residents! This survey was focused on business development and none of the questions focused on also preserving the residential zoning in the area. We are already being bullied by developers to sell our land so they can rezone for business. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW REZONING FOR BUSINESSES IN THE VERY SMALL REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS. There are plenty of open spaces for developers to build that don't require forcing us out of our homes. 33 Setbacks and landscape areas along major roads. 34 Three points: 1. Leave 3200 West unimproved. 2. Restrictions on zoning changes until master plan is complete 3. Set aside buffer/open space lands clustered east of 3200 West. 37 The small area plan needs to think about both sides. There are a lot of neighbors talking about conservation of their lifestyle but I'm pretty sure none of them is making their living from farming. I love this area more than the average person but, I also know the realities of farming and maintaining a farm and or open space. The county could maintain or develop some trails and require certain landscaping. I know that those kinds of requirements exist in all developments. I prefer they allow the land owners the right to sell/develop their properties. There are many options for good development in this area. Residents (37ish houses) along 2200 west have been against a business park development, industrial, and residential. They want it to remain the same as always. However, that cannot happen nor should it. 39 The homeowner and people that own businesses out there 48 Zoning of specific areas to BP or M1 52 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. 54 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. ResponseID Response 58 This area should be light manufacturing/industrial. With the 435 acres of BP, this whole area should follow suit. More tax basis for city, great area for business, less water usage than farmers, etc. 59 Water use. 60 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 61 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 63 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 64 Designate this land as Business Park and/or Light Industrial 67 With the business park areas that have been approved, it makes the most sense for SLC to default to Business Park zoning for this North Point area. 70 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use nap 71 Designate this land as light 75 Do we have the water to build more? How will building in this area further impact the Great Salt Lake? Very concerned about maintaining open space and not further taxing our diminishing water systems. ResponseID Response 21. Would you like to stay involved with this planning process? Please leave your email below! APPENDIX C CONSTRAINTS Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend NorthPoint_Boundary -9 to -8 -7 to -6 -5 -4 to -3 -2 -1 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Constraint Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Wetlands (-3)Airport Owned (-3)Easements (-2) Airport Influence Zones (-2, -1)Prime Ag Soil (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Noise Contours (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Proximity to Services (+3)Underutilized (+2)Vacant (+1) Large Parcels (+1)Access to Transportation (+1) APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OPTIONS Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in this report, along with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. MARKET ANALYSIS Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN).1 Based on vacant acreage in the Northpoint area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates. 1 Source: Colliers, Salt Lake County Industrial Market Report 4Q 2021. 2 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 COMBINED COMPONENTS FOR FUNDING OPTIONS The available tools and issuing entities discussed in this report may be combined in a variety of viable options to arrive at the desired funding level for the Northpoint area. Possible funding mechanisms include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in following sections. Tax Increment Areas o Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) o Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) o Tax Increment Bonds Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Impact Fees Municipal Energy Tax TAX INCREMENT AREAS Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated project area are split into two components: (i)Base Revenues – The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and (ii)Incremental Revenues – These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the project area. If a project area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the project area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a project area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the project area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) 3 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Northpoint area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS (CRAS) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of project areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Project Area” (CRA). Existing project areas will be allowed to continue, but all new project areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a project area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the project area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. TABLE 1: COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Community Reinvestment Areas Disadvantages Community Reinvestment Areas Creates a new revenue stream.Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. Relatively easy to create.10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. Flexible uses of funds.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. The Northpoint area contains roughly 1,323 acres and five tax districts. All of the tax districts are within Salt Lake City, with the exception of Tax District ACT that is found within unincorporated Salt Lake County. 4 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 2: NORTH POINT EXISTING MARKET VALUES AND ACREAGE Property Values # of Parcels Total Market Value Residential Market Value Acres Tax District 13 63 $74,752,600 $30,700,900 666.83 Tax District 13 Q 3 $7,927,300 17.37 Tax District 13 I 3 $51,954,200 27.26 Tax District 13 R 14 $21,076,200 $1,529,600 27.01 Tax District ACT 47 $27,957,700 $12,251,900 584.37 TOTAL 130 $183,668,000 $44,482,400 1,322.84 Although there are five separate tax districts, districts 13 and 13Q include the same taxing entities; districts 13I and 13R also have the same taxing entities. The taxing entities and their tax rates are as follows: TABLE 3: TAX DISTRICTS AND TAXING ENTITIES Tax Rate Tax District 13 and 13Q Figure 1: Northpoint Tax Districts 5 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Tax Rate Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Salt Lake City School District 0.004809 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.011638 Tax District 13I and 13R Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.013934 Tax District - Unincorporated Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 TOTAL 0.013582 The market value of the property is much higher than the taxable value in the area for several reasons. First, primary residential development is taxed at 55 percent of market value. Agricultural property is in greenbelt status and taxed at extremely low rates, and public properties are tax exempt. Therefore, while the market value is nearly $184 million, taxable value is estimated at roughly $67.9 million. 6 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NORTHPOINT TAXABLE VALUE Estimated Taxable Value Tax Districts 13 and 13Q $37,500,000 Tax Districts 13 I and 13 R $20,400,000 Tax District ACT $10,000,000 Total Taxable Value $67,900,000 Taxable value will increase as development occurs in Northpoint. Of the 1,323 acres in Northpoint, approximately 437 acres are either vacant or held in agricultural use. TABLE 5: VACANT ACRES Vacant Acres Tax Districts 13 and 13Q Tax Districts 13I and 13R Tax District ACT Total Residential 8.34 19.81 28.15 Industrial 17.40 14.19 42.56 74.15 Agricultural 111.68 223.04 334.72 TOTAL Acres 137.42 14.19 285.41 437.01 For purposes of estimating future tax revenues, this study assumes that the residential and industrial vacant acres are developed as residential and industrial respectively and makes no assumptions about future development of the agricultural property. TABLE 6: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Amount Residential Development Undeveloped acres 28.15 Units per Acre 2 Units developed 56 Average market value per unit $600,000 Average taxable value per unit $330,000 Total residential taxable value $18,480,000 Industrial Development Undeveloped acres 74.15 Floor area ratio 0.2* Taxable value per sf $200 Estimated taxable value $129,193,733 *If the floor area ratio (FAR) can be increased to 0.3, then the estimated total taxable value would increase to nearly $194 million For purposes of analysis, this report assumes that the majority of the development takes place in the unincorporated County, as it has the largest amount of vacant acres. The table below shows projections of roughly $2 million per year in additional property tax revenues from this area. 7 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 7: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Tax Rates - ACT Incremental Revenues Generated Salt Lake County 0.001777 $262,416 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 $1,772 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 $28,944 Granite School District 0.007105 $1,049,222 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 $59,069 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 $7,531 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 $235,392 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 $291,360 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 $69,997 TOTAL 0.013582 $2,005,705* *If the industrial development assumptions are increased to a FAR of 0.3, rather than 0.2, then annual incremental property tax revenues generated increase to nearly $2.9 million annually. A portion of these revenues could be allocated to a CRA for a period of time in order to pay for needed improvements and infrastructure in the area. TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined project area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. 8 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 A TRZ is much like a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) in that a portion of tax increment is pledged to the project for a specified period of time. The agreement between the two or more public entities must include the following, as specified in Utah Code §11-13-227(2): Define the transportation need and proposed improvement Define the boundaries of the zone Establish terms for sharing sales tax revenue among the members of the agreement, if sales tax is to be included Establish a base year to calculate the increase of property tax revenue within the zone Establish terms for sharing any increase in property tax revenue within the zone Hold a public hearing regarding the details of the TRZ Property tax revenues that are shared between members of the agreement are required to be incremental (Utah Code §11-13-227(2)(e). In order to identify incremental revenues, a “base year” needs to be established. The law clearly allows for the sharing of both sales tax and property tax revenue among the members of the agreement. There are advantages to governance with TRZs, as compared to CRAs, for projects that span multiple jurisdictions. In fact, there are only a few redevelopment areas in Utah that currently overlap multiple communities. While such are allowed by law, governance can be tricky. For example, in a CRA spanning two cities, each city would have its own redevelopment agency. Who then governs the project area? Joint RDA board meetings can be held, each agency board can meet separately, or there can be a MOU designating one of the RDA boards as the lead agency. Experience dictates that concerns often arise when more tax increment is generated in one jurisdiction of the project area than in another. There are often concerns about equity in spending funds in the same jurisdiction from which they come. Each redevelopment agency involved has to submit its annual report detailing the increment generated and how funds were spent, further exacerbating this concern. The TRZ overcomes many of these problems. First, with a TRZ, there is no requirement for RDA involvement, and therefore no need for RDA meetings. The TRZ is simply governed by an interlocal agreement signed by the parties. TRZs have proven effective in other states when projects cross multiple jurisdictions. With a TRZ there is no requirement to measure in which community increment is generated and where funds are spent. The purpose is simply to achieve an overall project. And only one annual report has to be filed for the TRZ – not separate reports for each participating entity. Another advantage to TRZs is the ability to obtain the commitment of transportation agencies, such as UDOT or UTA, for specific projects. Interlocal agreements between the public entity with the land-use authority and a transportation agency will identify the specific projects associated with the TRZ. This will add another level of certainty to local planning efforts and will give these public entities some additional leverage in prioritizing needed transportation projects. 9 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding transportation projects with tax increment generated in Transportation Reinvestment Zones: TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Advantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Disadvantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Creates a new revenue stream.Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. Relatively easy to create.Requires cooperation between at least two entities. Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. No affordable housing requirement.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. TAX INCREMENT BONDS Tax increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given project area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted project area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Ratings on tax increment bonds are tied to the performance of the area or district, not to the creating government’s general fund. As a result, the ratings differ from those of the creating entity’s general obligation rating. The rating of tax increment bonds hinges on local economics, trends, and taxpayer diversity, with taxpayer diversity being the most highly correlated statistic. Rating agencies evaluate whether the tax increment revenues could survive the loss of one or more top taxpaying property owners, how debt service could be managed in the case of broad-based decline of assessed value, real estate trends and historical assessed values in the designated area, and the types of properties located or being developed in the tax increment area. The assessed value of hotels is the most volatile, followed by warehouses, commercial, condos, and last residential. Many issuers opt to offer tax increment bonds on a non-rated basis. It is virtually impossible to secure a rating for or sell a tax increment bond before the increment is actually flowing, unless there is recourse to the local government’s credit or some other enhancement. 10 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Typically, tax increment bonds carry longer terms (anywhere from 10 to 30 years) and are purchased at a fixed rate using larger denominations of $100,000. There is usually no recourse to either the issuer or the developers who may benefit from the bonds. Pledged revenues vary, but a typical pledge is a senior security interest in the tax increment revenues as well as any debt service reserve funds. The bonds are often offered via a limited public offering and most often sold to institutional buyers (primarily mutual funds and occasionally property/casualty insurers) using a limited offering memorandum. It is typical to see interest capitalized for at least two to three years to allow increment to begin flowing before debt service payments are required from that increment. Unspent proceeds, capitalized interest and reserve funds are held by a Trustee. Debt service coverage covenants vary based on type of tax increment revenue and other security features associated with the bonds, but minimum coverage requirements are almost always at least 1.25 times annual debt service. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding with tax increment bonds: TABLE 9: TAX INCREMENT BONDS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a project area. Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency.2 Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types.3 Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose.4 2 An RDA is a separate political subdivision which can enter into agreements with developers and issue the bonds. 3 It is difficult to estimate the time required for the “political” side of the process, which often requires significant information sharing between local government and developers, including a public hearing for approval of the Project Area Plan and Budget. Setting aside the political requirements, the bond issuance process usually takes three to five months. 4 Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that some or all the increment is not attributable to the creation of the tax increment area and that the new property value growth would have occurred anyway. 11 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Consequently, benefits beyond the improved infrastructure can be included in the area. This can be in the form of better landscaping, street lighting, public spaces, parks, trails, finishes, etc. These benefits aid in creating property appeal, property value increases and in attracting top quality businesses. The PID tool also represents a valuable option for cities who are reticent to bond with property tax revenues in a standard tax increment collection area. Bonding permits for upfront infrastructure costs to be covered, oftentimes expediting development that may not have otherwise occurred. A city may create a PID with no increase in the tax rate and use the PID as a conduit to issue bonds. In this approach, the city is not financially responsible for the bond payments, and the bonding does not affect the city’s credit rating. The process for starting a Public Infrastructure District begins with a citywide policy. This represents a “30,000-foot” view of the tool for the municipality and merely outlines the guidelines as to how a developer should submit for a PID. The PID policy may incorporate specific goals and vision statements of the city. Once a policy is adopted, a developer may submit a letter of intent to create a PID. This is reviewed by the city, and if approved, governing documents are required to be submitted and approved 12 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 by the City Council. The simple passing of a general PID policy does not require the City Council to approve governing documents or letters of intent. Consequently, the PID policy represents another tool that can be used when appropriate. As of 2022, several cities throughout Utah have adopted PID policies and multiple public infrastructure districts have been formed. TABLE 10: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages PIDs Disadvantages PIDs Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally- allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs.Ongoing PID governance Can reduce the need for impact fees.Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. Cost is much lower than other development financing. The current taxable value of North Point is approximately $68,000,000. The maximum mill rate allowed by Utah law is 0.015; however, districts are choosing to enact much lower rates. Politically, it would be nearly impossible to obtain the consent of the entire Northpoint area to create a PID. However, smaller sections that are wanting to encourage economic development could be developed as PIDs. The table below shows the amount of annual property tax revenues that could be generated for such a district given varying taxable values and varying tax rates up to the maximum of 0.015. TABLE 11: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ANNUAL REVENUES BASED ON VARYING MILL RATES AND TAXABLE VALUES Property Taxable Values 0.015 Mill Rate .0075 Mill Rate .004 Mill Rate $10,000,000 $150,000 $75,000 $40,000 $20,000,000 $300,000 $150,000 $80,000 $30,000,000 $450,000 $225,000 $120,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of 13 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment5 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if even 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, taxable value, market value, by linear foot frontage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. TABLE 12: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator 5 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e., acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. 14 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued IMPACT FEES Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11-36a which includes the following major steps. Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding projects with impact fees: TABLE 13: IMPACT FEES AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development Adds additional costs to development Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest 15 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficiencies MUNICIPAL ENERGY TAX Salt Lake City has enacted the municipal energy tax to the full 6 percent allowed by law on all taxable portions of electric and gas bills. Therefore, any development that takes place in Salt Lake City would generate this additional revenue that could be used to assist with economic development and infrastructure costs in Northpoint. The municipal energy tax applies only to development that occurs in Salt Lake City and not in Salt Lake County. APPENDIX E MAJOR STREETS PLAN AMENDMENT 2100 N ~2900 W 3200 W 2200 W 3300 N 3500 N 2950 N Salt Lake Ci ty Major Street Plan Amendm en t for Nor th p oin t A r ea ¯ Legend Designation Arterials Loc al Streets Propos ed Arterial Streets 0 640 1,280 1,920320 Feet 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The first public draft of the Northpoint Small Area Plan was online and available for public comment from July 26, 2022 – September 19, 2022. The plan received 685 views and 195 total comments during this time. The majority of the comments were left directly on the draft using the software Konveio and can be viewed by visiting this link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9d257aa8-60d8-39d9-ab70- 8aa9c2005923 All other written public comments are included in either the Staff Report published on October 26, 2022 or the Staff Report published for the December 14, 2022 meeting. Public comments that were received following the publishing of those staff reports are included on the following pages. From:cindy cromer To:Norris, Nick; Oktay, Michaela Cc:Martinez, Diana; Gilmore, Kristina Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fw: request to recall: Northpoint Small Area Plan Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 7:39:08 AM Please forward to members of the Planning Commission, via their e mail addresses if possible. To Chairman Bachman and Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission From Cindy Cromer RE your vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan, 12/14 I am asking the Commission to recall its vote on the Northpoint Small Area Plan on 12/14 (5-2) prior to approving the minutes at your meeting on 1/11. I have made a similar request once before, in July 2021, but in that case, the Commission had failed to follow the adopted ordinance. I knew that you had to consider my request and you did. In the case of the Small Area Plan, you have not violated any ordinances but have instead set the stage for consequences in the foreseeable future which I doubt that any of you would support and which I know the overwhelming majority of Salt Lake's voters would not support. There are two issues which have led me to ask you to recall your vote. The first issue is the relationship between Northpoint and the Inland Port. Of greatest concern was the Commission's decision to ignore the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers. That change led me to ask about the history of Northpoint relative to the Inland Port. According to people involved for decades, Northpoint was previously part of the Port. Former City Council Member James Rogers was also the City's representative on the Inland Port and had Northpoint removed. He then initiated the Small Area Plan with funding through the City Council. That must have been in 2019. Inserting distribution centers as an allowed use into the Small Area Plan creates the potential for Northpoint to resemble the Inland Port as it redevelops and be annexed back into the Port by the State. Given what has already happened, this possibility is real. Given the resources that the City has devoted over the past 2 Administrations to protecting the City's interests in the Port, it is unconscionable that the Commission would do anything to facilitate the future expansion of the Port. Secondly, in the executive session a member of the Commission speculated that there was rampant cultivation of alfalfa and significant waste of water in current agricultural uses. So far, I have been able to identify 1 property owner growing alfalfa and the water being used is untreated, not water from Salt Lake City Public Utilities. My criticism of your recommendation began 1/3 at the City Council's meeting and is included below (last paragraph). You have failed to protect Northpoint from predictable overreach by the State government, if not now, then in the foreseeable future. You failed to seek information about the basis for the staff recommendation regarding distribution centers and instead dismissed the staff recommendation. You appeared to accept inflammatory, generic statements about the cultivation of a crop which as far as I can determine is not grown commonly in Northpoint. You failed to verify the relevance of those generic statements to a highly specific planning document. These are shortcomings from my perspective which are not prohibited by the City's ordinances. You can of course ignore my cautions, as you did my comments on 12/14, and persist with your recommendation to the City Council. I am writing to let you know that I too can persist in my objections and will continue to ask the members of the City Council to ignore your recommendation of 12/14. From: cindy cromer Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:07 PM To: Petro-Eschler, Victoria <victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com>; alejandro.puy@slcgov.com <alejandro.puy@slcgov.com>; dan.dugan@slcgov.com <dan.dugan@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy <amy.fowler@slcgov.com>; Mano, Darin <darin.mano@slcgov.com>; Chris Wharton <chris.wharton@slcgov.com>; Valdemoros, Ana <ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com> Cc: Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>; Pantle, Brian <Brian.Pantle@slcgov.com>; Benson, Jenna <Jenna.Benson@slcgov.com>; Tuuao, Priscilla <priscilla.tuuao@slcgov.com>; Thomas, Blake <blake.thomas@slcgov.com>; Gilmore, Kristina <Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com>; michaela.oktay@slcgov.com <michaela.oktay@slcgov.com>; cindy gust-jenson <cindy.gust- jenson@slcgov.com> Subject: Fw: Northpoint Small Area Plan: comment to the City Council 1/3/23 40 Years of Showing Up Late or Not at All: The Northwest Quadrant In the late 1980's, the Northwest Quadrant was the only part of the city without a master plan. At some point during the early 1990's, Doug Wheelwright on the Planning staff wrote a proposed plan with traditional single-family houses. Then, Genevieve Atwood presented the findings of her dissertation (published 2006). I was standing next to Doug at the back of the room during Genevieve's presentation. He only said, "This changes everything." Nothing else. Through the 1990's and early 2000's, Salt Lake City still did not have a plan for the Northwest Quadrant. Then the State started talking about relocating the prison. Once again Frank Gray came to the City's rescue and drafted a plan for the Northwest Quadrant adopted in 2016. The State proceeded with the relocation of the prison any way. And then the State decided to locate the Intermodal Hub near the airport. Once again the City mustered its best arguments after the fact. Then James Rogers got the funding for the small area plan, but the effort stalled with the RFP. I am still trying to piece together the City's response to a proposed annexation. My point is that the City has always failed to plan for this area in a timely manner. It shows up late over and over again. At times, it has had talented planners and attorneys assigned to the task. They have attempted to outmaneuver the State. The City has criticized the State for the Inland Port, but now the Planning Commission appears to put its blessing on a similar redevelopment of Northpoint. I am hoping that someone will explain to me how the development of distribution and manufacturing in Northpoint is different from the Inland Port in any way except that the City would retain, only for the immediate future, receipt of the property taxes. That of course assumes that the State doesn't swoop in and claim them, as it has with the Inland Port. I have no doubt that if Northpoint resembles the Inland Port in the future, the State will intervene again. I am asking you to ignore the recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Commissioners seem oblivious of the predictable outcome. 4858-3336-8894 NorthPoint Small Area Plan Salt Lake City PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN DATED OCTOBER 2022. The undersigned supports the amended NorthPoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022 and request that the Planning Commission approve such plan on the meeting to be held on December 14, 2022 with no additional limitations on distribution uses. The undersigned attests that they are residents of the NorthPoint Small Area located in Salt Lake City, have personally signed this petition on the date indicated, and reside or work at the stated address. Signature: ____________ ___________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Krissy Gilmore Salt Lake City Senior Planner kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com Victoria Petro Eschler Salt Lake City District #1 Councilmember victoria.petro-eschler@slcgov.com RE: SUPPORT FOR THE NORHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN As a resident of the NorthPoint Small Area, I am writing to document my support for the Northpoint Small Area Plan as presented to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on October 26, 2022. I would highly recommend the Planning Commission approve the plan with no additional limitations to distribution uses in its December 14th meeting and that City Council adopt this plan as currently scheduled in January 2023. The Northpoint Small Area Plan outlines several reasons to transition the land use from agricultural to industrial while allowing landowners to participate in the economic growth of the area. Additionally, to ensure the greatest potential for economic growth in the area, we encourage the Planning Commission and/or City Council remove any limitations on the distribution uses allowed in the area. Not only would these limitations exclude the vast majority of small businesses seeking industrial space, but they would continue to drive rental rates higher for already struggling small businesses. Any limitation imposed on distribution uses would devalue the land, restrict economic growth, and increase rental rates for small businesses in the area. Thank you, Signature: ________________________________ Address: ________________________________ Date: ________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 568F1AB3-E460-43A1-A68A-1E452DE9445C 12/3/2022 2680 N 2200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84116 From:Denise Payne To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Denise and John Payne 2848 North 2200 West Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 2:34:50 PM My husband has lived on 2200 west for 45 years and I have lived here for 33 years. I oppose the transitional land use verbiage in the Master Plan and I oppose the annexation, rezoning or Area Master Plan changes which changes current zoning M1 or BP. This would jeopardize open space along the Jordan River with agriculture becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. As stated in the Tribune the West side is the highest in air pollution in the area. Industrial zoning around our home condemns is to a lower quality of life, decreases our property value and will force is to move. This does not support new housing at all income levels.” This housing gap/shortage dwarfs the city’s apparent desire for more warehouses and other commercial structures. City Council just approved funding for affordable housing. Approving M1 is going against new affordable housing. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city -- Have an awesome day....... Denise Payne From: To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments for Dec. 14 Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:26:06 PM Attachments:Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments 12-13-2022.docx Hello, FYI, Attached are the comments I submitted yesterday to Krissy Gilmore. I understand that comments will be read to the planning commission if they are under two minutes. Below are the comments I would like to have read at the meeting tonight. Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Members, My name is Wayne Martinson. I worked for National Audubon Society for25 years, retiring in 2016. During this period, I worked extensively onissues regarding the Great Salt Lake, including the Gillmor Sanctuary, thenorthwest quadrant plan and the south shore of Great Salt Lake. Last night I submitted comments to Krissy Gilmore. I hope you considerthose comments in full. The following provides three specific comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed NorthPoint Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in theletter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged“to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until suchcitizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, ConservationSpecialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon, in her letter to you,dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should befully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area shouldbe treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, whichcan be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and theother functions that wetlands provide. Likewise, the Jordan Rivershould also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source ofwater to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer(highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to puttogether a committee that would fully address this buffer. Thiscommittee could work on the wetland buffer during the same timethat citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. Thank you for considering these comments. Wayne Martinson Dec. 13, 2022 Kristina Gilmore, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Community and Neighborhoods Salt Lake City Corporation kristina.gillmore@slcgov.com Dear Kristina: Subject: Northpoint Small Area Plan Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Northpoint Small Area Plan The following provides Personal Background and then General and Specific comments. Personal background: From 1991 to 2016, I worked for the National Audubon Society, first as Utah Wetlands Coordinator and then as Utah Important Bird Areas Coordinator. Much of my time was focused on the Great Salt Lake, including working with Ella Sorensen regarding the Gillmor Sanctuary as well as the wetlands on the south shore of Great Salt Lake. I have been a resident of Salt Lake City since 1978. General Comments: Some of the first meetings I attended when starting with National Audubon in the early 1990’s were about the Northwest Quadrant Plan. Some of the last meetings I attended in 2016 were related to the completion of the Northwest Quadrant Plan. It can take a long time to complete a plan. One of the major components addressed in the Northwest Quadrant Plan was developing the Natural Areas. These Natural Areas provide a buffer for the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake, including the areas owned and managed by Kennecott Copper (Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve) National Audubon Society (Gillmor Sanctuary) and the duck clubs. Numerous meetings were held between landowners who wanted to develop and landowners who wanted to preserve the wildlife values before an agreement was reached regarding the Natural Areas. The value of natural areas in or adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan is very high. Often when I was asked about the major issues regarding the Great Salt Lake, my response was (and still is) water quantity, water quality, and preserving wetland and upland buffers for the Great Salt Lake. The Northpoint Small Area Plan has similarities to the Northwest Quadrant Plan. One of them is that development is proposed right next to the wetland and upland areas that are managed for wildlife. Every attempt should be made to become familiar with and supportive of these wetland and upland buffers. Specific Comments: 1. I support the Westpointe Board statement on the Proposed North Point Small Area Plan. In particular, I support their statement in the letter dated January 11, 2022, that the Planning Commission is urged “to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until such citizen input can be incorporated into the plan.” 2. I support the comments made by Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist, Gillmor Sanctuary, National Audubon Society, in her letter to you, dated Dec. 2, 2022. The following comments in particular should be fully addressed: “The wetlands bordering the west side of Northpoint Small Area should be treated delicately and provided a minimum buffer of 300 feet, which can be backed by studies that consider ecological preservation and the other functions that wetlands provide (e.g., groundwater recharge, improved water quality, flood attenuation, dissipation of noise, motion, and light disturbances to wildlife, and many habitat benefits to wildlife). Likewise, the Jordan River should also be treated as highest priority as it is a major source of water to Great Salt Lake and its wetlands with a 300 foot buffer (highest quality buffer recommended in Blueprint Jordan River). 3. Regarding the minimum buffer of 300 feet, it could be useful to put together a committee that would fully address this buffer. This committee could work on the wetland buffer during the same time that citizen input is being incorporated into the plan. In summary, the Northpoint Small Area Plan should be tabled until citizen input can be more fully considered and incorporated into the plan. Also, the wetland and upland areas that are part of and/or are adjacent to the Northpoint Small Area Plan are an important component of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. Every effort should be made to preserve and protect these areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment: Sincerely, Wayne Martinson Cc: Heidi Hoven, Conservation Specialist National Audubon Society Ella Sorensen, Gillmor Sanctuary Manager, National Audubon Society Dorothy Owen, Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors Jack Ray, Rudy Duck Club 1 Clark, Aubrey From: Sent:Monday, December 12, 2022 10:49 AM To:Gilmore, Kristina Cc:Norris, Nick; Clark, Aubrey; Petro-Eschler, Victoria; Puy, Alejandro; Dugan, Dan; Otto, Rachel Subject:(EXTERNAL) WESTPOINTE BOARD STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NORTH POINT SMALL AREA PLAN-- for submission to Planning Commission for Dec 14 public hearing Attachments:Westpointe Board of Directors Statement regarding proposed North Point Small Area Master Plan .pdf; house with warehouse.JPG; lovelyhome.JPG Importance:High The Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors has now completed their analysis of the residents’ petition and unanimously voted to support their proposed changes to the current draft of the North Point Small Area Master Plan. The attached statement includes this analysis and our comments to the Planning Commission for their Dec 14 public hearing. This augments the Nov 30th email comments previously sent. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, we are also including a few photos—one of a current house at risk and one of a home that reflects the reality of the proposed “transition.” Additional photos are available but did not want to overwhelm people at this time. Thank you for your assistance and for forwarding this information to the Planning Commission members. While we regret that this review and vote could not be completed sooner, we are pleased with the resulting statement and photos. We hope this will clarify the major issues at stake. January 11, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Subject: Westpointe Board statement on North Point Small Area Planning effort We had hoped this planning effort would result in a number of planning scenarios generating serious community discussions and eventually, a workable vision for the area. This has yet to occur. Rather, the proposed “vision map” accepts outdated assumptions and planning limitations as a “given” that does not need justification. Planning efforts were instead devoted to developing mitigation strategies to counter this vision’s negative impacts. We concur with Dr. Luke Garrott’s assessment that the proposed plan , if implemented, will result in an “inherently unsustainable and unwalkable land use-a warehouse and trucking ghetto.“ ( https://buildingsaltlake.com/hot-market-for-warehouses-is-driving-a-trucking-ghetto-into- slcs-last-agricultural-land-and-right-through-the-citys-draft-master-plan/ ). The draft plan seeks to soften this result by identifying “transitional” lands, implying that mitigation measures will allow current residents to stay in the area and that any change will be a gradual shift. This blatantly contradicts written developer comments that homes will be gone within five years and that many proposed mitigation efforts will be unnecessary as a result. It would be cruelly ironic for Salt Lake City to now adopt such a “demolition” approach after Councilman James Rogers convinced the Utah State Legislature to withdraw this unique area from the jurisdiction of the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA). This allowed North Point to avoid M1 rezoning unlike the remaining UIPA area. Recently, area residents circulated a petition proposing an alternative vision for North Point. After reviewing this proposal (see attachment) the Board of Directors voted to support it. We therefore urge the Planning Commission to continue to table action on the North Point Master Plan until such citizen input can be incorporated into the plan. Sincerely, Westpointe Community Council Board of Directors Dorothy P. Owen Sharon Pohlman Todd Hadden Lynn Skidmore Jessica Esparza Annette Richards ANALYSIS OF RESIDENT PROPOSAL FOR NORTH POINT MASTER PLAN The west side of 2200 West maintain its business park (BP) development zoning while the East side of 2200 W keeps its current AG zoning This allows current residential/agricultural uses as well as future low density residential development. This proposal reflects a factual understanding of the area, and of the families who live there. • The North Point community has about 140 people living in about 60 homes which are entirely single-family housing units. 85 % of these units are owner occupied with an average home value of $438,000. This compares to the $ 346,900 median price for the zip code as a whole. ( Source: Existing Condition Report Dec 2021 pg . 21 Logan Simpson Consulting) • People living in the area tend to work in the services industry, transportation and utilities or manufacturing. They have a higher median household income than the City as a whole. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 21. Logan Simpson Consulting) • Housing is “concentrated east of 2200 West due to environmental constraints and airport impacts. “ The majority of the housing stock supports the agricultural uses surrounding them. Within the area there is a rich agricultural history that the community desires to preserve. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 21 Logan Simpson Consulting) • The Scannell properties in municipal Salt Lake City are zoned BP (business park). The City has already approved up to 20 warehouses in this area. This warehouse development west of 2200 W will encompass approximately 40% of North Point’s total land area. (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. 16 Logan Simpson Also City Planning) • All of Salt Lake County’s jurisdictional lands in this area are zoned A-2, low-density residential with supporting agriculture as a conditional use. Over 50% of North Point is within unincorporated Salt Lake County. ( Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 Logan Simpson. Pg. 5 & 15) The City should consider adopting the County’s zoning approach rather than zoning for more warehouses. This proposal supports the findings & recommendations of the City’s “Thriving in Place” Displacement Study. Applicable recommendations include: • There are not enough housing units overall in Salt Lake City. It therefore recommends support for new housing at all income levels. • It further recommends efforts to minimize displacement from new development and discourage new development where it will do the most harm. • It supports locally owned businesses, public spaces and cultural institutions that help communities thrive in place. All of these currently exist within North Point area and will be harmed by the proposed vision. This proposal is a workable compromise. It reflects commitments to existing residents and new developers. It allows for preservation and development. It is not based on outdated assumptions. • 2200 W divides the area into “clear sections which suggest an informal development boundary along the roadway. “ (Source: Current Conditions Report Dec 2021 pg. Logan Simpson) The draft plan does not use this demarcation as a source for compromise. • Dr. Robert C. Leachman, professor of industrial engineering & operations research, University of California Berkeley, authored a recent (Sept 12, 2022) report analyzing the prospects for import and export business at the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA). His report indicates that a proposed logistics facility is “simply not a value proposition.” As a result, prior development assumptions have been called into question and the multi-million-dollar facility has been put on hold. Instead, he recommends consideration of regional distribution centers on the South side of I-80 near Union Pacific facilities. North Point is located North of 1-80. • UIPA contains 16,000 acres of which 87% is within Salt Lake City’s borders. Most of it is zoned M1. New building within this zoning is primarily warehouses which require less work, time, and money to develop. Recently, UIPA has made significant management and statutory changes as it re-evaluates past efforts and assumptions. A new UIPA Master Plan for the area is being developed. These new trends need to be considered by SLC as it plans for North Point. . We the undersigned residents of North Point, respectfully oppose annexation, rezoning or Area Master Plan changes which in current zoning becoming M1 or BP. This includes opposing the master plan’s proposed “transitional” land use category as well as recent changes which envision open space along the Jordan River becoming industrial areas. Such changes not only significantly impact North Point residents but the residents of surrounding westside neighborhoods. Industrial zoning around existing homes condemns them to a lower quality of life, decreases their property values and will force residents to move. This directly goes against Salt Lake City’s “Thriving in Place” initiative which seeks to reduce housing displacement and support “new housing at all income levels.” This housing gap/shortage dwarfs the city’s apparent desire for more warehouses and other commercial structures. It is the City’s duty to protect residential housing from speculative industrial developers, especially when taxpayers are already paying for an Inland Port that is designed to house such industries. Other negative impacts to the entire westside include: Increased air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution Unsustainable traffic Watershed pollution and destruction of natural habitat Reduction of home ownership in the city Instead, we are proposing the West side of 2200 West maintain its business park (BP) where it is currently zoned while the East side of 2200 West keep its current AG zoning which allow current residential/agricultural uses as well as future low density residential developments. Name Address 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:October 17, 2023 RE: Text Amendment Related to Historic Preservation Overlay District PLNPCM2023-00123 The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Administration to amend the City zoning ordinance related to the Historic Preservation Overlay District. If adopted, changes would apply citywide to properties within a local historic district or landmark site. Salt Lake City currently has 14 local historic districts, and approximately 150 landmark sites. Proposed changes would make the ordinance easier for applicants, property owners, staff, and for the Historic Landmark Commission in its administration. The proposal would also create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. Changes would reorganize and add clarity to existing processes and create new ones for updates to historic resource surveys, and factors to consider for historic status determinations (e.g., contributing, or noncontributing status) for individual properties in some circumstances. The following summarizes proposed ordinance changes: Reorganization •Reorganizes City Code to remove repetition, move definitions to definition chapter in Code, creates a new chapter in Code and moves the following to a new chapter: o Local historic district (LHD) designation, o Boundary adjustments to existing LHDs, o Revocation of landmark site designation. o (Note-Processing steps, requirements and standards for designations and amendments are not changed from current processes for the above items.) Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 Proposed Changes/Additions •Some work would be exempt from requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) o Installation of storm windows o Small plaques o Mailboxes o Utility meters/charging stations, solar panels not visible from right-of-way •Review and approval of all solar panels at staff level (currently the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must review solar panels on front façades). •Adds ability for some CoA requests to be denied at staff level if standards are not met. •Adds language to reflect HLC duties not currently listed such as making recommendations to the Board of State History for National Register Nominations and making recommendations to the City Council on development of incentive programs to encourage preservation of the City’s historic resources. •Adds mailing notice content requirements for demolition of a noncontributing building. •Requires application fees for determination of economic hardship, LHD boundary reduction, revocation of landmark site. •Increases application fees for some applications reviewed by HLC. •Adds new definitions-period of significance and historic integrity. •Adds language to have the City Council adopt historic resource surveys and associated reports accompanying local historic designations. •Fine tunes language. New Processes •Creates process and factors to consider for updates to historic resource surveys. •Creates process and factors to consider for historic status determinations (contributing or noncontributing status) for individual properties in some circumstances (e.g., property was not rated or warrants reconsideration). Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment. The Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. One person expressed concern with a lack of public process for changing a building’s status from contributory to non-contributory. Such a change is sometimes a precursor to demolition of the building. Planning staff noted there are no changes to the current process. The other person who spoke is with the East Liberty Park Community Organization. She thanked Planning staff for the proposal and for meeting with an ELPCO representative. She expressed concern about noticing requirements for changes to properties outside of local historic districts. Planning staff said there are no process or noticing requirement changes for landmark sites or properties in national historic districts. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment. It is worth noting the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 4, 2023 meeting and also voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt the text amendment. 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 include noticing requirements and opportunities for public input when changes to a building’s contributory status are being considered. There is Page | 3 currently no public notice requirement when changing a building’s status from contributing to non- contributing. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-11 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Historic Resource Survey Updates Each local historic district in the city has an associated historic resource survey which summarizes the study area and includes an inventory of each property, along with its contributory/non-contributory status. The Community Preservation Plan has policies to update resource surveys every 5-10 years. The proposed text amendment includes putting this process into the zoning ordinance. Updates to historic resource surveys would then be a decision made by the City Council, with public hearings at the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission. The City will soon issue a request for proposals to contract with consultants who will update several historic resource surveys. Surveys are more useful the more current they are. Time, maintenance, and changes to properties can impact the historic integrity of a property and whether its contributory status should be updated. Consideration 2 – Historic Status Determinations The proposed text amendment includes a process and standards for historic status determinations. The Zoning Administrator has authority to interpret zoning code standards and has issued historic status determinations for individual properties when there are questions about the historic status. The proposed text amendment puts this process into the zoning ordinance. There are instances where a timely determination of a property’s historic status is needed. Some examples are when a property is missed in a survey, is not given a historic status rating or rated incorrectly and needs to be reconsidered. These determinations can be initiated by the property owner or the Planning Director. If a property had alterations that are considered non-reversable, its status may change from contributory to non-contributory. On the other hand, if alterations to a building made it non-contributory and those alterations were removed, the building’s historic status may be changed to contributory. Some examples of buildings that had historic status review are included on pages 6-7 of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 3-Compliance with City Goals, Policies, and Master Plans Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following City goals, policies, and master plans and found the proposal are consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Plan. •Preservation Philosophy (Resolution 53 of 2011) •Community Preservation Plan (2012) •Central Community Master Plan (2005) •Avenues Master Plan (1987) •Capitol Hill Master Plan (2001) •Downtown Master Plan (2016) •Plan Salt Lake (2015) Page | 4 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 Whether 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 • February 8, 2023-Mayor Mendenhall initiated the petitioner for amendments to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. • March 13, 2023-Notice emailed to all SLC registered recognized organizations including a draft of the proposed changes. • March 20, 2023-Information and a draft of the proposed changes was posted to the Planning Division’s online open house webpage. • April 17, 2023-Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community. • April 20, 2023-Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and state websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 3, 2023-Planning staff attended the Central City Neighborhood Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community. • May 4, 2023-Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 11, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 24, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation for the proposed text amendment to the City Council. • May 30, 2023-Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. • June 29, 2023- o Revised draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office for review (technical changes were made to the draft during the month of June). Page | 5 o Planning received the final ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • June 30, 2023-Transmitted to Mayor’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING // OCTOBER 17, 2023 TEXT AMENDMENT –H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT CITYWIDE TEXT AMENDMENT - H Historic Preservation Overlay District WHAT PROPERTIES DOES THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY APPLY TO? •Properties within a local historic district •Properties within a thematic designation •Landmark sites OVERVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division •City’s first preservation ordinance adopted in 1976 •HLC is one of 4 land use authorities –jurisdiction over properties within the H overlay •Approval required for: •Exterior alterations •New construction •Demolition •Relocation BACKGROUND Salt Lake City // Planning Division HELPFUL TERMS Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Contributing: Retains historic integrity. •Noncontributing: Does not retain historic integrity. •Certificate of Appropriateness (COA): Historic approval •Historic Integrity: Location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, & association. PROPOSED REORGANIZATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Reorganization of 21A.34 •Definitions moved •Moves local historic designation, boundary adjustments, revocation of the designation of a landmark site to a new chapter ADDITIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Applicability section •Exemptions •Solar panels at a staff level •Deny CoA at a staff level •HLC jurisdiction & authority •Notice for demo of a NC building •Application fees •New definitions •Historic resource survey adoption NEW PROCESSES •Updates to historic resource surveys •Historic status determinations HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS •RLS – Reconnaissance Level Survey •ILS – Intensive Level Survey •Initial Settlement (1847 to 1869) •Transition (1870 to 1899) •Mature Community (1900 to 1922) •Depression and Decline (1923 to 1955) •Erosion of Residential Character (1956 to 1995) PERIOD OF SIGNIFIGANCE HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY UPDATES Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Surveys should be updated (best practice is every 5-10 years) •Ensures the correct standards apply •May expand the period of significance •Does not change the LHD boundaries •Public process leading up to public hearings –City Council is the decision maker BEFORE (NONCONTRIBUTING) BEFORE(NONCONTRIBUTING) AFTER (CONTRIBUTING) AFTER (CONTRIBUTING) HISTORIC STATUS DETERMINATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division •Administrative Interpretation (May be initiated by property owner or planning director): o Unrated properties o Properties that warrant reconsideration •Considerations: o Updated Historic Resource Survey (ILS) o Alterations o Contextual Understanding o Historic Integrity HISTORIC STATUS DETERMINATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division 319??? 319??? UNRATED IN MOST RECENT SURVEY HISTORIC STATUS DETERMINATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division CHANGED FROM CONTRIBUTING TO NONCONTRIBUTING HISTORIC STATUS DETERMINATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division NO CHANGE –CONFIRMED NONCONTRIBUTING COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City // Planning Division Change since PC Review: •Technical changes Change since transmittal: •Carriage house language Salt Lake City // Planning Division Amy Thompson // Planning Manager amy.thompson@slcgov.com 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and amending the consolidated fee schedule.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the 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: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: A. Creation: The position of appeals hearing officer is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Section 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code. B. Jurisdiction and Authority: The appeals hearing officer shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.16, “Appeals of Administrative Decisions”, of this title; 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 3. Hear and decide appeals of any decision made by the historic landmark commission, or the planning director in the case of administrative decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.34.020, “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions and Condominiums”, of this code; and 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 3 D. Conflict of Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by Title 2, Chapter 2.44 of this code. E. Removal of The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the mayor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: A. General Provisions: The provisions of Title 2, Chapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Historic District Act, Section 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah Code (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code Section 10-8-85.9 and the Land Use Development and Management Act, Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. C. Jurisdiction and Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors and tourists; 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation to the planning commission and the city council; 5. Make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments involving properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission or the city council; 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Overall building and accessory structure height; b. Building and accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence and retaining wall height; e. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and f. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures; 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; 8. Make recommendations to the city council on design guidelines, policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historical and architectural significance; 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 5 D. Membership: The historic landmark commission shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. E. Qualifications of Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 1. At least two (2) architects, and 2. Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. F. Meetings: The historic landmark commission shall meet at least once per month or as needed. G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. H. Public Hearings: The historic landmark commission shall schedule and give public notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.10 of this title. I. Removal of a Member: Any member of the historic landmark commission may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the historic landmark commission following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. J. Policies and Procedures: The historic landmark commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 6 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: 1. Notice of Application for Design Review: a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is located. b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying concerns related to the design review application not complying with the requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants of abutting properties and those properties across the street from the subject property as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 3. Notice of Application for TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 7 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement B. Applicability C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation D. Historic Status Determination E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New Construction of an Accessory Structure H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure I. Standards for Relocation J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building L. Economic Hardship Determination M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 8 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing status. 3. Encourage new development and redevelopment of properties that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 4. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 5. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 6. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 7. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city’s historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 8. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 9. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements of this chapter. 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.D. C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. D. Historic Status Determination: 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for circumstances outlined below. 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 9 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic district for the following: a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not given a historic status rating; b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect status rating in a survey; 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in the form of an administrative interpretation. 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic status determination. 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; b. Be issued for landmark sites; c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted historic resource survey. 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; c. Current and historic photographs; d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any alterations; f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 10 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning administrator. g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and proper consideration of the particular application. 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination may include the following considerations: a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance of a neighborhood, community, or area. c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in city records. 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect the determination. 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required: No alteration in the exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object affecting a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made until an application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved by the historic landmark commission, or administratively by the planning director, as applicable, pursuant to Subsection F of this section. 11 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: a. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; b. New Construction; c. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; d. Demolition; 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness: a. Installation of storm windows; b. Landscaping that: (1) Complies with the standards of this title; (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or streetscape; c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit and are not visible from the public right of way; and g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. F. Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Administrative Authority: The following may be decided by the planning director or designee: a. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing building or structure; b. Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing building or structure; c. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 12 d. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and e. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure. 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following shall only be decided by the historic landmark commission: a. Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; b. New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; c. Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; d. Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; e. Economic hardship determination; f. Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site; and g. Applications referred by the planning director. 3. Submission of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees established for required public noticing. a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property; (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; (5) Current and historic photographs of the property (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for project evaluation; 13 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; (2) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary structure on the block face; (3) Renderings that show the new construction in relation to neighboring buildings; and (4) Renderings that show the new construction from the pedestrian perspective. 4. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of this title. 5. Standards for Approval: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall be reviewed according to the standards set forth in Subsections G through M of this section, whichever are applicable. 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other preservation issues. 14 7. Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing to review the application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The historic landmark commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement building. 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 15 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the one (1) year time period. 12. Appeal of Decisions: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the historic landmark commission, or in the case of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New Construction of an Accessory Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated with a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with all of the following standards: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment; 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided; 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed; 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved; 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects; 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 16 the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment; 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; 10. Certain building materials are prohibited: a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original or historic material. b. Vinyl fencing. 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 21A.46 of this title. H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s architectural and cultural traditions: 1. Settlement Patterns and Neighborhood Character: a. Block and Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. b. Lot and Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 17 elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the definition of public and semi-public spaces. d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s period of significance. e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in the historic context and the block face. 2. Site Access, Parking, and Services: a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to the side of the building. b. Site and Building Services and Utilities: Utilities and site/building services (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and public properties. 3. Landscape and Lighting: a. Grading of Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 4. Building Form and Scale: a. Character of the Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 18 (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic context and the block face. (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic context and the block face. (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in the historic context and the block face. 5. Building Character: a. Facade Articulation and Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). (1) Rhythm of Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (2) Proportion and Scale of Openings: The facades are designed using openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. (3) Ratio of Wall to Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (4) Balconies, Porches, and External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 6. Building Materials, Elements and Detailing: a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 19 brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and character. b. Materials on Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: vinyl siding and aluminum siding. c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. d. Architectural Elements and Details: The design of the building features architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district and/or setting. 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal structure. I. Standards for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the historic landmark commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure; 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure; 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored; and 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the city. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the city attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the historic landmark commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 20 J. Standards for Demolition of Landmark Site: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site, the historic landmark commission shall only approve the application upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to Subsection 21A.34.020.F.10; or 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.L. K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building: When considering a request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building, the historic landmark commission shall determine whether the request substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The historic integrity of the site as defined in Section 21A.62.040 is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 2. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were to be demolished; 3. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the district; 4. The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive reuse of the contributing principal building; 5. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: a. Willful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the state construction code, b. Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or c. Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per Section 18.64.045 of this code. L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building by the historic landmark commission, the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal period as described in Chapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for determination of 21 economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for determination of economic hardship shall be submitted at the same time as an application for demolition of a landmark site to meet the standard of Subsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1. Application for Determination of Economic Hardship: An application for a determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 2. Evidence for Determination of Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: a. Physical condition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans for the property at time of purchase. b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased; (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years; (3) Real estate taxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County Assessor; (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property; (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any state or federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant documents regarding: (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property; 22 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the applicant; and (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building on the property; (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of materials; (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for continued use; and (4) The testimony of a professional with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State of Utah. e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs. f. Description of past and current use. g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet minimum city building code standards or violations of this code and whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, or other land use processes to alleviate hardship. 3. Procedure for Determination of Economic Hardship: a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark commission and has no decision-making capacity. 23 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. b. Review of Evidence: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title to consider the evidence submitted, and the advice and testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert. c. Finding of Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by the applicant and the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert, and if the historic landmark commission finds that the applicant has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic hardship, then the historic landmark commission shall approve the demolition. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot be obtained, the historic landmark commission must find that all of the following are met: (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated; (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been unsuccessful. d. Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: If the historic landmark commission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. e. Denial of Economic Hardship: If the historic landmark commission does not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three (3) years from the date of the final decision of the historic landmark commission. The historic landmark commission may waive this restriction if the historic landmark commission finds there are circumstances sufficient to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site: 24 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following criteria are satisfied: a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, including: (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated setbacks; (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed to be reconstructed; (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate height shall include wall height and roof height; and (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including carriage entries. 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in Subsection 1.b above. 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following standards are complied with: a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture; b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships; c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 25 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or considered; e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the structure; f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the original carriage house; g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be applicable. 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; or c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling units. 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an additional dwelling unit; b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and c. Any authorized modification identified in Section 21A.06.050. 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 26 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts: 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed in accordance with the location priorities detailed in Subsection B.3 of this section. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Subsection B, and any other requirements of this section, the provisions of this Subsection B shall take precedence. 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation shall be the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- way. e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- way, but not on the structure’s front facade. f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the structure. 27 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.030: INITIATION: Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. Applications related to the Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed to establish a character conservation district shall not be required. 28 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property. B. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council or the planning commission from proposing any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any time. SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall read as follows: Chapter 21A.51 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 21A.51.020: Authority 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 21A.51.070: Limitations 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 29 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance and: 1. Designate a landmark site; 2. Designate as a local historic district; 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation; 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 21A.51.080. 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following steps must be completed: a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 30 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 2. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the interest in that lot or parcel. (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained for that lot or parcel. (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the last required signature. b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 31 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a have been met; (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed local designation; (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in Section 21A.51.040; and (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for consideration of a particular application. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or thematic designation shall not be required. 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the city council: a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 32 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General Amendments”, of this title. f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the following: a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city council; and b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the economic hardship process. 33 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2.60.050. 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal. 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property owner opinion ballot. (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; or (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 34 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the first property owner opinion ballot. 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 35 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be required. 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, designate a landmark site. C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 36 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation shall be evaluated according to the following: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed above: 37 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture. 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic district: 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines; 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized neighborhood boundaries; and 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 21A.51.040.D. E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 38 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b; b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.10; and f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11. 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 39 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.B in addition to: a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and adoption of the designation. C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 40 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and will supersede previous surveys. B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic district is subject to the following: a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 41 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a timely determination. d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance and historic status listed. 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may consider the following in their decision making: (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on the local district or thematic designation and the city; (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and associated with at least one of the following: (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 42 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the updated survey; (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the updated survey; (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: Contributing Structure Noncontributing Structure Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 43 Historic Design Guidelines Historic Integrity Economic Hardship Historic Resource Survey Landmark Site Local Historic District Period of Significance Thematic Designation Willful Neglect SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, partial.) DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 44 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially adopted by city council. HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 45 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a building over time. SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 46 ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code 10.9A.510 Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 47 Overlay District Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the city and/or state code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the zoning ordinance and state law: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah Code Section 10-9a-501. 48 SECTION 14. 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 ______________, 202_. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202_. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (final) 9-26-23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 26, 2023 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 202_ 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and 6 amending the consolidated fee schedule.) 7 8 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the 9 consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H 10 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 11 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission 12 (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin 13 Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of 14 Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; 15 and 16 WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of 17 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 18 Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and 19 WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said 20 petition; and 21 WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 22 transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and 23 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 24 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That 27 Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 28 Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 29 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: 30 A. Creation: The position of Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer is created pursuant to the enabling 31 authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, 32 sSection 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code Annotated. 33 34 B. Jurisdiction aAnd Authority: The Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall have the following 35 powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 36 37 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the Zzoning 38 Aadministrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the 39 procedures and standards set forth in cChapter 21A.16, “Appeals oOf Administrative 40 Decisions”, of this title; 41 42 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and 43 standards set forth in cChapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 44 45 3. Hear and decide appeals of any administrative decision made by the Hhistoric 46 Llandmark Ccommission, or the planning director in the case of administrative 47 decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sSection 21A.34.020, 48 “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 49 50 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Pplanning Ccommission 51 concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and 52 standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions aAnd Condominiums”, of this Ccode; 53 and 54 55 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning 56 commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. 57 58 C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the 59 advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals 60 hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any 61 matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer 62 may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The 63 appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with 64 land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 65 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 66 D. Conflict oOf Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in 67 which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by tTitle 68 2, cChapter 2.44 of this code. 69 70 E. Removal oOf The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed 71 by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the 72 planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the 73 appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall 74 provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer 75 appointed by the mayor. 76 77 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That 78 Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 79 Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 80 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: 81 82 A. General Provisions: The provisions of tTitle 2, cChapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to 83 the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. 84 85 B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling 86 authority granted by the hHistoric dDistrict aAct, sSection 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah 87 Code Annotated, 1953 (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code 88 Section 10-8-85.9 and the lLand uUse dDevelopment and mManagement aAct, Utah 89 cCode cChapter 10-9a. 90 91 C. Jurisdiction Aand Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 92 93 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness 94 pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.34 of this title; 95 96 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of 97 historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic 98 preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors 99 and tourists; 100 101 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal 102 structures in the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict pursuant to cChapter 103 21A.34 of this title; 104 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 105 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, 106 thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation Recommend to 107 the planning commission and the city council; the boundaries for the establishment of 108 an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 109 110 5. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the hearing 111 officer or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments and 112 conditional uses involving properties within the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay 113 dDistricts; when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission 114 or the city council; 115 116 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for 117 properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority 118 is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H 119 Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative approval 120 decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications 121 to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in 122 addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 123 124 a. Overall building and accessory structure height; 125 ba. Building and accessory structure wall height; 126 b. Accessory structure wall height; 127 c. Accessory structure square footage; 128 d. Fence and retaining wall height; 129 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 130 ef. Signs pursuant to sSection 21A.46.070 of this title; and 131 fg. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 132 zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable 133 standards identified in sSection 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the 134 surrounding historic structures.; 135 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the 136 preparation of the general plan of the city; and 137 138 8. Make recommendations to the cCity cCouncil on design guidelines, policies and 139 ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of 140 historical and architectural significance.; 141 142 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and 143 make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 145 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a 146 recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 147 148 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or 149 private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 150 151 D. Membership: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall consist of not less than seven 152 (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced 153 geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In 154 situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted 155 policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven 156 (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a 157 position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any 158 person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. 159 160 E. Qualifications Oof Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the Ccity 161 interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the Ccity. Members 162 shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of 163 experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 164 165 1. At least two (2) architects, and 166 167 2. Citizens Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, 168 architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public 169 history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. 170 171 F. Meetings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall meet at least once per month or 172 as needed. 173 174 G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at 175 which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. The decision of the 176 Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective upon the posting of the record of 177 decision. 178 179 H. Public Hearings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall schedule and give public 180 notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.10 of this title. 181 182 I. Removal Oof Aa Member: Any member of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may 183 be removed by the Mmayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures 184 adopted by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission following receipt by the Mmayor of a 185 written complaint filed against the member. 186 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 187 J.Policies aAnd Procedures: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall adopt policies 188 and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any 189 other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. 190 191 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That 192 Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 193 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for 194 Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 195 B. Special Noticing Requirements fFor Administrative Approvals: 196 197 1. Notice Oof Application for Design Review: 198 199 a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an 200 administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this 201 title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: 202 203 (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the 204 subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject 205 property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use 206 the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. 207 (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is 208 located. 209 210 b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the 211 subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the 212 expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, 213 and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. 214 c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying 215 concerns related to the design review application not complying with the 216 requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the 217 planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 218 219 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within 220 An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of At least twelve 221 (12) days before a land use decision is made on an application for an administrative 222 decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing 223 principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 224 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action of the request to 225 demolish the structure and to identify that a determination has been made that the 226 building has been identified as a noncontributing building. This notice will be sent to 227 all owners of the land and tenants, of abutting properties and those properties across 228 the street from the subject property within eighty-five feet (85') of the land subject to 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 229 the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system 230 records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall 231 either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to 232 the historic landmark commission. 233 234 a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe 235 the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the 236 noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most 237 recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the 238 application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning 239 director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 240 241 3. Notice Of Application For Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an 242 administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52 of this 243 title, the Planning Director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 244 of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and 245 those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 246 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 247 City geographic information system records. 248 a. Contents Of The Mailing Notice Of Application: The notice for mailing shall 249 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 250 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the Planning Director 251 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 252 an administrative decision set forth in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 253 254 3. Notice oOf Application fFor TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a 255 development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the 256 planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 257 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those 258 properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 259 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 260 City geographic information system records. 261 a. Contents oOf tThe Mailing Notice oOf Application: The notice for mailing shall 262 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 263 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director 264 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 265 an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 266 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 267 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That 268 Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic 269 Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 270 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 271 272 A. Purpose Statement 273 B. Applicability 274 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation 275 D. Historic Status Determination 276 E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required 277 F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 278 G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New 279 Construction of an Accessory Structure 280 H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure 281 I. Standards for Relocation 282 J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site 283 K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building 284 L. Economic Hardship Determination 285 M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site 286 287 288 A. Purpose Statement: 289 290 In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, 291 the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 292 293 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the Ccity and individual structures 294 and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 295 296 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial 297 use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing 298 status. 299 300 32. Encourage new development, and redevelopment and the subdivision of properties 301 lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development 302 of Hhistoric Ddistricts or individual landmarks; 303 304 43. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 305 306 54. Implement adopted plans of the Ccity related to historic preservation; 307 308 65. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 309 310 76. Protect and enhance the attraction of the Ccity’s historic landmarks and districts for 311 tourists and visitors; 312 313 87. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 314 315 98. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. 316 317 B. Definitions: 318 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation 319 Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section and is of 320 moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic 321 or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and 322 although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic 323 materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact. 324 DEMOLITION: Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the 325 H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, 326 partial.) 327 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL: Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a 328 structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the 329 structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from 330 the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials 331 not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) 332 when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure 333 and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 334 DESIGN GUIDELINES: The design guidelines provide guidance in determining the 335 suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new 336 construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs 337 of properties located within the Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, 338 designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing 339 future projects. For City staff and the Historic Landmark Commission, they provide guidance 340 for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially 341 adopted by City Council. 342 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 343 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 344 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 345 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 346 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 347 1. Reconnaissance level surveys (RLS) are the most basic approach for systematically 348 documenting and evaluating historic buildings in Utah communities and involves 349 only a visual evaluation of properties. 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 350 2. Intensive level surveys (ILS) include in depth research involving research on the 351 property and its owners, documentation of the property’s physical appearance and 352 completion of the Utah State Historic Office’s historic site form. 353 LANDMARK SITE: Any site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources 354 that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section. Such sites are of exceptional 355 importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural 356 values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to 357 interpret the historic character of the site. 358 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A geographically or thematically definable area within the 359 H Historic Preservation Overlay District designated by the City Council pursuant to the 360 provisions of this section, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape 361 features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to 362 the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 363 NEW CONSTRUCTION: The building of a new principal building within the H Historic 364 Preservation Overlay District or on a landmark site. 365 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure within the H Historic Preservation 366 Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C15 of this section. The 367 major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic 368 form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing 369 structures may also include those which are less than fifty (50) years old. 370 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 371 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united 372 together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 373 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 374 interest or value. 375 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 376 building over time. 377 B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part 378 of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements 379 of this chapter. 380 381 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the 382 historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as 383 identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City 384 Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with 385 Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 386 387 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, 388 Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation oOf aA Landmark Site, Local Historic District 389 oOr Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 390 Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments.; H Historic Preservation 391 Overlay District: 392 393 1. Intent: Salt Lake City will consider the designation of a landmark site, or thematic 394 designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent 395 significant elements of the City’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 396 architecture. Designation of a local historic district must be in the best interest of the 397 City and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public 398 interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The City 399 Council shall determine that designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 400 thematic designation is the best method of preserving a unique element of history 401 important to understanding the prehistory or history of the area encompassed by the 402 current Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. 403 2. City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmark Sites, Local Historic Districts Or 404 Thematic Designations: Pursuant to the procedures in this section and the standards 405 for general amendments in section 21A.50.050 of this title the City Council may by 406 ordinance apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and: 407 a. Designate as a landmark site an individual building, structure or feature or an 408 integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single lot or site having 409 exceptional importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high 410 artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of 411 time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site; 412 b. Designate as a local historic district a contiguous area with a minimum district 413 size of one “block face”, as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title, containing 414 a number of sites, buildings, structures or features that contribute to the historic 415 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or 416 aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the City; 417 c. Designate as a thematic designation a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or 418 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that 419 are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and 420 contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting 421 historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value; and 422 d. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark 423 site, local historic district or thematic designation. 424 3. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation 425 or amendment to a landmark site(s), local historic district(s) or thematic 426 designation(s), and prior to gathering any signatures in support of such an application, 427 a potential applicant shall attend a preapplication conference with the Planning 428 Director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the 429 proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 430 4. Notification Of Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference 431 outlined in subsection C3 of this section and prior to the submittal of an application 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 432 for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 433 designation(s), the City shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet 434 to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming 435 application. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 436 the process to create a local historic district and will also list the pros and cons of a 437 local historic district. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential 438 applicant submits to the City a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included 439 in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Once the City sends the informational 440 pamphlet, property owner signature gathering may begin per subsection C5b of this 441 section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an 442 application is not filed with the City within ninety (90) days after the date that the 443 informational pamphlet was mailed, the City shall close its file on the matter. Any 444 subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 445 5. Petition Initiation For Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 446 Thematic Designation: 447 a. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Landmark Site: 448 Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the Mayor or the City 449 Council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a 450 landmark site. 451 b. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Local Historic 452 District Or Thematic Designation: A property owner initiating such a petition 453 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 454 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 455 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The Mayor or the 456 City Council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of 457 a local historic district or thematic designation. 458 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 459 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 460 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 461 interest in that lot or parcel. 462 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the 463 thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures 464 obtained for that lot or parcel. 465 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 466 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 467 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 468 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 469 was mailed as required per subsection C4 of this section and the date of the 470 last required signature. 471 c. Fees: No application fee will be required for a petition initiated by a property 472 owner for designation of a property to the H Historic Preservation Overlay 473 District. 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 474 6. Notice Of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the City of an 475 application for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 476 designation(s), the City shall send a notice of designation application letter to 477 owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second 478 copy of the informational pamphlet described in subsection C4 of this section. In the 479 event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property 480 owner signature gathering, the City will send a letter to property owner(s) of record 481 stating that no application has been filed, and that the City has closed its file on the 482 matter. 483 7. Planning Director Report To The City Council: Following the initiation of a petition 484 to designate a landmark site or a local historic district or thematic designation, the 485 Planning Director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the 486 City Council: 487 a. Whether a current survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic 488 Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a 489 local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, 490 the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 491 b. The City administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 492 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 493 Planning Division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 494 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new landmark site, local 495 historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the City 496 Council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed 497 budget. 498 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 499 objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning 500 documents. 501 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 502 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 503 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 504 with the purposes and designation criteria in subsection C15 of this section and 505 the zoning map amendment criteria in section 21A.50.050, “Standards For 506 General Amendments”, of this title. 507 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per subsection C4 of 508 this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district 509 following the presubmittal process outlined in subsection C3 of this section. 510 8. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the Planning Director’s report 511 and acceptance of the report by the City Council, the Planning Division will conduct 512 a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 513 boundaries of the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic 514 designation about the following: 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 515 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 516 support, the public hearing process, and final decision making process by the City 517 Council; and 518 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 519 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 520 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 521 economic hardship process. 522 9. Open House: Following the property owner meeting, the Planning Division will 523 conduct an open house for the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of 524 the local historic district or thematic designation to provide the information described 525 in subsections C8a and C8b of this section. 526 10. Public Hearing Process: 527 a. Historic Landmark Commission Consideration: Following the initiation of a 528 petition to designate a landmark site or a local historic district, the Historic 529 Landmark Commission shall hold a public hearing and review the request by 530 applying subsection C15, “Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, 531 Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation”, of this section. Following the 532 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission shall recommend approval, 533 approval with modifications or denial of the proposed designation and shall then 534 submit its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 535 b. Planning Commission Consideration: Following action by the Historic Landmark 536 Commission, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall 537 recommend approval, approval with modifications or denial of the proposed 538 designation based on the standards of section 21A.50.050 of this title, zoning map 539 amendments and shall then submit its recommendation to the City Council. 540 11. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 541 a. Following the completion of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning 542 Commission public hearings, the City will deliver property owner opinion ballots 543 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 544 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 545 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the City Council of property 546 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 547 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 548 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 549 owner opinion ballot. 550 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 551 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 552 (2) The Municipality shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot 553 for: 554 (A) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district 555 or area; or 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 556 (B) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 557 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 558 (3) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the Municipality shall 559 count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the 560 property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who 561 own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 562 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 563 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the City indicating the 564 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 565 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 566 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 567 received by the City within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 568 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 569 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 570 first property owner opinion ballot. 571 12. Notification Of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 572 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the City will send notice of the results 573 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic 574 designation. 575 13. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the Historic Landmark 576 Commission and the Planning Commission recommendations and the results of the 577 property owner opinion process, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to 578 consider the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic 579 designation. 580 a. Designation Of A Landmark Site: The City Council may, by a majority vote, 581 designate a landmark site. 582 b. Designation Of A Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation: 583 (1) If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) 584 of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents 585 more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a 586 condominium project) within the proposed local historic district, area, or 587 thematic designation, the City Council may designate a local historic district 588 or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. 589 590 (2) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 591 threshold identified in subsection C13b(1) of this section, the City Council 592 may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an 593 affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the City Council. 594 (3) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 595 opposition is equal, the City Council may only designate a local historic 596 district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 597 c. Following Designation: Following City Council designation of a landmark site, 598 local historic district or thematic designation, all of the property located within the 599 boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be subject to the 600 provisions of this section. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of 601 the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adoption ordinance. 602 14. Notice Of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 603 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the City shall provide 604 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 605 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the Office of 606 the County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic 607 Preservation Overlay District. 608 15. Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 609 Thematic Designation: Each lot or parcel of property proposed as a landmark site, for 610 inclusion in a local historic district, or for thematic designation shall be evaluated 611 according to the following: 612 a. Significance in local, regional, State or national history, architecture, engineering 613 or culture, associated with at least one of the following: 614 (1) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 615 history, or 616 (2) Lives of persons significant in the history of the City, region, State, or 617 Nation, or 618 (3) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or 619 the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 620 (4) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 621 Salt Lake City; and 622 b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 623 feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National 624 Register of Historic Places; 625 c. The proposed local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible 626 to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 627 d. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the 628 City’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other 629 local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 630 e. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 631 f. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 632 16. Factors To Consider: The following factors may be considered by the Historic 633 Landmark Commission and the City Council to help determine whether the proposed 634 designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the 635 criteria listed above: 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 636 a. Sites should be of such an age which would allow insight into whether a property 637 is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community. Typically this is 638 at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional 639 importance. 640 b. Whether the proposed local historic district contains examples of elements of the 641 City’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be 642 protected by other local historic districts within the City. 643 c. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district would add important 644 knowledge that advances the understanding of the City’s history, development 645 patterns and/or architecture. 646 d. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 647 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent 648 applicable historic survey. 649 17. Boundaries Of A Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 650 subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to 651 ensure that historical associations, and/or those which best enhance the integrity of 652 the site comprise the boundaries. 653 18. Boundaries Of A Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation 654 criteria in subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the 655 local historic district: 656 a. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or 657 features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 658 b. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 659 subdivision plats or property lines; 660 c. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 661 neighborhood boundaries; and 662 d. Contains nonhistoric resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 663 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria of subsection C15 of this section. 664 19. Boundaries Of A Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation 665 criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic 666 designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are 667 united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute 668 to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, 669 architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 670 D. The Adjustment Or Expansion Of Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 671 District And The Revocation Of The Designation Of Landmark Site: 672 1. Procedure: The procedure for the adjustment of boundaries of an H Historic 673 Preservation Overlay District and the revocation of the designation of a landmark site 674 shall be the same as that outlined in subsection C of this section. 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 675 2. Criteria For Adjusting The Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 676 District: Criteria for adjusting the boundaries of an H Historic Preservation Overlay 677 District are as follows: 678 a. The properties have ceased to meet the criteria for inclusion within an H Historic 679 Preservation Overlay District because the qualities which caused them to be 680 originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost 681 subsequent to the Historic Landmark Commission recommendation and adoption 682 of the district; 683 b. Additional information indicates that the properties do not comply with the 684 criteria for selection of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as outlined in 685 subsection C15 of this section; or 686 c. Additional information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would 687 better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the H Historic 688 Preservation Overlay District, provided they meet the standards outlined in 689 subsection C15 of this section. 690 3. Criteria For The Expansion Of An Existing Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 691 Thematic Designation: A proposed expansion of an existing landmark site, local 692 historic district or thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of 693 subsections C15 through C19 of this section. 694 4. Criteria For The Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: Criteria are as 695 follows: 696 a. The property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a landmark site 697 because the qualities that caused it to be originally designated have been lost or 698 destroyed or the structure has been demolished; or 699 b. Additional information indicates that the landmark site does not comply with the 700 criteria for selection of a landmark site as outlined in subsection C15 of this 701 section; or 702 c. Additional information indicates that the landmark site is not of exceptional 703 importance to the City, State, region or Nation. 704 D. Historic Status Determination: 705 706 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual 707 structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review 708 of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for 709 circumstances outlined below. 710 711 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an 712 existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 713 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic 714 district for the following: 715 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 716 a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not 717 given a historic status rating; 718 719 b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect 720 status rating in a survey; 721 722 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in 723 the form of an administrative interpretation. 724 725 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic 726 status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s 727 authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic 728 status determination. 729 730 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: 731 732 a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; 733 b. Be issued for landmark sites; 734 c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted 735 historic resource survey. 736 737 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation 738 application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall 739 include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning 740 administrator: 741 742 a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in 743 the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if 744 different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the 745 application; 746 b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; 747 c. Current and historic photographs; 748 d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or 749 the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; 750 e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any 751 alterations; 752 f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is 753 to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the 754 reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 755 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an 756 intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah 757 State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 758 considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning 759 administrator. 760 761 g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and 762 proper consideration of the particular application. 763 764 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination 765 may include the following considerations: 766 767 a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. 768 b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance 769 of a neighborhood, community, or area. 770 c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, 771 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 772 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects 773 the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which 774 the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a 775 local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures 776 in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of 777 each individual building or structure in a district. 778 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent 779 to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in 780 city records. 781 782 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s 783 historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will 784 stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect 785 the determination. 786 787 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the 788 zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals 789 hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 790 791 E. Certificate oOf Appropriateness Required: After the establishment of an H Historic 792 Preservation Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, nNo alteration in the 793 exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object or work of art affecting the landmark 794 site or a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or 795 permitted to be made unless or until the an application for a certificate of appropriateness 796 is has been submitted to, and approved by, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 797 administratively by the Pplanning Ddirector, as applicable, pursuant to sSubsection F of 798 this section. Certificates of appropriateness shall be required for: 799 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 800 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: 801 a1. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless 802 specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; construction needing a 803 building permit; 804 b2. New construction; Removal and replacement or alteration of architectural 805 detailing, such as porch columns, railing, window moldings, cornices and siding; 806 c3. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; 807 d4. Demolition; Construction of additions or decks; 808 5. Alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages, etc.; 809 6. Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration 810 patterns; 811 7. Construction or alteration of porches; 812 8. Masonry work including, but not limited to, tuckpointing, sandblasting, painting and 813 chemical cleaning; 814 9. The construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, 815 walls, paving and grading; 816 10. Installation or alteration of any exterior sign; 817 11. Any demolition; 818 12. New construction; and 819 13. Installation of an awning over a window or door. 820 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of 821 Appropriateness: 822 823 a. Installation of storm windows; 824 b. Landscaping that: 825 826 (1) Complies with the standards of this title; 827 (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and 828 (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or 829 streetscape; 830 831 c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; 832 833 d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any 834 dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish 835 material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; 836 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 837 e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging 838 outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; 839 840 f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit 841 and are not visible from the public right of way; and 842 843 g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in 844 Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. 845 846 F. Procedure Ffor Issuance oOf Certificate oOf Appropriateness: 847 848 1. Administrative Authority Decision: The following may be decided by the planning 849 director or designee: Certain types of construction or demolition may be approved 850 administratively subject to the following procedures: 851 a. Types Of Construction: The following may be approved by administrative 852 decision: 853 a. (1)Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, 854 and/or structure; 855 b. (2)Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site building or structure; 856 c. (3)Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building 857 or structure; 858 d. (4) Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and 859 e. (5) Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure.; and 860 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to 861 section 21A.40.190 of this title. 862 b. Submission Of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness 863 shall be made on a form prepared by the Planning Director or designee, and shall 864 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 865 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 866 forward the application for review and decision. 867 c. Materials Submitted With Application: The application shall include photographs, 868 construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or 869 massing model, window frame sections, and samples and any further information 870 or documentation as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary in order to fully 871 consider and analyze the application. deemed necessary to consider the 872 application properly and completely. 873 d. Fees: No application fee will be required for a certificate of appropriateness that is 874 administratively approved. 875 e. Notice Of Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Building Or 876 Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 877 shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to chapter 878 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 879 established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 880 f. Standards Of Approval: The application shall be reviewed according to the 881 standards set forth in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable. 882 g. Review And Decision By The Planning Director: On the basis of written findings 883 of fact, the Planning Director or the Planning Director’s designee shall either 884 approve, or conditionally approve, the certificate of appropriateness based on the 885 standards in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable, within 886 thirty (30) days following receipt of a completed application. The decision of the 887 Planning Director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. 888 h. Referral Of Application By Planning Director To Historic Landmark 889 Commission: The Planning Director may refer any application to the Historic 890 Landmark Commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance 891 of change to the landmark site or contributing building in the H Historic 892 Preservation Overlay District, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding 893 architectural, construction or preservation issues, or if the application does not 894 meet the standards of review. 895 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following Certain types of 896 construction, demolition and relocation shall only be decided approved by the 897 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission subject to the following procedures: 898 899 a. Types Of Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the Historic 900 Landmark Commission: 901 a. (1)Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, 902 building, and/or structure; 903 b. (2) New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 904 District; 905 c. (3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; 906 d. (4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; 907 e. Economic hardship determination; 908 f. Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site; and 909 g. (5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the Pplanning Ddirector.; 910 and 911 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the 912 principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining 913 features of the home pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. 914 (7) Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site. 915 916 3b. Submission oOf Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall 917 be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 918 accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee 919 schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees 920 established for required public noticing. the Planning Director or designee, and shall 921 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 922 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 923 forward the application for review and decision. The procedure for an application for 924 a certificate of appropriateness shall be the same as specified in subsection F1b of this 925 section. 926 a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the 927 following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: 928 929 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 930 in the subject property; 931 932 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 933 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 934 935 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 936 937 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 938 review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; 939 940 (5) Current and historic photographs of the property 941 942 (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 943 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 944 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 945 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 946 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 947 project evaluation; 948 949 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; 950 951 (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; 952 953 (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 954 955 (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems 956 necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 957 958 b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general 959 application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a 960 primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the 961 zoning administrator: 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 962 c. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 963 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 964 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required 965 by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 966 d. Materials Submitted With Application: An application shall be made on a form 967 provided by the Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning Division 968 in accordance with subsection F1c of this section, however specific requirements 969 for new construction shall include the following information unless deemed 970 unnecessary by the Zoning Administrator: 971 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 972 in the subject property; 973 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 974 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 975 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 976 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 977 review standards with citation of supporting adopted City design guidelines; 978 (1) (5)A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard 979 setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, 980 contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; 981 982 (2) (6) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary 983 structure on the block face; 984 (7) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 985 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 986 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 987 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 988 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 989 project evaluation; 990 (8) Elevation drawings and details for all facades; 991 (9) Illustrative photos and/or samples of all proposed facade materials; 992 (10) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 993 (3) (11) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction in relation to 994 neighboring buildings; and 995 (4) (12) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction from the 996 pedestrian perspective.; and 997 (13) Any further information or documentation as the Zoning Administrator 998 deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 999 4e. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification 1000 requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. shall require notice pursuant to chapter 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1001 21A.10 of this title. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition 1002 of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 1003 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 1004 established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of 1005 this title. 1006 f. Public Hearing: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require a 1007 public hearing pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1008 5g. Standards fFor Approval: The Aapplications for a certificate of appropriateness shall 1009 be reviewed according to the standards set forth in sSubsections G through KM of 1010 this section, whichever are applicable. 1011 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, 1012 conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness 1013 based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee 1014 shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. 1015 a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director 1016 or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to 1017 the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 1018 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other 1019 preservation issues. 1020 7h. Review And Decision By The Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The 1021 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public hearing to review the 1022 application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1023 21A.10 of this title. make a decision at a regularly scheduled meeting, following 1024 receipt of a completed application. The historic landmark commission shall approve, 1025 conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. 1026 The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time 1027 the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to 1028 approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue 1029 a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for 1030 demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in 1031 Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 1032 1033 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of 1034 appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site 1035 shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: 1036 1037 a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. 1038 1039 b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will 1040 replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The 1041 requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with 1042 a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1043 development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be 1044 demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. 1045 1046 c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously 1047 with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement 1048 building. 1049 1050 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1051 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation 1052 Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the 1053 designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 1054 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 1055 1056 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: 1057 A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1058 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent 1059 hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building 1060 official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 1061 1062 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period 1063 of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete 1064 building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building 1065 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1066 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark 1067 commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or 1068 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) 1069 days prior to the one (1) year time period. 1070 1071 (1) After reviewing all materials submitted for the case, the recommendation of 1072 the Planning Division and conducting a field inspection, if necessary, the 1073 Historic Landmark Commission shall make written findings of fact based on 1074 the standards of approval as outlined in this subsection F through subsection K 1075 of this section, whichever are applicable. 1076 (2) On the basis of its written findings of fact the Historic Landmark 1077 Commission shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve the certificate 1078 of appropriateness. 1079 (3) The decision of the Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective at 1080 the time the decision is made. Demolition permits for landmark sites or 1081 contributing principal buildings shall not be issued until the appeal period has 1082 expired. 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1083 (4) Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission on the 1084 application, including a copy of the findings of fact, shall be made pursuant to 1085 the provisions of section 21A.10.030 of this title. 1086 12i. Appeal oOf Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: Any person adversely 1087 affected by a final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or in the case 1088 of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in 1089 accordance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.16 of this title. 1090 G. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Alteration oOf aA Landmark Site oOr 1091 Contributing Structure Including New Construction oOf aAn Accessory Structure: In 1092 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark 1093 site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated 1094 with a landmark site or contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1095 the Pplanning Ddirector, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design 1096 guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with 1097 all of the following general standards: that pertain to the application and that the decision 1098 is in the best interest of the City: 1099 1100 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires 1101 minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and 1102 environment; 1103 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of 1104 historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall 1105 be avoided; 1106 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. 1107 Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of 1108 history or architecture are not allowed; 1109 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right 1110 shall be retained and preserved; 1111 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of 1112 craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 1113 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever 1114 feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the 1115 material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. 1116 Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate 1117 duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather 1118 than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from 1119 other structures or objects; 1120 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 1121 materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be 1122 undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 1123 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be 1124 discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, 1125 historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1126 the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or 1127 environment; 1128 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that 1129 if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form 1130 and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be 1131 differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and 1132 architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its 1133 environment; 1134 10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: 1135 a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original 1136 or historic material. 1137 b. Vinyl fencing. 1138 1139 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a 1140 landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible 1141 from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the 1142 landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the 1143 standards outlined in cChapter 21A.46 of this title. 1144 1145 H. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness Involving New Construction oOr 1146 Alteration oOf aA Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a 1147 certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or 1148 alterations of noncontributing structures, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1149 Pplanning Ddirector when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing 1150 structure, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, 1151 determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards 1152 that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established 1153 context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s 1154 architectural and cultural traditions: 1155 1156 1. Settlement Patterns aAnd Neighborhood Character: 1157 1158 a. Block aAnd Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the 1159 historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. 1160 Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an 1161 adopted Ccity plan. 1162 b. Lot aAnd Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and 1163 building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 1164 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated 1165 by an adopted Ccity plan. 1166 c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with 1167 sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the 1168 block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1169 elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the 1170 definition of public and semi-public spaces. 1171 d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and 1172 reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the 1173 historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback 1174 demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s 1175 period of significance. 1176 e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and 1177 pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in 1178 the historic context and the block face. 1179 1180 2. Site Access, Parking, aAnd Services: 1181 a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in 1182 form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block 1183 face. 1184 1185 (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally 1186 highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the 1187 historic context and the block face. 1188 (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. 1189 Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to 1190 the side of the building. 1191 1192 b. Site aAnd Building Services aAnd Utilities: Utilities and site/building services 1193 (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they 1194 are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and 1195 public properties. 1196 1197 3. Landscape aAnd Lighting: 1198 a. Grading oOf Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, 1199 addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic 1200 context and the block face. 1201 b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address 1202 the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and 1203 the block face. 1204 c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of 1205 the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 1206 1207 4. Building Form aAnd Scale: 1208 a. Character oOf Tthe Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic 1209 character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 1210 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1211 (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1212 and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step 1213 back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic 1214 context and the block face. 1215 1216 (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1217 and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face 1218 modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic 1219 context and the block face. 1220 1221 (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character 1222 of the historic context and the block face. 1223 1224 (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in 1225 the historic context and the block face. 1226 1227 5. Building Character: 1228 a. Facade Articulation aAnd Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns 1229 of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block 1230 face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings 1231 on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found 1232 elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). 1233 1234 (1) Rhythm oOf Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of 1235 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic 1236 context and the block face. 1237 1238 (2) Proportion aAnd Scale oOf Openings: The facades are designed using 1239 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and 1240 scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. 1241 1242 (3) Ratio oOf Wall tTo Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall 1243 to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the 1244 historic context and the block face. 1245 1246 (4) Balconies, Porches, aAnd External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, 1247 incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections 1248 that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 1249 1250 6. Building Materials, Elements aAnd Detailing: 1251 a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less 1252 than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1253 brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials 1254 reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and 1255 character. 1256 b. Materials Oon Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered 1257 to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: 1258 vinyl siding and aluminum siding. 1259 c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects 1260 patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. 1261 d. Architectural Elements aAnd Details: The design of the building features 1262 architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district 1263 and/or setting. 1264 1265 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral 1266 part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal 1267 structure. 1268 1269 I. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Relocation oOf Landmark Site oOr 1270 Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness 1271 for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark 1272 Ccommission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following 1273 standards: 1274 1275 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 1276 1277 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district 1278 or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 1279 1280 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance 1281 of the structure; 1282 1283 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness 1284 of the building or structure; 1285 1286 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being 1287 stored; and 1288 1289 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation 1290 has occurred is provided to the Ccity. The financial guarantee shall be in a form 1291 approved by the Ccity Aattorney, in an amount determined by the Pplanning 1292 Ddirector sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as 1293 approved by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission and restore the grade and 1294 landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is 1295 to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 1296 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1297 J. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf Landmark Site: In 1298 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a 1299 landmark site, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall only approve the application 1300 upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1301 1302 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to 1303 sSubsection 21A.34.020.F.10 O of this section; or 1304 1305 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the Hhistoric Llandmark 1306 Ccommission pursuant to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.34.020.L of this section. 1307 1308 K. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf aA Contributing 1309 Principal Building In An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When considering a 1310 request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing 1311 principal building, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall determine whether the 1312 request substantially complies with the following standards: 1313 1314 1. Standards For Approval Of A Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: 1315 1a. The historic integrity of the site as defined in subsection Section 21A.62.040 C15b of 1316 this section is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a 1317 contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 1318 2b.The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District 1319 would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were 1320 to be demolished; 1321 3c. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of 1322 historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the 1323 district; 1324 4d.The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive 1325 reuse of the contributing principal building; 1326 5e. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful wilful neglect, as 1327 evidenced by the following: 1328 a. (1)WillfulWilful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the 1329 structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the 1330 building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the Sstate 1331 Cconstruction Ccode, 1332 b. (2)Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain 1333 the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or 1334 c. (3)Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per 1335 sSection 18.64.045 of this Ccode. 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1336 2. Historic Landmark Commission Determination Of Compliance With Standards Of 1337 Approval: If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the request for a 1338 certificate of appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards 1339 in subsection K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall 1340 approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. If the Historic 1341 Landmark Commission does not find that the request for a certificate of 1342 appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards in subsection 1343 K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the request for 1344 a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 1345 L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for 1346 demolition of a contributing principal building by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, 1347 the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal 1348 period as described in cChapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for 1349 determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for 1350 determination of economic hardship shall can be submitted at any the same time as an 1351 application for demolition of a landmark site necessary to meet the standard of 1352 sSubsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1353 1354 1. Application fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: An application for a 1355 determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning 1356 administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City 1357 consolidated fee schedule. Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning 1358 Division. 1359 1360 2. Evidence fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the 1361 owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an 1362 economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based 1363 solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: 1364 1365 a. Physical cCondition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans 1366 for the property at time of purchase. 1367 b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to 1368 the following: 1369 1370 (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom 1371 purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between 1372 applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased,; 1373 (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous 1374 three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous 1375 three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and 1376 after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years,; 1377 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1378 (3) Real Eestate Ttaxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County 1379 Assessor,; 1380 (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for 1381 determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser 1382 licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the 1383 previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the 1384 purchase, financing or ownership of the property,; 1385 (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic 1386 Preservation Overlay District,; and 1387 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any Sstate or Ffederal Iincome 1388 Ttax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. 1389 1390 c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of 1391 the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within 1392 the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant 1393 documents regarding: 1394 1395 (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property,; 1396 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the 1397 applicant,; and 1398 (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. 1399 1400 d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the 1401 following: 1402 1403 (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in 1404 rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building 1405 on the property,; 1406 (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including 1407 the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of 1408 materials,; 1409 (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after 1410 completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for 1411 continued use,; and 1412 (4) The testimony of an experienced professional with demonstrated experience 1413 in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of 1414 rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced 1415 professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real 1416 estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in 1417 preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State 1418 of Utah. 1419 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1420 e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through Ffederal, 1421 Sstate, Ccity, or private programs. 1422 f. Description of past and current use. 1423 g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet 1424 minimum Ccity Bbuilding Ccode standards or violations of this Ccode and 1425 whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its 1426 successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. 1427 h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, special exception or other land 1428 use processes to alleviate hardship. 1429 1430 3. Procedure fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The Planning Director shall 1431 appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or 1432 testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission concerning the value of the property 1433 and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. The 1434 extent of the authority of the Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert is limited 1435 to rendering advice and testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission. The 1436 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert has no decision-making capacity. The 1437 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert should have considerable and 1438 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, 1439 real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. The Historic 1440 Landmark Commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the 1441 evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the Planning 1442 Director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. 1443 1444 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified 1445 expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the 1446 historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether 1447 or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. 1448 1449 (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified 1450 expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark 1451 commission and has no decision-making capacity. 1452 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and 1453 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic 1454 properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or 1455 law. 1456 (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony 1457 upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the 1458 advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as 1459 necessary. 1460 1461 ba. Review Oof Evidence: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public 1462 hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1463 21A.10 of this title shall to consider the evidence submitted, an application and 1464 the advice and /testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed qualified expert. 1465 for determination of economic hardship after receipt of a complete application. 1466 1467 cb. Finding Oof Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by 1468 the applicant and the advice/testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed 1469 qualified expert, and if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds that the applicant 1470 has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic 1471 hardship, then the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall approve the issue a 1472 certificate of appropriateness for demolition. in accordance with subsections M and N 1473 of this section. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot 1474 be obtained, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission must find that all of the following 1475 are met: 1476 1477 (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically 1478 used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if 1479 rehabilitated; 1480 (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1481 reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and 1482 (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing 1483 principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been 1484 unsuccessful. 1485 1486 (1) For demolition of non-residential or multifamily property: 1487 1488 (A)The contributing principal building or landmark site currently cannot be 1489 economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present 1490 condition. 1491 1492 (2) For demolition of a residential property (single or two family): 1493 1494 (A)The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1495 beneficial use in its present condition. 1496 dc. Certificate oOf Appropriateness fFor Demolition: If the Hhistoric Llandmark 1497 Ccommission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for 1498 demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. valid 1499 for one year. Extensions of time for an approved certificate of appropriateness for 1500 demolition associated with economic hardship shall be subject to 1501 subsection 21A.10.010D of this title. 1502 ed. Denial Oof Economic Hardship: If the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission does 1503 not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of 1504 appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship 1505 determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three 1506 (3) years from the date of the final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark 1507 Ccommission. The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may waive this restriction 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1508 if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds there are circumstances sufficient 1509 to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by 1510 the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. 1511 1512 e. Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic 1513 Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions 1514 of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1515 M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site: 1516 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the 1517 following criteria are satisfied: 1518 1519 a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any 1520 site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal 1521 building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. 1522 b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with 1523 the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may 1524 include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or 1525 similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary 1526 documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the 1527 carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide 1528 sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, 1529 including: 1530 1531 (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated 1532 setbacks; 1533 (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; 1534 (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed 1535 to be reconstructed; 1536 (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing 1537 buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the 1538 dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate 1539 height shall include wall height and roof height; and 1540 (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including 1541 carriage entries. 1542 1543 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house 1544 shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application 1545 requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in 1546 Subsection 1.b above. 1547 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be 1548 subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following 1549 standards are complied with: 1550 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1551 a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a 1552 property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate 1553 reconstruction with minimal conjecture; 1554 b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic 1555 materials, features, and spatial relationships; 1556 c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and 1557 elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on 1558 conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic 1559 properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- 1560 surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 1561 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or 1562 considered; 1563 e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on 1564 the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. 1565 Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions 1566 of the structure; 1567 f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the 1568 original carriage house; 1569 g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, 1570 shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage 1571 houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and 1572 h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, 1573 light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking 1574 locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, 1575 appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 1576 1577 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall 1578 comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have 1579 been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 1580 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a 1581 reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 1582 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be 1583 applicable. 1584 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a 1585 reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: 1586 1587 a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; 1588 b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; 1589 or 1590 c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory 1591 dwelling units. 1592 1593 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house 1594 under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards 1595 upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: 1596 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1597 a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an 1598 additional dwelling unit; 1599 b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and 1600 c. Any authorized modification identified in Section 21A.06.050. 1601 1602 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the 1603 city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 1604 1605 M. Requirements For Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: No certificate of 1606 appropriateness for demolition shall be issued unless the landmark site or contributing 1607 principal building to be demolished is to be replaced with a new building that meets the 1608 following criteria. 1609 1610 1. The replacement building satisfies all applicable zoning and H Historic Preservation 1611 Overlay District standards for new construction. 1612 2. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition is issued simultaneously with the 1613 appropriate approvals and permits for the replacement building. 1614 3. Submittal of documentation to the Planning Division of the landmark site or 1615 contributing principal building in a historic district. Documentation shall include 1616 photos of the subject property and a site plan. Documentation may also include 1617 drawings and/or written data if available. 1618 1619 a. Photographs. Digital or print photographs. Views should include: 1620 (1) Exterior views; 1621 (2) Close-ups of significant exterior features; 1622 (3) Views that show the relationship of the primary building to the overall site, 1623 accessory structures and/or site features. 1624 1625 b. Site plan showing the location of the building and site features. 1626 1627 N. Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1628 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the Salt Lake City Register of 1629 Cultural Resources (see subsection D of this section). 1630 1631 O. Exceptions Of Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition Of Hazardous Buildings: A 1632 hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1633 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard 1634 to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall 1635 notify the Planning Director of the decision. 1636 1637 P. Expiration Of Approvals: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Historic 1638 Landmark Commission, or in the case of an administratively approved certificate of 1639 appropriateness, by the Planning Director or designee, no certificate of appropriateness 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1640 shall be valid for a period of longer than one year unless a building permit has been 1641 issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building 1642 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1643 completion, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Historic Landmark 1644 Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the Planning Director or 1645 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days 1646 prior to the twelve (12) month time period. 1647 1648 Q. Reconstruction of a Carriage House in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 1649 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the 1650 following criteria are satisfied: 1651 1652 a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any 1653 site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal 1654 building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. 1655 b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with 1656 the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may 1657 include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or 1658 similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary 1659 documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the 1660 carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide 1661 sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, 1662 including: 1663 1664 (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated 1665 setbacks; 1666 (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; 1667 (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed 1668 to be reconstructed; 1669 (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing 1670 buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the 1671 dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate 1672 height shall include wall height and roof height; and 1673 (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including 1674 carriage entries. 1675 1676 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house 1677 shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application 1678 requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in 1679 Subsection 1.b above. 1680 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be 1681 subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following 1682 standards are complied with: 1683 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1684 a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a 1685 property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate 1686 reconstruction with minimal conjecture; 1687 b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic 1688 materials, features, and spatial relationships; 1689 c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and 1690 elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on 1691 conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic 1692 properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- 1693 surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 1694 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or 1695 considered; 1696 e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on 1697 the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. 1698 Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions 1699 of the structure; 1700 f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the 1701 original carriage house; 1702 g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, 1703 shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage 1704 houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and 1705 h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, 1706 light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking 1707 locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, 1708 appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 1709 1710 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall 1711 comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have 1712 been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 1713 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a 1714 reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 1715 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be 1716 applicable. 1717 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a 1718 reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: 1719 1720 a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; 1721 b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; or 1722 c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling 1723 units. 1724 1725 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house 1726 under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards 1727 upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: 1728 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1729 a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an 1730 additional dwelling unit; 1731 b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and 1732 c. Any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050. 1733 1734 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the 1735 city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 1736 1737 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That 1738 Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 1739 Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and 1740 Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to 1741 read as follows: 1742 B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems aAnd Historic Preservation Overlay Districts Or 1743 Landmark Sites: 1744 1745 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to 1746 install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay 1747 District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 1748 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed 1749 in accordance with the location priorities detailed in sSubsection B.3 of this section. If 1750 there is any conflict between the provisions of this sSubsection B, and any other 1751 requirements of this section, the provisions of this sSubsection B shall take precedence. 1752 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a 1753 location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a 1754 way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic 1755 building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar 1756 device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not 1757 damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 1758 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate 1759 locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations 1760 in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation approved shall be 1761 the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible 1762 with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. Systems 1763 proposed for locations in subsections B3a through B3e of this section, may be reviewed 1764 administratively as set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F1, “Administrative Decision”, of 1765 this title. Systems proposed for locations in subsection B3f of this section, shall be 1766 reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission in accordance with the procedures set 1767 forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2, “Historic Landmark Commission”, of this title. 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1768 1769 a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1770 b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public 1771 right-of-way. 1772 c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1773 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- 1774 way. 1775 e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- 1776 way, but not on the structure’s front facade. 1777 f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with 1778 the character defining features of the structure. 1779 1780 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That 1781 Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and 1782 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1783 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: 1784 1785 The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance 1786 adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. 1787 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are 1788 subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. 1789 1790 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That 1791 Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and 1792 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1793 21A.50.030: INITIATION: 1794 1795 Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an 1796 application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for 1797 amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the 1798 owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. 1799 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or landmark sites or the 1800 Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this 1801 title. 1802 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1803 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That 1804 Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall 1805 be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1806 B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt 1807 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment 1808 of all fees established for providing the public notice required by cChapter 21A.10 of this 1809 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the 1810 mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed for designation within an 1811 H historic preservation overlay district or to establish a character conservation district 1812 shall not be required. 1813 1814 1815 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That 1816 Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on 1817 Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1818 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: 1819 1820 A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the Ccity Ccouncil 1821 or the Pplanning Ccommission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final 1822 decision of the Ccity Ccouncil upon a prior application covering substantially the same 1823 subject or substantially the same property. 1824 B. In the case of a proposed local historic district or thematic designation per section 1825 21A.50.060 of this chapter, if a local historic district or area proposal fails in accordance 1826 with the voting procedures set forth in section 21A.50.060.A11, a resident may not 1827 initiate the creation of a local historic district, area, or thematic designation that includes 1828 more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district, 1829 area, or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the 1830 property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1831 BC. This determination shall be made by the Zzoning Aadministrator upon receipt of an 1832 application pursuant to sSection 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 1833 restrict the Mmayor, the Ccity Ccouncil or the Pplanning Ccommission from proposing 1834 any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any 1835 time. 1836 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1837 SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of 1838 the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is 1839 amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall 1840 read as follows: 1841 Chapter 21A.51 1842 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 1843 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 1844 21A.51.020: Authority 1845 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 1846 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 1847 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 1848 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 1849 21A.51.070: Limitations 1850 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 1851 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 1852 1853 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1854 The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments 1855 to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 1856 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic 1857 district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 1858 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: 1859 A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for 1860 general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map 1861 and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance 1862 and: 1863 1864 1. Designate a landmark site; 1865 2. Designate as a local historic district; 1866 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 1867 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, 1868 local historic district or thematic designation; 1869 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 1870 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new 1871 landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 1872 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1873 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local 1874 historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 1875 21A.51.080. 1876 1877 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: 1878 Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1879 thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which 1880 represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 1881 architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a 1882 reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the 1883 city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. 1884 A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1885 1886 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal 1887 of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic 1888 designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following 1889 steps must be completed: 1890 1891 a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application 1892 conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 1893 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as 1894 outlined in this section. 1895 1896 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication 1897 conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first 1898 class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property 1899 potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet 1900 shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed 1901 boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 1902 District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 1903 the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also 1904 list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the 1905 city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures 1906 may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent 1907 shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city 1908 within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, 1909 the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the 1910 application process again. 1911 1912 2. Application: 1913 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1914 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a 1915 majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic 1916 district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application 1917 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 1918 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 1919 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1920 1921 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 1922 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 1923 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 1924 interest in that lot or parcel. 1925 1926 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty 1927 three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained 1928 for that lot or parcel. 1929 1930 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 1931 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 1932 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 1933 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 1934 was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the 1935 last required signature. 1936 1937 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator 1938 on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 1939 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the 1940 zoning administrator: 1941 1942 (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a 1943 and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; 1944 1945 (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a 1946 have been met; 1947 1948 (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed 1949 local designation; 1950 1951 (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; 1952 1953 (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in 1954 Section 21A.51.040; and 1955 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1956 (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for 1957 consideration of a particular application. 1958 1959 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or 1960 thematic designation shall not be required. 1961 1962 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an 1963 application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the 1964 city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each 1965 property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational 1966 pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application 1967 is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature 1968 gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no 1969 application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 1970 1971 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an 1972 application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and 1973 following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in 1974 Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the 1975 following considerations to the city council: 1976 1977 a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State 1978 Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 1979 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not 1980 available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 1981 1982 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 1983 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 1984 planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 1985 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or 1986 thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If 1987 sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. 1988 1989 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 1990 objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning 1991 documents. 1992 1993 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 1994 1995 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 1996 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 1997 with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning 1998 map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General 1999 Amendments”, of this title. 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2000 2001 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 2002 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local 2003 historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 2004 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 2005 2006 5.Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized 2007 community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this 2008 code. 2009 2010 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report 2011 and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a 2012 community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 2013 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the 2014 following: 2015 2016 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 2017 support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city 2018 council; and 2019 2020 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 2021 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 2022 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 2023 economic hardship process. 2024 2025 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2026 2.60.050. 2027 2028 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2029 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2030 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2031 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2032 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 2033 some modification of the proposal. 2034 2035 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 2036 2037 a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning 2038 commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots 2039 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 2040 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 2041 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property 2042 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 2043 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2044 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 2045 owner opinion ballot. 2046 2047 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 2048 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 2049 2050 (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: 2051 2052 (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or 2053 area; or 2054 2055 (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 2056 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 2057 (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count 2058 a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property 2059 owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at 2060 least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 2061 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 2062 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the 2063 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 2064 2065 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 2066 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 2067 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 2068 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 2069 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 2070 first property owner opinion ballot. 2071 2072 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 2073 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results 2074 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic 2075 designation. 2076 2077 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 2078 historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the 2079 property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to 2080 consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in 2081 accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General 2082 Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: 2083 2084 52 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2085 a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the 2086 total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than 2087 fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within 2088 the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council 2089 may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority 2090 vote. 2091 2092 b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 2093 threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only 2094 designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote 2095 of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. 2096 2097 c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 2098 opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or 2099 a thematic district by a super majority vote. 2100 2101 B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 2102 2103 1. Application: 2104 2105 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a 2106 landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a 2107 petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 2108 2109 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all 2110 of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by 2111 the zoning administrator. 2112 2113 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be 2114 required. 2115 2116 2.Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community 2117 organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 2118 2119 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2120 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2121 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2122 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2123 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 2124 some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the 2125 city council. 2126 53 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2127 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 2128 historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall 2129 hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance 2130 with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application 2131 and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority 2132 vote, designate a landmark site. 2133 2134 C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local 2135 historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the 2136 boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be 2137 subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of 2138 Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the 2139 publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 2140 2141 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 2142 thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report 2143 submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to 2144 the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2145 2146 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 2147 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 2148 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 2149 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of 2150 the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H 2151 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2152 2153 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: 2154 A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic 2155 Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation 2156 shall be evaluated according to the following: 2157 2158 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or 2159 culture, associated with at least one of the following: 2160 2161 a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2162 history, or 2163 2164 b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 2165 2166 c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of 2167 construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2168 54 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2169 d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt 2170 Lake City; and 2171 2172 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 2173 feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic 2174 integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic 2175 district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual 2176 building or structure in a district. 2177 2178 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or 2179 is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 2180 2181 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, 2182 development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic 2183 districts within Salt Lake City; 2184 2185 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 2186 2187 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 2188 2189 B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark 2190 commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 2191 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed 2192 above: 2193 2194 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important 2195 in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of 2196 significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but 2197 could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2198 2199 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains 2200 examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture 2201 that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 2202 2203 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation 2204 would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, 2205 development patterns and/or architecture. 2206 2207 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 2208 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable 2209 historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. 2210 55 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2211 C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 2212 Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that 2213 historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. 2214 2215 D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria 2216 in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic 2217 district: 2218 2219 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features 2220 rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2221 2222 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 2223 subdivision plats or property lines; 2224 2225 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 2226 neighborhood boundaries; and 2227 2228 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 2229 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 2230 21A.51.040.D. 2231 2232 E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria 2233 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains 2234 a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 2235 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals 2236 of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 2237 2238 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: 2239 A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 2240 2241 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding 2242 additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2243 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or 2244 removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 2245 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. 2246 2247 B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 2248 2249 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local 2250 historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as 2251 outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the 2252 properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2253 those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation 2254 and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 2255 2256 a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 2257 21A.51.030.A.1.b; 2258 2259 b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the 2260 property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; 2261 2262 c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; 2263 2264 d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; 2265 2266 e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 2267 21A.51.030.A.10; and 2268 2269 f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 2270 21A.51.030.A.11. 2271 2272 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local 2273 historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same 2274 as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: 2275 2276 a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only 2277 apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 2278 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a 2279 local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic 2280 Preservation Overlay District. 2281 2282 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 2283 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 2284 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by 2285 Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning 2286 commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2287 2288 C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 2289 2290 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or 2291 reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the 2292 designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 2293 21A.51.030.B in addition to: 2294 2295 a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the 2296 revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2297 applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The 2298 applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for 2299 providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications 2300 filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2301 2302 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 2303 2304 A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2305 historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered 2306 utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new 2307 information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the 2308 historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or 2309 thematic designation. 2310 2311 B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2312 historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall 2313 demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A 2314 for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The 2315 qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such 2316 qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and 2317 adoption of the designation. 2318 2319 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a 2320 landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 2321 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 2322 2323 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 2324 2325 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the 2326 voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the 2327 creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty 2328 percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic 2329 designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion 2330 ballots for the vote were due. 2331 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an 2332 application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 2333 restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new 2334 local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local 2335 historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 2336 2337 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS 2338 58 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2339 A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for 2340 the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director 2341 and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the 2342 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource 2343 survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and 2344 will supersede previous surveys. 2345 2346 B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 2347 2348 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as 2349 recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use 2350 purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of 2351 individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on 2352 historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic 2353 district is subject to the following: 2354 2355 a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties 2356 within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a 2357 historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or 2358 thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated 2359 with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2360 2361 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or 2362 the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of 2363 properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2364 2365 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an 2366 individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning 2367 administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a 2368 timely determination. 2369 2370 d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall 2371 be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance 2372 and historic status listed. 2373 2374 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: 2375 2376 a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2377 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2378 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2379 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2380 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource 59 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2381 survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource 2382 survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 2383 2384 b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s 2385 recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting 2386 the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2387 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The 2388 city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. 2389 In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may 2390 consider the following in their decision making: 2391 2392 (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on 2393 the local district or thematic designation and the city; 2394 2395 (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and 2396 associated with at least one of the following: 2397 2398 (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2399 history, or 2400 (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or 2401 nation, or 2402 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method 2403 of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2404 (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 2405 Salt Lake City; and 2406 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for 2407 aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, 2408 workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service 2409 Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of 2410 the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be 2411 greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a 2412 district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the 2413 updated survey; 2414 2415 (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns 2416 or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt 2417 Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the 2418 updated survey; 2419 2420 (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. 60 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2421 2422 C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, 2423 the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations 2424 shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in 2425 Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect 2426 on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the 2427 adopted ordinance. 2428 2429 2430 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: 2431 2432 Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days 2433 after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal 2434 Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. 2435 2436 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 2437 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 2438 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list 2439 in alphabetical order: 2440 Contributing Structure 2441 Noncontributing Structure 2442 Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 2443 Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay 2444 District) 2445 Historic Design Guidelines 2446 Historic Integrity 2447 Economic Hardship 2448 Historic Resource Survey 2449 Landmark Site 2450 Local Historic District 2451 Period of Significance 2452 Thematic Designation 2453 Willful Neglect 2454 2455 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That 2456 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall 61 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2457 be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in 2458 alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 2459 2460 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation 2461 overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 2462 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to 2463 generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part 2464 of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a 2465 local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each 2466 individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its 2467 major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have 2468 occurred, they are generally reversible. 2469 2470 DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC 2471 PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, 2472 object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. 2473 (See definition of demolition, partial.) 2474 2475 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H 2476 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act 2477 which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) 2478 of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is 2479 not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal 2480 of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 2481 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic 2482 elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 2483 2484 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 2485 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 2486 2487 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in 2488 determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, 2489 alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that 2490 meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2491 For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning 2492 and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they 2493 provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines 2494 are officially adopted by city council. 2495 2496 HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or 2497 attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in 2498 various combinations, define historic integrity: 2499 Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the 2500 place where a historic event occurred. 62 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2501 2502 Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, 2503 structure, and style of a property. 2504 2505 Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 2506 2507 Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited 2508 during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a 2509 historic property. 2510 2511 Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular 2512 culture or people during any given period in history. 2513 2514 Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a 2515 particular period of time. 2516 2517 Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or 2518 person and a historic property. 2519 2520 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 2521 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 2522 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource 2523 surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional 2524 qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, 2525 architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 2526 2527 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with 2528 Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A 2529 landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of 2530 buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to 2531 the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 2532 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the 2533 historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 2534 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2535 2536 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a 2537 minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by 2538 the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains 2539 buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, 2540 or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 2541 All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 2542 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2543 2544 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic 2545 Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the 2546 process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or 63 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2547 Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character 2548 defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details 2549 indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may 2550 also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a 2551 period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. 2552 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic 2553 events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site 2554 occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case 2555 of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be 2556 thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few 2557 days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance 2558 associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. 2559 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 2560 features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, 2561 which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together 2562 by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 2563 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 2564 interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of 2565 Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2566 2567 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 2568 building over time. 2569 2570 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt 2571 Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read 2572 as follows: ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code Annoted 10.9A.510 64 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit.20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $36 $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $285 $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $571 $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $285 $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E)21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E)21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables)$120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables)$180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.55 Signs 65 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Special Exception $285 For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and 21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices 21A.10.010.E) 21A.52.040.A.3 Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices.2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot.20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the Ccity and / or Sstate Ccode, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zzoning Oordinance and Sstate Llaw: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 Section 10-9a-501. and 510 2573 2574 2575 SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 2576 first publication. 2577 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2578 202_. 2579 ______________________________ 2580 CHAIRPERSON 2581 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 2582 2583 ______________________________ 66 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2584 CITY RECORDER 2585 2586 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 2587 2588 2589 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 2590 2591 ______________________________ 2592 MAYOR 2593 ______________________________ 2594 CITY RECORDER 2595 (SEAL) 2596 2597 Bill No. ________ of 202_. 2598 Published: ______________.2599 Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (legislative) 9-26-23 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: H Historic Preservation Overlay District Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Planning Manager amy.thompson@slcgov.com or 801-535-7281 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the H Historic Preservation Overlay Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a text amendment that would impact the H Historic Preservation Overlay District which applies to properties within a local historic district or local landmark sites. Salt Lake City currently has 14 local historic districts and approximately 150 Local Landmark Sites. Properties subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District require approval for exterior alterations, new construction, demolition and relocation. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District also outlines process and standards for local historic designations, boundary adjustments to existing local historic districts, and revocation of local historic designation. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the zoning ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the historic landmark commission in its administration. The proposed ordinance also creates new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys, consistent with the city’s adopted Community Preservation Plan. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:35 MDT) 08/08/2023 08/08/2023 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed changes reorganize and add clarity to existing processes, as well as create new processes to strengthen confirmation of historic districts and buildings within Salt Lake City. The following summarizes the proposed ordinance changes: Reorganization: • Clarify and reorganize chapter 21A.34.020 (the H Historic Preservation Overlay) so repetition is removed, and process steps are clear. • Moves definitions from 21A.34.020 to the Definition chapter of the zoning ordinance – 21A.62. • Moves local historic designation, boundary adjustments to existing local historic districts, and revocation of the designation of a landmark site, which are all technically a map amendment process from 21A.34.020 to a new chapter – 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. Processing steps, requirements, and standards for designations and amendments are not changing from what currently exists in the code. Proposed Changes/Additions: • Adds an applicability section to 21A.34.020 so it is clear what properties are subject to the overlay and what standards are applicable. • Exempts certain work from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) such as installation of storm windows, small plaques or mailboxes, and utility meters/charging stations and solar panels not visible from the right of way. • Authorizes review and approval of all solar panels at a staff level. Currently the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) is required to review solar panels on the front façade of a building. • Adds in the ability to deny certain CoA requests at a staff level when standards are not met as a streamlining measure for the HLC’s time. • Jurisdiction & authority language for the HLC has been added to reflect duties that aren’t currently listed such as making recommendations to the Board of State History regarding National Register Nominations and making HELPFUL PRESERVATION TERMS • Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA): Historic approval • Historic Resource Survey: A resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic Resource Surveys are prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum qualifications defined by the National Park Service. There are two different types of surveys that Salt Lake City deals with, those are reconnaissance level surveys and intensive level surveys. A survey generally consists of a written report summarizing the history, development patterns, and physical character of the study area and an inventory of all properties included in the survey and a historic status rating for each property (whether contributing or noncontributing) accompanied by maps, photographs, and recommendations. The survey will also identify periods of significance for the district – anything outside of the identified period of significance is rated as out of period which is noncontributing to the district. • Historic Integrity: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects, or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association. • Period of Significance: The period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. • Contributing: A structure or site within a historic district that retains historic integrity. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. • Noncontributing: A structure or site within a historic district that does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials, and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those which are less than 50 years old or not within a period of significance associated with the historic district. recommendations to the City Council on the development of incentive programs to encourage the preservation of the City’s historic resources. • Adds requirements for contents of the mailing notice for demolition of a noncontributing building. • Increases the application fee for certain applications reviewed by the HLC. • Requires an application fee for determination of economic hardship, reduction to the boundary of an existing local historic district, and revocation of a landmark site. • Adds new definitions - period of significance and historic integrity. • Adds in language to have City Council adopt historic resource surveys and associated reports that accompany local historic designations. • Fine tuning language. New Processes: • Creates a process and factors to consider for updates to historic resource surveys. • Creates a process and factors to consider for historic status determinations (i.e., contributing or noncontributing status) for individual properties in certain circumstances – such as a property was not rated or warrants reconsideration. Both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission held public hearings to review the proposed text amendment and unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council. CONSIDERATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL Since the positive recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission, a few technical corrections were made to the proposed ordinance. These include: • Corrected citations in section 21A.51.050.B to reference the correct section of the ordinance. • Updated language in Subsection 21A.010.020.B, which relates to special noticing requirements for administrative approvals, to reflect changes that were made with the recently adopted early engagement ordinance. • Revised language in 21A.34.020.B, which relates to the applicability of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, to remove repetitive language that is referenced elsewhere in the proposed ordinance. PUBLIC PROCESS: Recognized Organizations: On March 13, 2023, all Salt Lake City recognized organizations were sent the required 45-day notice for the proposed text amendment. Open House: On March 20, 2023, a virtual open house was hosted on Planning’s website and published via list serve. The open house included information about the proposal and a draft of the ordinance. Community Council Meetings: At the request of the community council chairs, staff attended the following community council meetings to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community: • April 17, 2023 – Sugar House Community Council • May 3, 2023 –Central City Neighborhood Council Historic Landmark Commission Public hearing: • April 20, 2023 o Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 4, 2023 o The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Public Hearing: • May 11, 2023 o Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 24, 2023 o The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Public Comments Received: Staff received three public comments about this proposal. All public comments noted below were discussed at both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission public hearings. One of the comments expressed support of local historic districts, reassessment of properties and the use of historic surveys, but outlined questions/concerns related to the criteria used, their definitions, and who makes the decision related to the historic status of a property. This commenter also expressed concern with one of the zoning ordinance considerations for establishment of a historic district related to the percentage of contributing structures for establishing a local historic district, the lack of regulation for properties in a national historic district, and the need for better education for property owners on the impacts of demolition and inappropriate alterations. Planning Response to Public Comment: The zoning ordinance includes definitions for contributing and noncontributing which relate to the historic status of a property. The zoning ordinance also outlines criteria for the historic status of a property and required qualifications for people conducting historic surveys. In response to the question/concern about the local historic district designation consideration that at least 75% of the structures within a proposed district are contributing. This is not a requirement; this is a consideration to help determine if the proposed district meets the standards for designation. The process, standards and considerations applicable to local historic designation currently exist in the zoning ordinance and are not changing with the proposed ordinance language. Lastly, properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as part of a National Historic District is an honorary designation overseen by the National Park Service that offers tax incentives for qualifying work – National Register properties are not regulated by Salt Lake City unless they are also locally designated. Two of the comments expressed concern with the process for historic status determinations (i.e., contributing, or noncontributing status) in the proposed ordinance. Planning Response to Public Comment: The purpose of historic status determinations is to ensure the correct standards apply to each property within a local historic district. The process for historic status determinations is a zoning administrator interpretation for individual properties in certain circumstances where a timely determination of a property’s historic status is needed. These include properties that were inadvertently missed in the survey or for whatever reason, not given a historic status rating, and properties that may have been incorrectly rated and warrant reconsideration. The zoning administrator is authorized to make interpretations of zoning code standards. The zoning administrator has issued historic status determinations for individual properties when the historic status of the property has been in question; this text amendment essentially puts this specific process into our zoning ordinance. Historic status determinations may be initiated by a property owner or the planning director. The proposed ordinance lists several considerations for making historic status determinations that relate to whether a property retains historic integrity, as defined in the zoning ordinance. Historic status determinations are posted and available to the public on the planning division’s website and sent to the Historic Landmark Commission. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION (HLC) RECORDS (MAY 4, 2023): a) HLC Agenda (Click to Access) b) HLC Staff Report (Click to Access Report) c) HLC Minutes (Click to Access) d) HLC Meeting Video (Click to Access) PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECORDS (MAY 24, 2023): a) PC Agenda (Click to Access) b) PC Staff Report (Click to Access Report) c) PC Minutes (Click to Access) d) PC Meeting Video (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance, Final and Legislative Versions 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Petition Initiation 5) Public Comments Received After Publication of the Staff Report 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 H Historic Preservation Overlay District and amending the consolidated fee schedule.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the 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: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: A. Creation: The position of appeals hearing officer is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Section 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code. B. Jurisdiction and Authority: The appeals hearing officer shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.16, “Appeals of Administrative Decisions”, of this title; 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 3. Hear and decide appeals of any decision made by the historic landmark commission, or the planning director in the case of administrative decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.34.020, “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions and Condominiums”, of this code; and 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 3 D. Conflict of Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by Title 2, Chapter 2.44 of this code. E. Removal of The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the mayor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: A. General Provisions: The provisions of Title 2, Chapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Historic District Act, Section 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah Code (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code Section 10-8-85.9 and the Land Use Development and Management Act, Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. C. Jurisdiction and Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors and tourists; 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation to the planning commission and the city council; 5. Make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments involving properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission or the city council; 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Overall building and accessory structure height; b. Building and accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence and retaining wall height; e. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and f. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures; 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; 8. Make recommendations to the city council on design guidelines, policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historical and architectural significance; 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 5 D. Membership: The historic landmark commission shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. E. Qualifications of Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 1. At least two (2) architects, and 2. Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. F. Meetings: The historic landmark commission shall meet at least once per month or as needed. G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. H. Public Hearings: The historic landmark commission shall schedule and give public notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.10 of this title. I. Removal of a Member: Any member of the historic landmark commission may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the historic landmark commission following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. J. Policies and Procedures: The historic landmark commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 6 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: 1. Notice of Application for Design Review: a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is located. b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying concerns related to the design review application not complying with the requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants of abutting properties and those properties across the street from the subject property as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 3. Notice of Application for TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 7 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement B. Applicability C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation D. Historic Status Determination E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New Construction of an Accessory Structure H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure I. Standards for Relocation J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building L. Economic Hardship Determination A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 8 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing status. 3. Encourage new development and redevelopment of properties that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 4. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 5. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 6. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 7. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city’s historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 8. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 9. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements of this chapter. 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.D. C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. D. Historic Status Determination: 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for circumstances outlined below. 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 9 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic district for the following: a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not given a historic status rating; b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect status rating in a survey; 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in the form of an administrative interpretation. 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic status determination. 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; b. Be issued for landmark sites; c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted historic resource survey. 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; c. Current and historic photographs; d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any alterations; f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 10 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning administrator. g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and proper consideration of the particular application. 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination may include the following considerations: a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance of a neighborhood, community, or area. c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in city records. 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect the determination. 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required: No alteration in the exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object affecting a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made until an application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved by the historic landmark commission, or administratively by the planning director, as applicable, pursuant to Subsection F of this section. 11 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: a. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; b. New Construction; c. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; d. Demolition; 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness: a. Installation of storm windows; b. Landscaping that: (1) Complies with the standards of this title; (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or streetscape; c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit and are not visible from the public right of way; and g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. F. Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Administrative Authority: The following may be decided by the planning director or designee: a. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing building or structure; b. Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing building or structure; c. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 12 d. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and e. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure. 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following shall only be decided by the historic landmark commission: a. Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; b. New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; c. Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; d. Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; e. Economic hardship determination; and f. Applications referred by the planning director. 3. Submission of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees established for required public noticing. a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property; (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; (5) Current and historic photographs of the property (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 13 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for project evaluation; (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; (2) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary structure on the block face; (3) Renderings that show the new construction in relation to neighboring buildings; and (4) Renderings that show the new construction from the pedestrian perspective. 4. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of this title. 5. Standards for Approval: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall be reviewed according to the standards set forth in Subsections G through L of this section, whichever are applicable. 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 14 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other preservation issues. 7. Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing to review the application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The historic landmark commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement building. 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 15 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the one (1) year time period. 12. Appeal of Decisions: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the historic landmark commission, or in the case of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New Construction of an Accessory Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated with a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with all of the following standards: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment; 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided; 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed; 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved; 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects; 16 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment; 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; 10. Certain building materials are prohibited: a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original or historic material. b. Vinyl fencing. 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 21A.46 of this title. H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s architectural and cultural traditions: 1. Settlement Patterns and Neighborhood Character: a. Block and Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. b. Lot and Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 17 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the definition of public and semi-public spaces. d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s period of significance. e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in the historic context and the block face. 2. Site Access, Parking, and Services: a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to the side of the building. b. Site and Building Services and Utilities: Utilities and site/building services (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and public properties. 3. Landscape and Lighting: a. Grading of Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 18 4. Building Form and Scale: a. Character of the Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic context and the block face. (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic context and the block face. (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in the historic context and the block face. 5. Building Character: a. Facade Articulation and Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). (1) Rhythm of Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (2) Proportion and Scale of Openings: The facades are designed using openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. (3) Ratio of Wall to Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. 19 (4) Balconies, Porches, and External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 6. Building Materials, Elements and Detailing: a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and character. b. Materials on Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: vinyl siding and aluminum siding. c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. d. Architectural Elements and Details: The design of the building features architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district and/or setting. 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal structure. I. Standards for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the historic landmark commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure; 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure; 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored; and 20 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the city. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the city attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the historic landmark commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. J. Standards for Demolition of Landmark Site: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site, the historic landmark commission shall only approve the application upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to Subsection 21A.34.020.F.10; or 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.L. K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building: When considering a request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building, the historic landmark commission shall determine whether the request substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The historic integrity of the site as defined in Section 21A.62.040 is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 2. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were to be demolished; 3. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the district; 4. The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive reuse of the contributing principal building; 5. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: a. Willful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the state construction code, 21 b. Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or c. Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per Section 18.64.045 of this code. L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building by the historic landmark commission, the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal period as described in Chapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for determination of economic hardship shall be submitted at the same time as an application for demolition of a landmark site to meet the standard of Subsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1. Application for Determination of Economic Hardship: An application for a determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 2. Evidence for Determination of Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: a. Physical condition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans for the property at time of purchase. b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased; (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years; (3) Real estate taxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County Assessor; (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property; (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and 22 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any state or federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant documents regarding: (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property; (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the applicant; and (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building on the property; (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of materials; (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for continued use; and (4) The testimony of a professional with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State of Utah. e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs. f. Description of past and current use. g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet minimum city building code standards or violations of this code and whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, or other land use processes to alleviate hardship. 3. Procedure for Determination of Economic Hardship: 23 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark commission and has no decision-making capacity. (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. b. Review of Evidence: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title to consider the evidence submitted, and the advice and testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert. c. Finding of Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by the applicant and the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert, and if the historic landmark commission finds that the applicant has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic hardship, then the historic landmark commission shall approve the demolition. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot be obtained, the historic landmark commission must find that all of the following are met: (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated; (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been unsuccessful. d. Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: If the historic landmark commission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. e. Denial of Economic Hardship: If the historic landmark commission does not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of appropriateness for 24 demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three (3) years from the date of the final decision of the historic landmark commission. The historic landmark commission may waive this restriction if the historic landmark commission finds there are circumstances sufficient to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts: 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed in accordance with the location priorities detailed in Subsection B.3 of this section. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Subsection B, and any other requirements of this section, the provisions of this Subsection B shall take precedence. 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation shall be the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 25 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- way. e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- way, but not on the structure’s front facade. f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the structure. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.030: INITIATION: Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. Applications related to the Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this 26 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed to establish a character conservation district shall not be required. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property. B. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council or the planning commission from proposing any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any time. SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall read as follows: Chapter 21A.51 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 21A.51.020: Authority 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 21A.51.070: Limitations 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 27 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance and: 1. Designate a landmark site; 2. Designate as a local historic district; 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation; 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 21A.51.080. 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following steps must be completed: a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 28 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 2. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the interest in that lot or parcel. (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained for that lot or parcel. (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the last required signature. 29 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a have been met; (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed local designation; (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in Section 21A.51.040; and (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for consideration of a particular application. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or thematic designation shall not be required. 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the city council: a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 30 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General Amendments”, of this title. f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the following: a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city council; and b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 31 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the economic hardship process. 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2.60.050. 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal. 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property owner opinion ballot. (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; or (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 32 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the first property owner opinion ballot. 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1. Application: 33 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be required. 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, designate a landmark site. C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 34 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation shall be evaluated according to the following: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 35 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed above: 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture. 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic district: 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines; 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized neighborhood boundaries; and 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 21A.51.040.D. E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 36 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b; b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.10; and f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11. 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 37 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.B in addition to: a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and adoption of the designation. 38 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and will supersede previous surveys. B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic district is subject to the following: a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 39 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a timely determination. d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance and historic status listed. 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may consider the following in their decision making: (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on the local district or thematic designation and the city; (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and associated with at least one of the following: (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 40 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the updated survey; (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the updated survey; (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: 41 Contributing Structure Noncontributing Structure Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Historic Design Guidelines Historic Integrity Economic Hardship Historic Resource Survey Landmark Site Local Historic District Period of Significance Thematic Designation Willful Neglect SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, partial.) DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 42 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or economically viable use of a property without just compensation. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially adopted by city council. HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 43 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a building over time. 44 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code 10.9A.510 Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 45 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B 46 As per applicable sections of the city and/or state code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the zoning ordinance and state law: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah Code Section 10-9a-501. SECTION 14. 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 amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (final) 6.29.23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 29, 2023 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and 5 amending the consolidated fee schedule.) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the 8 consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H 9 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 10 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission 11 (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin 12 Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of 13 Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; 14 and 15 WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of 16 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 17 Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and 18 WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said 19 petition; and 20 WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 21 transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and 22 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 23 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That 26 Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 27 Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 28 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: 29 A. Creation: The position of Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer is created pursuant to the enabling 30 authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, 31 sSection 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code Annotated. 32 33 B. Jurisdiction aAnd Authority: The Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall have the following 34 powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 35 36 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the Zzoning 37 Aadministrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the 38 procedures and standards set forth in cChapter 21A.16, “Appeals oOf Administrative 39 Decisions”, of this title; 40 41 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and 42 standards set forth in cChapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 43 44 3. Hear and decide appeals of any administrative decision made by the Hhistoric 45 Llandmark Ccommission, or the planning director in the case of administrative 46 decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sSection 21A.34.020, 47 “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 48 49 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Pplanning Ccommission 50 concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and 51 standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions aAnd Condominiums”, of this Ccode; 52 and 53 54 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning 55 commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. 56 57 C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the 58 advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals 59 hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any 60 matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer 61 may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The 62 appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with 63 land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 64 65 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT D. Conflict oOf Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in 66 which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by tTitle 67 2, cChapter 2.44 of this code. 68 69 E. Removal oOf The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed 70 by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the 71 planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the 72 appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall 73 provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer 74 appointed by the mayor. 75 76 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That 77 Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 78 Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 79 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: 80 81 A. General Provisions: The provisions of tTitle 2, cChapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to 82 the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. 83 84 B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling 85 authority granted by the hHistoric dDistrict aAct, sSection 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah 86 Code Annotated, 1953 (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code 87 Section 10-8-85.9 and the lLand uUse dDevelopment and mManagement aAct, Utah 88 cCode cChapter 10-9a. 89 90 C. Jurisdiction Aand Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 91 92 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness 93 pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.34 of this title; 94 95 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of 96 historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic 97 preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors 98 and tourists; 99 100 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal 101 structures in the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict pursuant to cChapter 102 21A.34 of this title; 103 104 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, 105 thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation Recommend to 106 the planning commission and the city council; the boundaries for the establishment of 107 an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 108 109 5. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the hearing 110 officer or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments and 111 conditional uses involving properties within the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay 112 dDistricts; when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission 113 or the city council; 114 115 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for 116 properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority 117 is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H 118 Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative approval 119 decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications 120 to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in 121 addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 122 123 a. Overall building and accessory structure height; 124 ba. Building and accessory structure wall height; 125 b. Accessory structure wall height; 126 c. Accessory structure square footage; 127 d. Fence and retaining wall height; 128 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 129 ef. Signs pursuant to sSection 21A.46.070 of this title; and 130 fg. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 131 zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable 132 standards identified in sSection 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the 133 surrounding historic structures.; 134 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the 135 preparation of the general plan of the city; and 136 137 8. Make recommendations to the cCity cCouncil on design guidelines, policies and 138 ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of 139 historical and architectural significance.; 140 141 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and 142 make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 143 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a 145 recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 146 147 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or 148 private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 149 150 D. Membership: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall consist of not less than seven 151 (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced 152 geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In 153 situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted 154 policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven 155 (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a 156 position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any 157 person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. 158 159 E. Qualifications Oof Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the Ccity 160 interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the Ccity. Members 161 shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of 162 experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 163 164 1. At least two (2) architects, and 165 166 2. Citizens Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, 167 architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public 168 history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. 169 170 F. Meetings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall meet at least once per month or 171 as needed. 172 173 G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at 174 which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. The decision of the 175 Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective upon the posting of the record of 176 decision. 177 178 H. Public Hearings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall schedule and give public 179 notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.10 of this title. 180 181 I. Removal Oof Aa Member: Any member of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may 182 be removed by the Mmayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures 183 adopted by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission following receipt by the Mmayor of a 184 written complaint filed against the member. 185 186 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT J. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall adopt policies 187 and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any 188 other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. 189 190 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That 191 Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 192 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for 193 Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 194 B. Special Noticing Requirements fFor Administrative Approvals: 195 196 1. Notice Oof Application for Design Review: 197 198 a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an 199 administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this 200 title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: 201 202 (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the 203 subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject 204 property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use 205 the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. 206 (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is 207 located. 208 209 b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the 210 subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the 211 expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, 212 and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. 213 c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying 214 concerns related to the design review application not complying with the 215 requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the 216 planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 217 218 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within 219 An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of At least twelve 220 (12) days before a land use decision is made on an application for an administrative 221 decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing 222 principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 223 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action of the request to 224 demolish the structure and to identify that a determination has been made that the 225 building has been identified as a noncontributing building. This notice will be sent to 226 all owners of the land and tenants, of abutting properties and those properties across 227 the street from the subject property within eighty-five feet (85') of the land subject to 228 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system 229 records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall 230 either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to 231 the historic landmark commission. 232 233 a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe 234 the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the 235 noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most 236 recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the 237 application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning 238 director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 239 240 3. Notice Of Application For Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an 241 administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52 of this 242 title, the Planning Director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 243 of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and 244 those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 245 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 246 City geographic information system records. 247 a. Contents Of The Mailing Notice Of Application: The notice for mailing shall 248 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 249 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the Planning Director 250 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 251 an administrative decision set forth in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 252 253 3. Notice oOf Application fFor TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a 254 development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the 255 planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 256 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those 257 properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 258 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 259 City geographic information system records. 260 a. Contents oOf tThe Mailing Notice oOf Application: The notice for mailing shall 261 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 262 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director 263 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 264 an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 265 266 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That 267 Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic 268 Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 269 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 270 271 A. Purpose Statement 272 B. Applicability 273 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation 274 D. Historic Status Determination 275 E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required 276 F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 277 G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New 278 Construction of an Accessory Structure 279 H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure 280 I. Standards for Relocation 281 J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site 282 K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building 283 L. Economic Hardship Determination 284 285 286 A. Purpose Statement: 287 288 In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, 289 the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 290 291 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the Ccity and individual structures 292 and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 293 294 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial 295 use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing 296 status. 297 298 32. Encourage new development, and redevelopment and the subdivision of properties 299 lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development 300 of Hhistoric Ddistricts or individual landmarks; 301 302 43. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 303 304 54. Implement adopted plans of the Ccity related to historic preservation; 305 306 65. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 307 308 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 76. Protect and enhance the attraction of the Ccity’s historic landmarks and districts for 309 tourists and visitors; 310 311 87. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 312 313 98. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. 314 315 B. Definitions: 316 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation 317 Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section and is of 318 moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic 319 or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and 320 although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic 321 materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact. 322 DEMOLITION: Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the 323 H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, 324 partial.) 325 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL: Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a 326 structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the 327 structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from 328 the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials 329 not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) 330 when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure 331 and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 332 DESIGN GUIDELINES: The design guidelines provide guidance in determining the 333 suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new 334 construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs 335 of properties located within the Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, 336 designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing 337 future projects. For City staff and the Historic Landmark Commission, they provide guidance 338 for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially 339 adopted by City Council. 340 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 341 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 342 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 343 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 344 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 345 1. Reconnaissance level surveys (RLS) are the most basic approach for systematically 346 documenting and evaluating historic buildings in Utah communities and involves 347 only a visual evaluation of properties. 348 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Intensive level surveys (ILS) include in depth research involving research on the 349 property and its owners, documentation of the property’s physical appearance and 350 completion of the Utah State Historic Office’s historic site form. 351 LANDMARK SITE: Any site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources 352 that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section. Such sites are of exceptional 353 importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural 354 values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to 355 interpret the historic character of the site. 356 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A geographically or thematically definable area within the 357 H Historic Preservation Overlay District designated by the City Council pursuant to the 358 provisions of this section, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape 359 features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to 360 the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 361 NEW CONSTRUCTION: The building of a new principal building within the H Historic 362 Preservation Overlay District or on a landmark site. 363 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure within the H Historic Preservation 364 Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C15 of this section. The 365 major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic 366 form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing 367 structures may also include those which are less than fifty (50) years old. 368 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 369 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united 370 together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 371 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 372 interest or value. 373 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 374 building over time. 375 B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part 376 of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements 377 of this chapter. 378 379 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the 380 historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as 381 identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City 382 Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with 383 Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 384 385 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, 386 Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation oOf aA Landmark Site, Local Historic District 387 oOr Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in 388 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments.; H Historic Preservation 389 Overlay District: 390 391 1. Intent: Salt Lake City will consider the designation of a landmark site, or thematic 392 designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent 393 significant elements of the City’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 394 architecture. Designation of a local historic district must be in the best interest of the 395 City and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public 396 interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The City 397 Council shall determine that designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 398 thematic designation is the best method of preserving a unique element of history 399 important to understanding the prehistory or history of the area encompassed by the 400 current Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. 401 2. City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmark Sites, Local Historic Districts Or 402 Thematic Designations: Pursuant to the procedures in this section and the standards 403 for general amendments in section 21A.50.050 of this title the City Council may by 404 ordinance apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and: 405 a. Designate as a landmark site an individual building, structure or feature or an 406 integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single lot or site having 407 exceptional importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high 408 artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of 409 time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site; 410 b. Designate as a local historic district a contiguous area with a minimum district 411 size of one “block face”, as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title, containing 412 a number of sites, buildings, structures or features that contribute to the historic 413 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or 414 aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the City; 415 c. Designate as a thematic designation a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or 416 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that 417 are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and 418 contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting 419 historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value; and 420 d. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark 421 site, local historic district or thematic designation. 422 3. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation 423 or amendment to a landmark site(s), local historic district(s) or thematic 424 designation(s), and prior to gathering any signatures in support of such an application, 425 a potential applicant shall attend a preapplication conference with the Planning 426 Director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the 427 proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 428 4. Notification Of Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference 429 outlined in subsection C3 of this section and prior to the submittal of an application 430 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 431 designation(s), the City shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet 432 to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming 433 application. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 434 the process to create a local historic district and will also list the pros and cons of a 435 local historic district. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential 436 applicant submits to the City a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included 437 in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Once the City sends the informational 438 pamphlet, property owner signature gathering may begin per subsection C5b of this 439 section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an 440 application is not filed with the City within ninety (90) days after the date that the 441 informational pamphlet was mailed, the City shall close its file on the matter. Any 442 subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 443 5. Petition Initiation For Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 444 Thematic Designation: 445 a. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Landmark Site: 446 Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the Mayor or the City 447 Council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a 448 landmark site. 449 b. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Local Historic 450 District Or Thematic Designation: A property owner initiating such a petition 451 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 452 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 453 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The Mayor or the 454 City Council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of 455 a local historic district or thematic designation. 456 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 457 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 458 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 459 interest in that lot or parcel. 460 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the 461 thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures 462 obtained for that lot or parcel. 463 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 464 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 465 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 466 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 467 was mailed as required per subsection C4 of this section and the date of the 468 last required signature. 469 c. Fees: No application fee will be required for a petition initiated by a property 470 owner for designation of a property to the H Historic Preservation Overlay 471 District. 472 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6. Notice Of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the City of an 473 application for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 474 designation(s), the City shall send a notice of designation application letter to 475 owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second 476 copy of the informational pamphlet described in subsection C4 of this section. In the 477 event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property 478 owner signature gathering, the City will send a letter to property owner(s) of record 479 stating that no application has been filed, and that the City has closed its file on the 480 matter. 481 7. Planning Director Report To The City Council: Following the initiation of a petition 482 to designate a landmark site or a local historic district or thematic designation, the 483 Planning Director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the 484 City Council: 485 a. Whether a current survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic 486 Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a 487 local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, 488 the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 489 b. The City administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 490 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 491 Planning Division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 492 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new landmark site, local 493 historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the City 494 Council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed 495 budget. 496 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 497 objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning 498 documents. 499 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 500 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 501 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 502 with the purposes and designation criteria in subsection C15 of this section and 503 the zoning map amendment criteria in section 21A.50.050, “Standards For 504 General Amendments”, of this title. 505 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per subsection C4 of 506 this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district 507 following the presubmittal process outlined in subsection C3 of this section. 508 8. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the Planning Director’s report 509 and acceptance of the report by the City Council, the Planning Division will conduct 510 a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 511 boundaries of the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic 512 designation about the following: 513 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 514 support, the public hearing process, and final decision making process by the City 515 Council; and 516 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 517 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 518 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 519 economic hardship process. 520 9. Open House: Following the property owner meeting, the Planning Division will 521 conduct an open house for the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of 522 the local historic district or thematic designation to provide the information described 523 in subsections C8a and C8b of this section. 524 10. Public Hearing Process: 525 a. Historic Landmark Commission Consideration: Following the initiation of a 526 petition to designate a landmark site or a local historic district, the Historic 527 Landmark Commission shall hold a public hearing and review the request by 528 applying subsection C15, “Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, 529 Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation”, of this section. Following the 530 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission shall recommend approval, 531 approval with modifications or denial of the proposed designation and shall then 532 submit its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 533 b. Planning Commission Consideration: Following action by the Historic Landmark 534 Commission, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall 535 recommend approval, approval with modifications or denial of the proposed 536 designation based on the standards of section 21A.50.050 of this title, zoning map 537 amendments and shall then submit its recommendation to the City Council. 538 11. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 539 a. Following the completion of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning 540 Commission public hearings, the City will deliver property owner opinion ballots 541 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 542 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 543 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the City Council of property 544 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 545 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 546 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 547 owner opinion ballot. 548 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 549 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 550 (2) The Municipality shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot 551 for: 552 (A) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district 553 or area; or 554 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (B) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 555 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 556 (3) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the Municipality shall 557 count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the 558 property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who 559 own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 560 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 561 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the City indicating the 562 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 563 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 564 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 565 received by the City within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 566 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 567 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 568 first property owner opinion ballot. 569 12. Notification Of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 570 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the City will send notice of the results 571 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic 572 designation. 573 13. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the Historic Landmark 574 Commission and the Planning Commission recommendations and the results of the 575 property owner opinion process, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to 576 consider the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic 577 designation. 578 a. Designation Of A Landmark Site: The City Council may, by a majority vote, 579 designate a landmark site. 580 b. Designation Of A Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation: 581 (1) If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) 582 of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents 583 more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a 584 condominium project) within the proposed local historic district, area, or 585 thematic designation, the City Council may designate a local historic district 586 or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. 587 588 (2) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 589 threshold identified in subsection C13b(1) of this section, the City Council 590 may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an 591 affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the City Council. 592 (3) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 593 opposition is equal, the City Council may only designate a local historic 594 district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. 595 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Following Designation: Following City Council designation of a landmark site, 596 local historic district or thematic designation, all of the property located within the 597 boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be subject to the 598 provisions of this section. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of 599 the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adoption ordinance. 600 14. Notice Of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 601 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the City shall provide 602 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 603 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the Office of 604 the County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic 605 Preservation Overlay District. 606 15. Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 607 Thematic Designation: Each lot or parcel of property proposed as a landmark site, for 608 inclusion in a local historic district, or for thematic designation shall be evaluated 609 according to the following: 610 a. Significance in local, regional, State or national history, architecture, engineering 611 or culture, associated with at least one of the following: 612 (1) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 613 history, or 614 (2) Lives of persons significant in the history of the City, region, State, or 615 Nation, or 616 (3) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or 617 the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 618 (4) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 619 Salt Lake City; and 620 b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 621 feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National 622 Register of Historic Places; 623 c. The proposed local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible 624 to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 625 d. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the 626 City’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other 627 local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 628 e. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 629 f. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 630 16. Factors To Consider: The following factors may be considered by the Historic 631 Landmark Commission and the City Council to help determine whether the proposed 632 designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the 633 criteria listed above: 634 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Sites should be of such an age which would allow insight into whether a property 635 is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community. Typically this is 636 at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional 637 importance. 638 b. Whether the proposed local historic district contains examples of elements of the 639 City’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be 640 protected by other local historic districts within the City. 641 c. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district would add important 642 knowledge that advances the understanding of the City’s history, development 643 patterns and/or architecture. 644 d. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 645 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent 646 applicable historic survey. 647 17. Boundaries Of A Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 648 subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to 649 ensure that historical associations, and/or those which best enhance the integrity of 650 the site comprise the boundaries. 651 18. Boundaries Of A Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation 652 criteria in subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the 653 local historic district: 654 a. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or 655 features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 656 b. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 657 subdivision plats or property lines; 658 c. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 659 neighborhood boundaries; and 660 d. Contains nonhistoric resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 661 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria of subsection C15 of this section. 662 19. Boundaries Of A Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation 663 criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic 664 designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are 665 united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute 666 to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, 667 architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 668 D. The Adjustment Or Expansion Of Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 669 District And The Revocation Of The Designation Of Landmark Site: 670 1. Procedure: The procedure for the adjustment of boundaries of an H Historic 671 Preservation Overlay District and the revocation of the designation of a landmark site 672 shall be the same as that outlined in subsection C of this section. 673 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Criteria For Adjusting The Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 674 District: Criteria for adjusting the boundaries of an H Historic Preservation Overlay 675 District are as follows: 676 a. The properties have ceased to meet the criteria for inclusion within an H Historic 677 Preservation Overlay District because the qualities which caused them to be 678 originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost 679 subsequent to the Historic Landmark Commission recommendation and adoption 680 of the district; 681 b. Additional information indicates that the properties do not comply with the 682 criteria for selection of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as outlined in 683 subsection C15 of this section; or 684 c. Additional information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would 685 better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the H Historic 686 Preservation Overlay District, provided they meet the standards outlined in 687 subsection C15 of this section. 688 3. Criteria For The Expansion Of An Existing Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 689 Thematic Designation: A proposed expansion of an existing landmark site, local 690 historic district or thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of 691 subsections C15 through C19 of this section. 692 4. Criteria For The Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: Criteria are as 693 follows: 694 a. The property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a landmark site 695 because the qualities that caused it to be originally designated have been lost or 696 destroyed or the structure has been demolished; or 697 b. Additional information indicates that the landmark site does not comply with the 698 criteria for selection of a landmark site as outlined in subsection C15 of this 699 section; or 700 c. Additional information indicates that the landmark site is not of exceptional 701 importance to the City, State, region or Nation. 702 D. Historic Status Determination: 703 704 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual 705 structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review 706 of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for 707 circumstances outlined below. 708 709 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an 710 existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 711 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic 712 district for the following: 713 714 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not 715 given a historic status rating; 716 717 b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect 718 status rating in a survey; 719 720 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in 721 the form of an administrative interpretation. 722 723 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic 724 status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s 725 authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic 726 status determination. 727 728 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: 729 730 a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; 731 b. Be issued for landmark sites; 732 c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted 733 historic resource survey. 734 735 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation 736 application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall 737 include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning 738 administrator: 739 740 a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in 741 the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if 742 different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the 743 application; 744 b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; 745 c. Current and historic photographs; 746 d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or 747 the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; 748 e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any 749 alterations; 750 f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is 751 to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the 752 reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 753 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an 754 intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah 755 State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the 756 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning 757 administrator. 758 759 g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and 760 proper consideration of the particular application. 761 762 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination 763 may include the following considerations: 764 765 a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. 766 b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance 767 of a neighborhood, community, or area. 768 c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, 769 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 770 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects 771 the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which 772 the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a 773 local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures 774 in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of 775 each individual building or structure in a district. 776 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent 777 to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in 778 city records. 779 780 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s 781 historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will 782 stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect 783 the determination. 784 785 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the 786 zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals 787 hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 788 789 E. Certificate oOf Appropriateness Required: After the establishment of an H Historic 790 Preservation Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, nNo alteration in the 791 exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object or work of art affecting the landmark 792 site or a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or 793 permitted to be made unless or until the an application for a certificate of appropriateness 794 is has been submitted to, and approved by, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 795 administratively by the Pplanning Ddirector, as applicable, pursuant to sSubsection F of 796 this section. Certificates of appropriateness shall be required for: 797 798 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: 799 a1. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless 800 specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; construction needing a 801 building permit; 802 b2. New construction; Removal and replacement or alteration of architectural 803 detailing, such as porch columns, railing, window moldings, cornices and siding; 804 c3. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; 805 d4. Demolition; Construction of additions or decks; 806 5. Alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages, etc.; 807 6. Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration 808 patterns; 809 7. Construction or alteration of porches; 810 8. Masonry work including, but not limited to, tuckpointing, sandblasting, painting and 811 chemical cleaning; 812 9. The construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, 813 walls, paving and grading; 814 10. Installation or alteration of any exterior sign; 815 11. Any demolition; 816 12. New construction; and 817 13. Installation of an awning over a window or door. 818 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of 819 Appropriateness: 820 821 a. Installation of storm windows; 822 b. Landscaping that: 823 824 (1) Complies with the standards of this title; 825 (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and 826 (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or 827 streetscape; 828 829 c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; 830 831 d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any 832 dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish 833 material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; 834 835 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging 836 outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; 837 838 f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit 839 and are not visible from the public right of way; and 840 841 g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in 842 Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. 843 844 F. Procedure Ffor Issuance oOf Certificate oOf Appropriateness: 845 846 1. Administrative Authority Decision: The following may be decided by the planning 847 director or designee: Certain types of construction or demolition may be approved 848 administratively subject to the following procedures: 849 a. Types Of Construction: The following may be approved by administrative 850 decision: 851 a. (1)Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, 852 and/or structure; 853 b. (2)Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site building or structure; 854 c. (3)Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building 855 or structure; 856 d. (4) Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and 857 e. (5) Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure.; and 858 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to 859 section 21A.40.190 of this title. 860 b. Submission Of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness 861 shall be made on a form prepared by the Planning Director or designee, and shall 862 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 863 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 864 forward the application for review and decision. 865 c. Materials Submitted With Application: The application shall include photographs, 866 construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or 867 massing model, window frame sections, and samples and any further information 868 or documentation as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary in order to fully 869 consider and analyze the application. deemed necessary to consider the 870 application properly and completely. 871 d. Fees: No application fee will be required for a certificate of appropriateness that is 872 administratively approved. 873 e. Notice Of Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Building Or 874 Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure 875 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to chapter 876 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 877 established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 878 f. Standards Of Approval: The application shall be reviewed according to the 879 standards set forth in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable. 880 g. Review And Decision By The Planning Director: On the basis of written findings 881 of fact, the Planning Director or the Planning Director’s designee shall either 882 approve, or conditionally approve, the certificate of appropriateness based on the 883 standards in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable, within 884 thirty (30) days following receipt of a completed application. The decision of the 885 Planning Director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. 886 h. Referral Of Application By Planning Director To Historic Landmark 887 Commission: The Planning Director may refer any application to the Historic 888 Landmark Commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance 889 of change to the landmark site or contributing building in the H Historic 890 Preservation Overlay District, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding 891 architectural, construction or preservation issues, or if the application does not 892 meet the standards of review. 893 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following Certain types of 894 construction, demolition and relocation shall only be decided approved by the 895 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission subject to the following procedures: 896 897 a. Types Of Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the Historic 898 Landmark Commission: 899 a. (1)Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, 900 building, and/or structure; 901 902 b. (2) New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 903 District; 904 905 c. (3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; 906 907 d. (4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; 908 909 e. Economic hardship determination; and 910 911 f. (5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the Pplanning Ddirector.; 912 and 913 914 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the 915 principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining 916 features of the home pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. 917 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3b. Submission oOf Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall 918 be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and 919 accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee 920 schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees 921 established for required public noticing. the Planning Director or designee, and shall 922 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 923 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 924 forward the application for review and decision. The procedure for an application for 925 a certificate of appropriateness shall be the same as specified in subsection F1b of this 926 section. 927 a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the 928 following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: 929 930 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 931 in the subject property; 932 933 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 934 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 935 936 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 937 938 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 939 review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; 940 941 (5) Current and historic photographs of the property 942 943 (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 944 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 945 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 946 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 947 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 948 project evaluation; 949 950 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; 951 952 (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; 953 954 (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 955 956 (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems 957 necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 958 959 b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general 960 application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a 961 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the 962 zoning administrator: 963 c. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 964 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 965 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required 966 by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 967 d. Materials Submitted With Application: An application shall be made on a form 968 provided by the Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning Division 969 in accordance with subsection F1c of this section, however specific requirements 970 for new construction shall include the following information unless deemed 971 unnecessary by the Zoning Administrator: 972 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 973 in the subject property; 974 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 975 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 976 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 977 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 978 review standards with citation of supporting adopted City design guidelines; 979 (1) (5)A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard 980 setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, 981 contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; 982 983 (2) (6) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary 984 structure on the block face; 985 (7) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 986 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 987 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 988 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 989 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 990 project evaluation; 991 (8) Elevation drawings and details for all facades; 992 (9) Illustrative photos and/or samples of all proposed facade materials; 993 (10) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 994 (3) (11) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction in relation to 995 neighboring buildings; and 996 (4) (12) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction from the 997 pedestrian perspective.; and 998 (13) Any further information or documentation as the Zoning Administrator 999 deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 1000 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4e. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification 1001 requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. shall require notice pursuant to chapter 1002 21A.10 of this title. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition 1003 of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 1004 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 1005 established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of 1006 this title. 1007 f. Public Hearing: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require a 1008 public hearing pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1009 5g. Standards fFor Approval: The Aapplications for a certificate of appropriateness shall 1010 be reviewed according to the standards set forth in sSubsections G through KL of this 1011 section, whichever are applicable. 1012 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, 1013 conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness 1014 based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee 1015 shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. 1016 a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director 1017 or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to 1018 the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 1019 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other 1020 preservation issues. 1021 7h. Review And Decision By The Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The 1022 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public hearing to review the 1023 application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1024 21A.10 of this title. make a decision at a regularly scheduled meeting, following 1025 receipt of a completed application. The historic landmark commission shall approve, 1026 conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. 1027 The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time 1028 the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to 1029 approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue 1030 a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for 1031 demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in 1032 Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 1033 1034 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of 1035 appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site 1036 shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: 1037 1038 a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. 1039 1040 b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will 1041 replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The 1042 requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with 1043 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new 1044 development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be 1045 demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. 1046 1047 c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously 1048 with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement 1049 building. 1050 1051 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1052 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation 1053 Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the 1054 designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 1055 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 1056 1057 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: 1058 A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1059 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent 1060 hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building 1061 official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 1062 1063 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period 1064 of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete 1065 building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building 1066 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1067 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark 1068 commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or 1069 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) 1070 days prior to the one (1) year time period. 1071 1072 (1) After reviewing all materials submitted for the case, the recommendation of 1073 the Planning Division and conducting a field inspection, if necessary, the 1074 Historic Landmark Commission shall make written findings of fact based on 1075 the standards of approval as outlined in this subsection F through subsection K 1076 of this section, whichever are applicable. 1077 (2) On the basis of its written findings of fact the Historic Landmark 1078 Commission shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve the certificate 1079 of appropriateness. 1080 (3) The decision of the Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective at 1081 the time the decision is made. Demolition permits for landmark sites or 1082 contributing principal buildings shall not be issued until the appeal period has 1083 expired. 1084 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (4) Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission on the 1085 application, including a copy of the findings of fact, shall be made pursuant to 1086 the provisions of section 21A.10.030 of this title. 1087 12i. Appeal oOf Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: Any person adversely 1088 affected by a final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or in the case 1089 of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in 1090 accordance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.16 of this title. 1091 G. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Alteration oOf aA Landmark Site oOr 1092 Contributing Structure Including New Construction oOf aAn Accessory Structure: In 1093 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark 1094 site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated 1095 with a landmark site or contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1096 the Pplanning Ddirector, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design 1097 guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with 1098 all of the following general standards: that pertain to the application and that the decision 1099 is in the best interest of the City: 1100 1101 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires 1102 minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and 1103 environment; 1104 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of 1105 historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall 1106 be avoided; 1107 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. 1108 Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of 1109 history or architecture are not allowed; 1110 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right 1111 shall be retained and preserved; 1112 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of 1113 craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 1114 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever 1115 feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the 1116 material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. 1117 Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate 1118 duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather 1119 than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from 1120 other structures or objects; 1121 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 1122 materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be 1123 undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 1124 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be 1125 discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, 1126 historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 1127 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or 1128 environment; 1129 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that 1130 if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form 1131 and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be 1132 differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and 1133 architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its 1134 environment; 1135 10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: 1136 a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original 1137 or historic material. 1138 b. Vinyl fencing. 1139 1140 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a 1141 landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible 1142 from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the 1143 landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the 1144 standards outlined in cChapter 21A.46 of this title. 1145 1146 H. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness Involving New Construction oOr 1147 Alteration oOf aA Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a 1148 certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or 1149 alterations of noncontributing structures, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1150 Pplanning Ddirector when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing 1151 structure, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, 1152 determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards 1153 that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established 1154 context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s 1155 architectural and cultural traditions: 1156 1157 1. Settlement Patterns aAnd Neighborhood Character: 1158 1159 a. Block aAnd Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the 1160 historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. 1161 Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an 1162 adopted Ccity plan. 1163 b. Lot aAnd Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and 1164 building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 1165 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated 1166 by an adopted Ccity plan. 1167 c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with 1168 sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the 1169 block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 1170 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the 1171 definition of public and semi-public spaces. 1172 d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and 1173 reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the 1174 historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback 1175 demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s 1176 period of significance. 1177 e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and 1178 pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in 1179 the historic context and the block face. 1180 1181 2. Site Access, Parking, aAnd Services: 1182 a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in 1183 form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block 1184 face. 1185 1186 (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally 1187 highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the 1188 historic context and the block face. 1189 (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. 1190 Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to 1191 the side of the building. 1192 1193 b. Site aAnd Building Services aAnd Utilities: Utilities and site/building services 1194 (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they 1195 are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and 1196 public properties. 1197 1198 3. Landscape aAnd Lighting: 1199 a. Grading oOf Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, 1200 addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic 1201 context and the block face. 1202 b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address 1203 the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and 1204 the block face. 1205 c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of 1206 the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 1207 1208 4. Building Form aAnd Scale: 1209 a. Character oOf Tthe Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic 1210 character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 1211 1212 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1213 and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step 1214 back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic 1215 context and the block face. 1216 1217 (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1218 and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face 1219 modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic 1220 context and the block face. 1221 1222 (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character 1223 of the historic context and the block face. 1224 1225 (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in 1226 the historic context and the block face. 1227 1228 5. Building Character: 1229 a. Facade Articulation aAnd Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns 1230 of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block 1231 face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings 1232 on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found 1233 elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). 1234 1235 (1) Rhythm oOf Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of 1236 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic 1237 context and the block face. 1238 1239 (2) Proportion aAnd Scale oOf Openings: The facades are designed using 1240 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and 1241 scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. 1242 1243 (3) Ratio oOf Wall tTo Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall 1244 to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the 1245 historic context and the block face. 1246 1247 (4) Balconies, Porches, aAnd External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, 1248 incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections 1249 that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 1250 1251 6. Building Materials, Elements aAnd Detailing: 1252 a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less 1253 than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 1254 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials 1255 reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and 1256 character. 1257 b. Materials Oon Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered 1258 to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: 1259 vinyl siding and aluminum siding. 1260 c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects 1261 patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. 1262 d. Architectural Elements aAnd Details: The design of the building features 1263 architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district 1264 and/or setting. 1265 1266 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral 1267 part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal 1268 structure. 1269 1270 I. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Relocation oOf Landmark Site oOr 1271 Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness 1272 for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark 1273 Ccommission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following 1274 standards: 1275 1276 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 1277 1278 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district 1279 or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 1280 1281 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance 1282 of the structure; 1283 1284 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness 1285 of the building or structure; 1286 1287 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being 1288 stored; and 1289 1290 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation 1291 has occurred is provided to the Ccity. The financial guarantee shall be in a form 1292 approved by the Ccity Aattorney, in an amount determined by the Pplanning 1293 Ddirector sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as 1294 approved by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission and restore the grade and 1295 landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is 1296 to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 1297 1298 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT J. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf Landmark Site: In 1299 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a 1300 landmark site, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall only approve the application 1301 upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1302 1303 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to 1304 sSubsection 21A.34.020.F.10 O of this section; or 1305 1306 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the Hhistoric Llandmark 1307 Ccommission pursuant to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.34.020.L of this section. 1308 1309 K. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf aA Contributing 1310 Principal Building In An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When considering a 1311 request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing 1312 principal building, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall determine whether the 1313 request substantially complies with the following standards: 1314 1315 1. Standards For Approval Of A Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: 1316 1a. The historic integrity of the site as defined in subsection Section 21A.62.040 C15b of 1317 this section is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a 1318 contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 1319 2b.The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District 1320 would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were 1321 to be demolished; 1322 3c. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of 1323 historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the 1324 district; 1325 4d.The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive 1326 reuse of the contributing principal building; 1327 5e. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful wilful neglect, as 1328 evidenced by the following: 1329 a. (1)WillfulWilful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the 1330 structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the 1331 building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the Sstate 1332 Cconstruction Ccode, 1333 b. (2)Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain 1334 the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or 1335 c. (3)Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per 1336 sSection 18.64.045 of this Ccode. 1337 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Historic Landmark Commission Determination Of Compliance With Standards Of 1338 Approval: If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the request for a 1339 certificate of appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards 1340 in subsection K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall 1341 approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. If the Historic 1342 Landmark Commission does not find that the request for a certificate of 1343 appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards in subsection 1344 K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the request for 1345 a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 1346 L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for 1347 demolition of a contributing principal building by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, 1348 the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal 1349 period as described in cChapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for 1350 determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for 1351 determination of economic hardship shall can be submitted at any the same time as an 1352 application for demolition of a landmark site necessary to meet the standard of 1353 sSubsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1354 1355 1. Application fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: An application for a 1356 determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning 1357 administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City 1358 consolidated fee schedule. Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning 1359 Division. 1360 1361 2. Evidence fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the 1362 owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an 1363 economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based 1364 solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: 1365 1366 a. Physical cCondition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans 1367 for the property at time of purchase. 1368 b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to 1369 the following: 1370 1371 (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom 1372 purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between 1373 applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased,; 1374 (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous 1375 three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous 1376 three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and 1377 after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years,; 1378 1379 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (3) Real Eestate Ttaxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County 1380 Assessor,; 1381 (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for 1382 determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser 1383 licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the 1384 previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the 1385 purchase, financing or ownership of the property,; 1386 (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic 1387 Preservation Overlay District,; and 1388 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any Sstate or Ffederal Iincome 1389 Ttax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. 1390 1391 c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of 1392 the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within 1393 the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant 1394 documents regarding: 1395 1396 (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property,; 1397 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the 1398 applicant,; and 1399 (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. 1400 1401 d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the 1402 following: 1403 1404 (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in 1405 rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building 1406 on the property,; 1407 (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including 1408 the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of 1409 materials,; 1410 (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after 1411 completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for 1412 continued use,; and 1413 (4) The testimony of an experienced professional with demonstrated experience 1414 in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of 1415 rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced 1416 professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real 1417 estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in 1418 preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State 1419 of Utah. 1420 1421 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through Ffederal, 1422 Sstate, Ccity, or private programs. 1423 f. Description of past and current use. 1424 g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet 1425 minimum Ccity Bbuilding Ccode standards or violations of this Ccode and 1426 whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its 1427 successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. 1428 h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, special exception or other land 1429 use processes to alleviate hardship. 1430 1431 3. Procedure fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The Planning Director shall 1432 appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or 1433 testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission concerning the value of the property 1434 and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. The 1435 extent of the authority of the Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert is limited 1436 to rendering advice and testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission. The 1437 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert has no decision-making capacity. The 1438 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert should have considerable and 1439 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, 1440 real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. The Historic 1441 Landmark Commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the 1442 evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the Planning 1443 Director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. 1444 1445 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified 1446 expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the 1447 historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether 1448 or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. 1449 1450 (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified 1451 expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark 1452 commission and has no decision-making capacity. 1453 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and 1454 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic 1455 properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or 1456 law. 1457 (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony 1458 upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the 1459 advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as 1460 necessary. 1461 1462 ba. Review Oof Evidence: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public 1463 hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1464 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.10 of this title shall to consider the evidence submitted, an application and 1465 the advice and /testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed qualified expert. 1466 for determination of economic hardship after receipt of a complete application. 1467 1468 cb. Finding Oof Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by 1469 the applicant and the advice/testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed 1470 qualified expert, and if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds that the applicant 1471 has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic 1472 hardship, then the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall approve the issue a 1473 certificate of appropriateness for demolition. in accordance with subsections M and N 1474 of this section. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot 1475 be obtained, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission must find that all of the following 1476 are met: 1477 1478 (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically 1479 used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if 1480 rehabilitated; 1481 (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1482 reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and 1483 (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing 1484 principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been 1485 unsuccessful. 1486 1487 (1) For demolition of non-residential or multifamily property: 1488 1489 (A) The contributing principal building or landmark site currently cannot be 1490 economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present 1491 condition. 1492 1493 (2) For demolition of a residential property (single or two family): 1494 1495 (A) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1496 beneficial use in its present condition. 1497 dc. Certificate oOf Appropriateness fFor Demolition: If the Hhistoric Llandmark 1498 Ccommission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for 1499 demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. valid 1500 for one year. Extensions of time for an approved certificate of appropriateness for 1501 demolition associated with economic hardship shall be subject to 1502 subsection 21A.10.010D of this title. 1503 ed. Denial Oof Economic Hardship: If the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission does 1504 not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of 1505 appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship 1506 determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three 1507 (3) years from the date of the final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark 1508 Ccommission. The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may waive this restriction 1509 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds there are circumstances sufficient 1510 to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by 1511 the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. 1512 1513 e. Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic 1514 Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions 1515 of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1516 M. Requirements For Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: No certificate of 1517 appropriateness for demolition shall be issued unless the landmark site or contributing 1518 principal building to be demolished is to be replaced with a new building that meets the 1519 following criteria. 1520 1521 1. The replacement building satisfies all applicable zoning and H Historic Preservation 1522 Overlay District standards for new construction. 1523 2. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition is issued simultaneously with the 1524 appropriate approvals and permits for the replacement building. 1525 3. Submittal of documentation to the Planning Division of the landmark site or 1526 contributing principal building in a historic district. Documentation shall include 1527 photos of the subject property and a site plan. Documentation may also include 1528 drawings and/or written data if available. 1529 1530 a. Photographs. Digital or print photographs. Views should include: 1531 (1) Exterior views; 1532 (2) Close-ups of significant exterior features; 1533 (3) Views that show the relationship of the primary building to the overall site, 1534 accessory structures and/or site features. 1535 1536 b. Site plan showing the location of the building and site features. 1537 1538 N. Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1539 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the Salt Lake City Register of 1540 Cultural Resources (see subsection D of this section). 1541 1542 O. Exceptions Of Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition Of Hazardous Buildings: A 1543 hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1544 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard 1545 to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall 1546 notify the Planning Director of the decision. 1547 1548 P. Expiration Of Approvals: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Historic 1549 Landmark Commission, or in the case of an administratively approved certificate of 1550 appropriateness, by the Planning Director or designee, no certificate of appropriateness 1551 shall be valid for a period of longer than one year unless a building permit has been 1552 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building 1553 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1554 completion, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Historic Landmark 1555 Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the Planning Director or 1556 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days 1557 prior to the twelve (12) month time period. 1558 1559 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That 1560 Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 1561 Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and 1562 Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to 1563 read as follows: 1564 B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems aAnd Historic Preservation Overlay Districts Or 1565 Landmark Sites: 1566 1567 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to 1568 install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay 1569 District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 1570 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed 1571 in accordance with the location priorities detailed in sSubsection B.3 of this section. If 1572 there is any conflict between the provisions of this sSubsection B, and any other 1573 requirements of this section, the provisions of this sSubsection B shall take precedence. 1574 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a 1575 location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a 1576 way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic 1577 building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar 1578 device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not 1579 damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 1580 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate 1581 locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations 1582 in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation approved shall be 1583 the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible 1584 with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. Systems 1585 proposed for locations in subsections B3a through B3e of this section, may be reviewed 1586 administratively as set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F1, “Administrative Decision”, of 1587 this title. Systems proposed for locations in subsection B3f of this section, shall be 1588 reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission in accordance with the procedures set 1589 forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2, “Historic Landmark Commission”, of this title. 1590 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1591 a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1592 b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public 1593 right-of-way. 1594 c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1595 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-1596 way. 1597 e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of-1598 way, but not on the structure’s front facade. 1599 f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with 1600 the character defining features of the structure. 1601 1602 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That 1603 Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and 1604 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1605 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: 1606 1607 The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance 1608 adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. 1609 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are 1610 subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. 1611 1612 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That 1613 Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and 1614 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1615 21A.50.030: INITIATION: 1616 1617 Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an 1618 application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for 1619 amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the 1620 owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. 1621 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or landmark sites or the 1622 Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this 1623 title. 1624 1625 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That 1626 Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall 1627 be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1628 B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt 1629 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment 1630 of all fees established for providing the public notice required by cChapter 21A.10 of this 1631 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the 1632 mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed for designation within an 1633 H historic preservation overlay district or to establish a character conservation district 1634 shall not be required. 1635 1636 1637 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That 1638 Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on 1639 Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1640 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: 1641 1642 A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the Ccity Ccouncil 1643 or the Pplanning Ccommission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final 1644 decision of the Ccity Ccouncil upon a prior application covering substantially the same 1645 subject or substantially the same property. 1646 B. In the case of a proposed local historic district or thematic designation per section 1647 21A.50.060 of this chapter, if a local historic district or area proposal fails in accordance 1648 with the voting procedures set forth in section 21A.50.060.A11, a resident may not 1649 initiate the creation of a local historic district, area, or thematic designation that includes 1650 more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district, 1651 area, or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the 1652 property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1653 BC. This determination shall be made by the Zzoning Aadministrator upon receipt of an 1654 application pursuant to sSection 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 1655 restrict the Mmayor, the Ccity Ccouncil or the Pplanning Ccommission from proposing 1656 any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any 1657 time. 1658 1659 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of 1660 the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is 1661 amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall 1662 read as follows: 1663 Chapter 21A.51 1664 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 1665 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 1666 21A.51.020: Authority 1667 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 1668 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 1669 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 1670 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 1671 21A.51.070: Limitations 1672 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 1673 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 1674 1675 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1676 The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments 1677 to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 1678 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic 1679 district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 1680 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: 1681 A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for 1682 general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map 1683 and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance 1684 and: 1685 1686 1. Designate a landmark site; 1687 2. Designate as a local historic district; 1688 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 1689 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, 1690 local historic district or thematic designation; 1691 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 1692 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new 1693 landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 1694 1695 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local 1696 historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 1697 21A.51.080. 1698 1699 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: 1700 Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1701 thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which 1702 represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 1703 architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a 1704 reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the 1705 city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. 1706 A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1707 1708 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal 1709 of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic 1710 designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following 1711 steps must be completed: 1712 1713 a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application 1714 conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 1715 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as 1716 outlined in this section. 1717 1718 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication 1719 conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first 1720 class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property 1721 potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet 1722 shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed 1723 boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 1724 District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 1725 the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also 1726 list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the 1727 city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures 1728 may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent 1729 shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city 1730 within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, 1731 the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the 1732 application process again. 1733 1734 2. Application: 1735 1736 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a 1737 majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic 1738 district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application 1739 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 1740 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 1741 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1742 1743 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 1744 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 1745 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 1746 interest in that lot or parcel. 1747 1748 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty 1749 three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained 1750 for that lot or parcel. 1751 1752 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 1753 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 1754 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 1755 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 1756 was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the 1757 last required signature. 1758 1759 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator 1760 on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 1761 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the 1762 zoning administrator: 1763 1764 (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a 1765 and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; 1766 1767 (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a 1768 have been met; 1769 1770 (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed 1771 local designation; 1772 1773 (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; 1774 1775 (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in 1776 Section 21A.51.040; and 1777 1778 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for 1779 consideration of a particular application. 1780 1781 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or 1782 thematic designation shall not be required. 1783 1784 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an 1785 application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the 1786 city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each 1787 property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational 1788 pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application 1789 is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature 1790 gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no 1791 application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 1792 1793 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an 1794 application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and 1795 following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in 1796 Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the 1797 following considerations to the city council: 1798 1799 a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State 1800 Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 1801 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not 1802 available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 1803 1804 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 1805 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 1806 planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 1807 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or 1808 thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If 1809 sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. 1810 1811 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 1812 objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning 1813 documents. 1814 1815 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 1816 1817 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 1818 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 1819 with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning 1820 map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General 1821 Amendments”, of this title. 1822 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1823 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 1824 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local 1825 historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 1826 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 1827 1828 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized 1829 community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this 1830 code. 1831 1832 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report 1833 and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a 1834 community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 1835 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the 1836 following: 1837 1838 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 1839 support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city 1840 council; and 1841 1842 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 1843 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 1844 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 1845 economic hardship process. 1846 1847 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 1848 2.60.050. 1849 1850 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 1851 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 1852 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 1853 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 1854 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 1855 some modification of the proposal. 1856 1857 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 1858 1859 a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning 1860 commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots 1861 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 1862 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 1863 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property 1864 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 1865 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 1866 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 1867 owner opinion ballot. 1868 1869 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 1870 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 1871 1872 (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: 1873 1874 (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or 1875 area; or 1876 1877 (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 1878 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 1879 (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count 1880 a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property 1881 owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at 1882 least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 1883 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 1884 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the 1885 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 1886 1887 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 1888 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 1889 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 1890 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 1891 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 1892 first property owner opinion ballot. 1893 1894 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 1895 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results 1896 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic 1897 designation. 1898 1899 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 1900 historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the 1901 property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to 1902 consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in 1903 accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General 1904 Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: 1905 1906 1907 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the 1908 total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than 1909 fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within 1910 the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council 1911 may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority 1912 vote. 1913 1914 b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 1915 threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only 1916 designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote 1917 of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. 1918 1919 c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 1920 opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or 1921 a thematic district by a super majority vote. 1922 1923 B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1924 1925 1. Application: 1926 1927 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a 1928 landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a 1929 petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 1930 1931 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all 1932 of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by 1933 the zoning administrator. 1934 1935 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be 1936 required. 1937 1938 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community 1939 organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 1940 1941 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 1942 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 1943 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 1944 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 1945 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 1946 some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the 1947 city council. 1948 1949 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 1950 historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall 1951 hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance 1952 with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application 1953 and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority 1954 vote, designate a landmark site. 1955 1956 C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local 1957 historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the 1958 boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be 1959 subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of 1960 Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the 1961 publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1962 1963 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1964 thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report 1965 submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to 1966 the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 1967 1968 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 1969 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 1970 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 1971 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of 1972 the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H 1973 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1974 1975 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: 1976 A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic 1977 Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation 1978 shall be evaluated according to the following: 1979 1980 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or 1981 culture, associated with at least one of the following: 1982 1983 a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 1984 history, or 1985 1986 b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 1987 1988 c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of 1989 construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 1990 1991 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt 1992 Lake City; and 1993 1994 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 1995 feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic 1996 integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic 1997 district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual 1998 building or structure in a district. 1999 2000 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or 2001 is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 2002 2003 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, 2004 development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic 2005 districts within Salt Lake City; 2006 2007 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 2008 2009 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 2010 2011 B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark 2012 commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 2013 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed 2014 above: 2015 2016 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important 2017 in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of 2018 significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but 2019 could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2020 2021 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains 2022 examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture 2023 that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 2024 2025 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation 2026 would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, 2027 development patterns and/or architecture. 2028 2029 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 2030 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable 2031 historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. 2032 2033 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 2034 Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that 2035 historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. 2036 2037 D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria 2038 in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic 2039 district: 2040 2041 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features 2042 rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2043 2044 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 2045 subdivision plats or property lines; 2046 2047 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 2048 neighborhood boundaries; and 2049 2050 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 2051 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 2052 21A.51.040.D. 2053 2054 E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria 2055 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains 2056 a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 2057 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals 2058 of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 2059 2060 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: 2061 A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 2062 2063 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding 2064 additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2065 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or 2066 removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 2067 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. 2068 2069 B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 2070 2071 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local 2072 historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as 2073 outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the 2074 properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to 2075 52 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation 2076 and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 2077 2078 a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 2079 21A.51.030.A.1.b; 2080 2081 b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the 2082 property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; 2083 2084 c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; 2085 2086 d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; 2087 2088 e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 2089 21A.51.030.A.10; and 2090 2091 f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 2092 21A.51.030.A.11. 2093 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local 2094 historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same 2095 as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: 2096 2097 a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only 2098 apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 2099 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a 2100 local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic 2101 Preservation Overlay District. 2102 2103 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 2104 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 2105 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by 2106 Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning 2107 commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2108 2109 C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 2110 2111 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or 2112 reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the 2113 designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 2114 21A.51.030.B in addition to: 2115 2116 a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the 2117 revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the 2118 applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The 2119 53 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for 2120 providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications 2121 filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2122 2123 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 2124 2125 A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2126 historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered 2127 utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new 2128 information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the 2129 historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or 2130 thematic designation. 2131 2132 B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2133 historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall 2134 demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A 2135 for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The 2136 qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such 2137 qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and 2138 adoption of the designation. 2139 2140 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a 2141 landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 2142 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 2143 2144 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 2145 2146 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the 2147 voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the 2148 creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty 2149 percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic 2150 designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion 2151 ballots for the vote were due. 2152 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an 2153 application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 2154 restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new 2155 local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local 2156 historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 2157 2158 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS 2159 2160 54 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for 2161 the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director 2162 and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the 2163 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource 2164 survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and 2165 will supersede previous surveys. 2166 2167 B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 2168 2169 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as 2170 recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use 2171 purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of 2172 individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on 2173 historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic 2174 district is subject to the following: 2175 2176 a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties 2177 within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a 2178 historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or 2179 thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated 2180 with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2181 2182 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or 2183 the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of 2184 properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2185 2186 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an 2187 individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning 2188 administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a 2189 timely determination. 2190 2191 d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall 2192 be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance 2193 and historic status listed. 2194 2195 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: 2196 2197 a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2198 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2199 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2200 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2201 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource 2202 55 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource 2203 survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 2204 2205 b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s 2206 recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting 2207 the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2208 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The 2209 city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. 2210 In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may 2211 consider the following in their decision making: 2212 2213 (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on 2214 the local district or thematic designation and the city; 2215 2216 (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and 2217 associated with at least one of the following: 2218 2219 (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2220 history, or 2221 (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or 2222 nation, or 2223 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method 2224 of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2225 (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 2226 Salt Lake City; and 2227 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for 2228 aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, 2229 workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service 2230 Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of 2231 the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be 2232 greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a 2233 district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the 2234 updated survey; 2235 2236 (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns 2237 or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt 2238 Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the 2239 updated survey; 2240 2241 (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. 2242 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2243 C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, 2244 the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations 2245 shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in 2246 Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect 2247 on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the 2248 adopted ordinance. 2249 2250 2251 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: 2252 2253 Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days 2254 after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal 2255 Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. 2256 2257 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 2258 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 2259 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list 2260 in alphabetical order: 2261 Contributing Structure 2262 Noncontributing Structure 2263 Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 2264 Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay 2265 District) 2266 Historic Design Guidelines 2267 Historic Integrity 2268 Economic Hardship 2269 Historic Resource Survey 2270 Landmark Site 2271 Local Historic District 2272 Period of Significance 2273 Thematic Designation 2274 Willful Neglect 2275 2276 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That 2277 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall 2278 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in 2279 alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 2280 2281 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation 2282 overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 2283 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to 2284 generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part 2285 of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a 2286 local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each 2287 individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its 2288 major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have 2289 occurred, they are generally reversible. 2290 2291 DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC 2292 PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, 2293 object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. 2294 (See definition of demolition, partial.) 2295 2296 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H 2297 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act 2298 which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) 2299 of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is 2300 not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal 2301 of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 2302 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic 2303 elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 2304 2305 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 2306 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 2307 2308 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in 2309 determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, 2310 alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that 2311 meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2312 For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning 2313 and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they 2314 provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines 2315 are officially adopted by city council. 2316 2317 HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or 2318 attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in 2319 various combinations, define historic integrity: 2320 Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the 2321 place where a historic event occurred. 2322 58 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2323 Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, 2324 structure, and style of a property. 2325 2326 Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 2327 2328 Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited 2329 during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a 2330 historic property. 2331 2332 Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular 2333 culture or people during any given period in history. 2334 2335 Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a 2336 particular period of time. 2337 2338 Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or 2339 person and a historic property. 2340 2341 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 2342 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 2343 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource 2344 surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional 2345 qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, 2346 architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 2347 2348 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with 2349 Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A 2350 landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of 2351 buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to 2352 the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 2353 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the 2354 historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 2355 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2356 2357 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a 2358 minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by 2359 the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains 2360 buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, 2361 or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 2362 All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 2363 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2364 2365 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic 2366 Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the 2367 process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or 2368 59 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character 2369 defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details 2370 indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may 2371 also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a 2372 period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. 2373 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic 2374 events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site 2375 occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case 2376 of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be 2377 thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few 2378 days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance 2379 associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. 2380 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 2381 features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, 2382 which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together 2383 by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 2384 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 2385 interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of 2386 Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2387 2388 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 2389 building over time. 2390 2391 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt 2392 Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read 2393 as follows: 2394 ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code Annoted 10.9A.510 60 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $36 $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $285 $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $571 $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $285 $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs 61 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Special Exception $285 For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and 21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices 21A.10.010.E) 21A.52.040.A.3 Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the Ccity and / or Sstate Ccode, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zzoning Oordinance and Sstate Llaw: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 Section 10-9a-501. and 510 2395 2396 SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 2397 first publication. 2398 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2399 2023. 2400 ______________________________ 2401 CHAIRPERSON 2402 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 2403 2404 ______________________________ 2405 62 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CITY RECORDER 2406 2407 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 2408 2409 2410 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 2411 2412 ______________________________ 2413 MAYOR 2414 ______________________________ 2415 CITY RECORDER 2416 (SEAL) 2417 2418 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 2419 Published: ______________. 2420 Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (legislative) 6.29.23 2421 2) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00123 February 8, 2023 Mayor Mendenhall initiated the petition for amendments to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District March 13, 2023 Notice emailed to all SLC registered recognized organizations including a draft of the proposed changes March 20, 2023 Information and a draft of the proposed changes was posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage April 17, 2023 Staff attended the Sugar House community council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community April 20, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv April 28, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Historic Landmark Commission May 3, 2023 Staff attended the Central City Neighborhood Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community May 4, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to City Council May 11, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv May 18, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission May 24, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to City Council May 30, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review June 29, 2023 Revised draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s office for review (technical changes were made to the draft during the month of June) June 29, 2023 Final ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office June 30, 2023 Transmitted 3) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00123 – A petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall for a text amendment that would generally impact the H Historic Preservation Overlay District which applies to landmark sites or properties within a local historic district. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District also outlines process and standards for local historic designations, boundary adjustments, and revocation of local historic designation. The purpose of the proposed text amendments is to make the ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the historic landmark commission in its administration, as well as create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the zoning ordinance related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and changes would apply citywide. DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially 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. If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection information. 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 Amy Thompson at 801-535-7281 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail amy.thompson@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. 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. 4) PETITION INITIATION 5) PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:cindy cromer To:Thompson, Amy Subject:(EXTERNAL) comment to the Planning Commission re the Ordinance for Historic Preservation Date:Wednesday, May 24, 2023 3:35:14 PM I am addressing Section D, Historic Status Determination in the proposal. I failed in my effort to convince the Landmarks Commission that the process of changing the contributory or noncontributory status of a building in an historic district would have inadequate public participation under the proposal. There is no question that there is a robust public process for identifying the status during the survey process. Currently there is nothing specified in the adopted ordinance at all about changing the determination made in the survey. We do need a process adopted as ordinance. I am arguing that interested parties should reasonably be able to find out about reversing the previous public process. This proposal does not offer that. It is silent regarding notification. So I am going to walk to you through what I would have to do under this proposal to challenge a decision made by the Zoning Administrator about contributory status. I would not be notified of the request through the community council, as someone who had spoken at an initial public hearing, or as a nearby property owner. I would not be able to submit information prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision. I have no idea where to find the decision. The proposed ordinance specifies that the property owner and the members of the Landmarks Commission would be informed. The decision is "on file" in city records. I would have 10 days from the decision to file an appeal, which of course assumes that I could find out about the decision before the 10 days expired. I would have to establish standing and pay a fee to appeal a decision which could affect my investments in the Central City and Avenues Historic Districts significantly. My appeal would have to be based on very narrow requirements. The distinction between contributory and noncontributory buildings in local historic districts is the essence of the City's regulation of land use. To illustrate just how significant this authority is-An owner has the right to demolish a noncontributory structure but should expect to encounter significant obstacles if trying to demolish a contributory structure. The distinction between contributory and noncontributory structures is the core of land use regulation in historic districts. 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:October 17, 2023 RE: 1518 South 300 West Alley Vacation PLNPCM2023-000408 ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate two City-owned alleys near the above address, west of 300 West and between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues in Council District Five as shown in the image below provided by the Planning Division. One alley (referred to from this point as “Alley A”) runs north/south between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. It is approximately 16.5 feet wide and 149 feet long. The other alley (referred to from this point as “Alley B”) runs east/west between 300 West and the east property line of 352 West Van Buren Avenue. It is approximately 16.5 feet wide and 300 feet long. The petitioner owns all seven parcels that abut the subject alleys. Alley B previously continued to 400 West before that street and a portion of the alley were vacated in 1974. Another segment of the alley was closed in 1997, resulting in the current alley configuration. Alley A is paved and appears to be used as parking for a towing yard and auto body shop at 325 West Andrew Avenue. It is fenced off and obstructs access to the western portion of Alley B. Alley B is gravel and passable to the point where it intersects with Alley A. West of the alley intersection, Alley B is fenced off, restricting public access. The portion of Alley B west of the fence has deteriorated pavement, making it no longer passable. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 The petitioner proposes demolition of buildings abutting the subject alleys and incorporating the alley property into a multi-family development. That potential development is not part of the alley vacation petition before the Council and will not come to the Council as there is not a request to rezone the property. Applications for design review and planned development have been submitted to the Planning Division and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the future. Image showing abutting parcels owned by the petitioner’s client outlined in yellow. Area zoning is CG (General Commercial). Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The Planning Commission reviewed this petition during its August 23, 2o23 meeting and held a public hearing at which the petitioner was the only person who spoke. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed alley vacations, with the following conditions: •The property owner enters into a development agreement with the City that requires creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership. •No portion of the alleys shall purport to be conveyed until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, no responding department or division objected to the proposed alley vacation. Public Utilities noted that there is a water meter on 300 West near Alley B, and it must remain in the public right-of-way. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions relating to the mid- block walkway for the alley closures? Page | 3 ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. Quiet Title Claim The alleys proposed to be vacated were the subject of a 2022 quiet title lawsuit to confirm ownership of the alley property. A judgement granted title to the alley property to the applicant, but the City was not named or served as part of the lawsuit, so the judgement is not binding on the City. The judgement was recorded by Salt Lake County and the alley property was mistakenly identified by the County as belonging to the applicant. To clarify that the alley property is still owned by Salt Lake City, a notice of public alleys (found in Attachment D (pages 27-30 of the Planning Commission staff report)) was required of the applicant. It is being held in escrow by the City Attorney’s Office pending the City Council’s decision on the proposed alley vacation request. Key Considerations Planning staff identified five key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code requires a minimum of 75% of abutting property owners sign a petition to vacate a City owned alley. As noted above, all seven abutting parcels are owned by the petitioner’s client. Consideration 2: Policy Considerations Planning staff found the fenced off portion of Alley B satisfies policy consideration C-Urban Design as outlined in Section 14.52.020 Salt Lake City Code. Alley A and the eastern portion of Alley B could satisfy policy consideration B-Public Safety, based on comments received from the Police Department and Sustainability, though the petitioner did not raise this as a concern. Consideration 3: Master Plan Considerations Planning staff noted that the Central Community Master Plan does not address alley vacations within the People’s Freeway area where the alleys are located. However, the master plan and Plan Salt Lake both recommend midblock walkways for pedestrian connections. It is Planning staff’s opinion that a midblock private right-of-way connecting Andrew and Van Buren Avenues could break up the block. They also suggested that Alley A property could be vacated in exchange for this midblock connection. Consideration 4: Nature of the Alley As discussed above, Planning staff found that Alley A is fenced off and used as parking for an adjacent business, so not accessible to the public. Alley B is mostly gravel, and partially accessible to the public. Beyond the fence, it is used for outdoor storage and parking. The surface is deteriorated and likely not passable. That section is not currently publicly accessible. Page | 4 Consideration 5: Future Public Use of the Alley Alley vacation proposals generally include considering potential beneficial future uses of the alley for trails, ADU or garage access, and to retain access for utilities and services. If the gate blocking Alley A was removed and vehicles and other items stored there were cleared out, this alley could provide access from Andrew Avenue to the interior of the block, but it does not extend through to Van Buren Avenue. An option to consider is a development agreement requiring replacing the alley with a private right-of-way that provides a mid-block connection between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. This would break up the large block and provide access beyond what the alley could. Planning staff determined preserving Alley B would not implement good urban design. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 35-39 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Sections 14.52.020/.030.B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. 14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Planning staff found the requested Alley A vacation complies with policy considerations C-Urban Design, with a condition that a mid-block connection between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues is constructed. Planning found the requested Alley B vacation also complies with policy consideration C-Urban Design. 14.52.030.B - A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Planning Staff Finding The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Complies The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Alley A: Complies, with conditions discussed above. Alley B: Complies The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Complies Page | 5 The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Alley A: Complies, with conditions discussed above. Alley B: Complies No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Complies The petition furthers the City’s preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Complies The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies PUBLIC PROCESS May 26, 2023 - Petition received by Planning Division. May 31, 2023 – Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. June 9, 2023 - Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. June 14, 2023 - Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 31, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments have been submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. August 9, 2023 - Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. August 13, 2023 - Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. August 23, 2023 - Planning Commission review and public hearing. The Commission voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed alley vacations, with conditions. August 24, 2023 - Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. Page | 6 September 14, 2023 - Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office. October 9, 2023 - Transmittal received in City Council Office The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and Page | 7 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. Page | 8 C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING// October 17, 2023 1518 S 300 WALLEY VACATION PLNPCM2023-00408 Vacate two public alleys: 1.North-south alley, “Alley A” 2.East-west alley, “Alley B” Recommendation: Planning Commission is recommending that the alley vacations be approved, with conditions. REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division Zoning District: CG (General Commercial District) General Plan: Central Community Small Area Plan: Ballpark Alley A: 16’6” wide x 148’7” long Alley B: 16’6” wide x 298’8” long Salt Lake City // Planning Division OVERVIEW Salt Lake City // Planning Division EXISTING CONDITIONS 400 Soh 2 0 0 W e s t Alley A (from Andrew Ave)Alley B (from 300 West)Alley B (west of Alley A) Salt Lake City // Planning Division SITE CONTEXT 400 South 2 0 0 W e s t Van Buren Ave Andrew Ave •Courts granted quiet title claim in 2022 •Notice of Public Alleys clarifies that alleys remain under public ownership until City Council decision Salt Lake City // Planning Division QUIET TITLE CLAIM •Design Review and Planned Development applications with Planning for redevelopment of surrounding site •Alley vacation necessary for redevelopment as proposed •Design not yet finalized –not a part of this application Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT City Ordinance Standards of Review •14.52.020: Policy Considerations for Closure, Vacation, or Abandonment of City-Owned Alleys •14.52.030: Processing Petitions –Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission Salt Lake City // Planning Division STANDARDS OF REVIEW REQUEST Request: Fully vacate alley •Currently helps to break up block but does not provide connection fully between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. •If it were replaced with a mid-block right-of-way that fully connected the two Avenues, would meet policy consideration C, Urban Design. Recommendation: Approval, with the following conditions: 1.The property owner enters into a development agreement with the City that requires creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership.A public access easement must also be secured ensuring public access to the private right-of-way. 2.The applicant shall not purport to convey the property encompassing any portion of the alleys until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council on the petition. Salt Lake City // Planning Division VACATION OF ALLEY A Request: Fully vacate alley •To the west of Alley A, the alley is fenced off and used for outdoor storage and parking. Gravel appears deteriorated. Meets policy consideration A, Lack of Use. •Alley breaks up the block in an uneven way. Creates rectangular site with very long side on Van Buren Ave and short side on 300 West. Vacating would lead to better use of the block overall, meeting policy consideration C, Urban Design. Recommendation: Approval, with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall not purport to convey the property encompassing any portion of the alleys until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council on the petition. Salt Lake City // Planning Division VACATION OF ALLEY B Consistent with applicable sections of Plan Salt Lake, Central Community General Plan, and Ballpark Small Area Plan •Central Community Plan does not list preserving alleys as a priority •Recommended that easements for mid-block connections obtained where possible •Ballpark Plan lists goal of utilizing existing alleys for pedestrian and bicycle connections •Existing configuration does not provide good connectivity •Plan Salt Lake recommends increasing connectivity through mid-block connections Salt Lake City // Planning Division COMPLIANCE WITH ADOPTED PLANS •Early notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet •Planning Division online open house posted •Notification sent to Ballpark Community Council. •Staff did not receive public comment for this item. Salt Lake City // Planning Division PUBLIC PROCESS RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City // Planning Division The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council, with the following conditions: 1.The property owner enters into a development agreement with the City that requires creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership. A public access easement must also be secured ensuring public access to the private right-of-way. (Alley A) 2.The applicant shall not purport to convey the property encompassing any portion of the alleys until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council on the petition. (Alley A & Alley B) Salt Lake City // Planning Division RECOMMENDATION Michael McNamee // Principal Planner michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com Existing Street Network ●Lots of East-West access ●Not much North-South access Existing Street Network ●Lots of East-West access ●Not much North-South access ●Extents of Site for Context Existing Alley Location ●The existing alley locations don’t help with the North-South pedestrian connectivity problems Existing Alley Conditions ●The existing alley conditions are not in line with the city’s connectivity goals East half of East/West Alley is dirt and gravel.West half of East/West Alley has been fenced for years Existing Alley Conditions ●The existing alley conditions are not in line with the city’s connectivity goals ●North South Alley was fenced off by tenant due to continuous encampments. It has mostly been used solely by adjacent business for years Proposed Mid-Block Public Access ●This location does solve the North- South issue. ●As per the recommendation from the Planning Commission connection has a building on both sides. Proposed Mid-Block Public Access ●This location does solve the North- South issue ●As per the recommendation from the Planning Commission connection has a building on both sides Proposed Ground Floor ●Ground floor activation on 85% of the facade. ●64% of 300 W Facade is commercial Access Concept ●Residential units face access way ●Final design will be worked out through design review with Planning Commission Access Concept ●Residential units face access way ●Final design will be worked out through design review with Planning Commission 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: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2023-00408 1518 S 300 W Alley Vacation Request STAFF CONTACT: Michael McNamee, Principal Planner (801)535-7226 or michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Alley Vacation request, with conditions. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for the vacation of two alleys located south and west of the above-stated address. One is approximately 16.5 feet by 148.6 feet, starting at a point 133.5 ft west of 300 West on Andrew Avenue and running north to south. The other is approximately 16.5 feet by 298.7 feet, starting at a point 56.1 ft north of Van Buren Avenue on 300 West and running east to west. The petitioner owns all the property surrounding the two alleys, and the purpose of the alley vacation request is to redevelop the surrounding property which would include the right-of-way within the proposed development. The proposed vacation will not impose access concerns because all of the subject properties that abut the alleys also have frontage on a public street. Only one property, a tow yard and auto body shop at 325 W Andrew Avenue, currently utilizes the north-south alley to access surface parking. The north-south alley and a portion of the east- rachel otto (Oct 9, 2023 11:20 MDT)10/09/2023 10/09/2023 west alley have been fenced off by neighboring property owners. The portion of the east-west alley that has been fenced off is being used for outdoor storage and parking. Alley Vacation requests must fulfill one of four policy considerations in section 14.52.020 of the City Code: Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, or Community Purpose. Requests are also reviewed against the factors found in 14.52.030.B. Staff’s analysis of the policy considerations determined that the standards are met by vacating this portion of the alleyway, which would not create detrimental impacts on abutting properties, with the condition that the north-south alley is replaced by a midblock connection that fully links Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. This condition ensures the proposed vacation complies with the Urban Design policy consideration. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on June 9, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Ballpark Community Council on June 14, 2023. No formal comments have submitted by the Community Council to date. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On August 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed alley vacation. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for decision, with conditions. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) b) PC Minutes of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) c) PC Staff Report of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00408 – 1518 S 300 W Alley Vacation Request May 26, 2023 Petition for the alley vacation application received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. May 31, 2023 Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. June 9, 2023 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. June 14, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 31, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. N o f ormal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. August 9, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. August 13, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. August 23, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 23, 2023. By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to City Council for the proposed alley vacation, with conditions. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00408 – Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for the vacation of two alleys located south and west of the above-stated address. One is approximately 16.5 feet by 148.6 feet, starting at a point 133.5 ft west of 300 West on Andrew Avenue and running north to south. The other is approximately 16.5 feet by 298.7 feet, starting at a point 56.1 ft north of Van Buren Avenue on 300 West and running east to west. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michael McNamee, Principal Planner at 801-535-7226 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00408. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2023 (Vacating city-owned alleys situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue) An ordinance vacating two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 23, 2023 to consider a request made by Jarod Hall (“Applicant”) to vacate two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue (collectively, the “Property”); and WHEREAS, at its August 23, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the vacation of the alleys and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alleys. That two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to the Property, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. The alley vacation set forth herein is conditioned upon (1) no portion of the alleys shall purport to be conveyed until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council on Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408; (2) the owner of the Property shall enter into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that requires the creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 3 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 3 have not been met within one year after adoption of this ordinance, then this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above conditions by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance vacating alley adjacent 1515-1550 S 300 W APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 14, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to be vacated: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 37, STEWART’S ADDITION, ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER IN BOOK C, PAGE 51 OF PLATS, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 00°01’00” WEST 148.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 39 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’26” EAST 148.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 39; THENCE SOUTH 00°01’02” WEST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 300 WEST STREET A DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89°53’26” WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 313.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°00’54” EAST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 34 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’26” EAST 148.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 00°01’00” EAST 148.57 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’29” EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ANDREW AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 7627 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 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: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:October 17, 2023 RE: INFORMATIONAL: EMERGENCY LOAN PROGRAM REPAYMENT, LEGISLATIVE INTENT FOLLOW UP ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Following up on a request from the Council, the Department of Economic Development (DED) has proposed options for repayment of loans granted in 2020 through the Emergency Loan Program (ELP). This program extended no-interest loans to local small businesses and nonprofits for short-term relief during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, before Federal aid became available. In a follow-up briefing in September 2022, in recognition of ongoing economic disruptions, the Council approved a deferment of repayment for these loans to December 31, 2024, on an “opt-in” basis. As of August 10, 2023, five of the original 52 ELP borrowers had paid off their loans in full, and another seven have begun making monthly payments. The remaining 40 borrowers owe monthly amounts from $250 to $333 over the next 60 months. Council Members recognized in September 2022 that there is little incentive for borrowers to repay a 0% interest loan in the current environment of relatively high interest rates for commercial borrowing. They indicated that they would support policies that incentivize prompt repayment, and that they would consider writing off only those loans whose borrowers have no other alternative to doing so. These positions were formalized in three Legislative Intents that also changed the process the Department had used previously to defer loans for this program (see section A below). This transmittal is a response to those legislative intents. In its most recent transmittal, the Department suggests options to the Council, including “partial loan forgiveness” or “full loan forgiveness” for borrowers who would experience hardship from repayment (see section D below). Council staff has raised that the Council’s long-standing policy is to prohibit retroactive loan forgiveness in City programs, which essentially transforms a loan into a grant. In the Policy Questions section at the end of this report, there are several questions that aim to help the Council consider the range and limits of this policy on grants and loans, in addition to specific questions about the Emergency Loan Program. Staff note: the Department is not recommending any particular option, and is bringing options solely for Council consideration in advance of the December 2024 deadline. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: n/a Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Review the Department of Economic Development’s options to meet recent Council Legislative Intents on the Emergency Loan Program and discuss preferences for future actions. See policy question section for potential straw polls. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.Background. In March 2020, the Council approved an Administration initiative to offer $1 million in interest-free loans of up to $20,000 each to small businesses—particularly restaurants and bars, retail stores, and events and arts organizations—which were hit especially hard by the public health protocols during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This Emergency Loan Program was designed by the Department of Economic Development to be quickly available for filling immediate revenue gaps until Federal assistance could arrive. The Council allocated $1 million for the ELP budget, and loan amounts ranged from $5,000 to $20,000. As the pandemic dragged on unpredictably and economic disruption became more profound, the Department unilaterally postponed the date for borrowers to begin loan repayment before coming to the Council months later with a proposal (see September 2022 staff report). B.Current Status of Emergency Loan Program Loans. As of August 10, 2023, the Department reported the status of the ELP loans as follows: Number of borrowers Share of borrowers Paid in full 5 10% Have begun monthly payments 7 13% Owe $333/month for 5 years 37 71% Owe up to $250/month for 5 years 3 6% Total 52 100% C.Council Deferment. In October 2022, the Council adopted an ordinance approving the deferment of Emergency Loan Program loans to December 31, 2024, and added the following three Legislative Intents. The Department of Economic Development responded to each of these Intents, as explained below. 1.That the new deferment to the end of 2024 be offered as an “opt-in” process for each borrower, rather than occurring automatically. This was accomplished through Department communication with each borrower. In each case, the borrower selected the option to defer to the new date. Page | 3 2.That a discount scaled to reflect current interest rates be offered to borrowers who are able to repay before the end of 2024. Given increases in interest rates since early 2022, the Council recognized in the September 2022 briefing that incentives for early repayment could be financially advantageous for the City. Since the interest rates on these loans cannot be discounted below their current 0% level, reduction of the principal owed would be the only option to achieve this goal (see additional detail in section D, below). The City Attorney’s Office worked with the Department on this issue and has determined that under State law any discount of principal would require the City to first perform an individual public benefit analysis (PBA) for each borrower who requested this option. These PBAs are typically an expensive process, but the Department appears willing to pursue this option if the Council chooses to do so. Staff note: This approach could also be considered to be contrary to long-standing policy of not converting loans to grants, since reducing principal would essentially convert part of the loan to a grant. The Council may wish to have further discussion about this intent given the long-standing policy. 3.That by March 1, 2023, the Department of Economic Development propose criteria and processes for borrowers who might not have an alternative to loan “forgiveness” or write-off. In spring of 2023, the Department requested additional time to develop a process to consider loan forgiveness. Council staff suggested delaying a transmittal until after the annual budget negotiations were complete. The transmittal arrived in the Council Office on July 25, 2023, and the proposal for borrowers who find themselves without potential to repay the loans is detailed in section D, below. Staff note: The wording of this Legislative Intent may have reflected and amplified some confusion by including the term “loan forgiveness,” and also mentioning “loan write-off.” These two terms actually have different implications. For the borrower, a loan written- off under normal City processes does not lead to the loan being “forgiven.” The money is still owed, the City could still attempt to collect on the loan, and the failure to repay it would be reflected on the credit rating of the borrower for least seven years. A forgiven loan does not require repayment and would not be reflected in a credit rating—in other words, with forgiveness, a loan becomes a grant. Staff note: As with the intent above, this approach, depending on the terminology, could also be considered to be counter to long-standing policy of not converting loans to grants. The Council may wish to have further discussion about this intent given the long-standing policy. D.Proposed “Repayment Alternatives.” As noted above, one of the Council’s Legislative Intents from its October 2022 Work Session discussion was that the Department propose criteria and processes for borrowers who are not able to repay their loans: either forgiveness or write-off by the City. In its July 25 transmittal, the Department recommends the use of an Economic Hardship Application template (see attachment to the transmittal), which is designed to gather information from borrowers who seek assistance with repaying their ELP loans. DED proposes to process these requests and decide on the appropriateness of “partial forgiveness” or “full forgiveness” of each loan on a case-by-case basis. In general, the Council accepts recommendations of this type from departments, as well as City boards and commissions. But actual decision making by DED on these loans would be appropriate only if the Council chooses to delegate its budget authority to the Department, which is not typical. As noted previously, if the Council did choose to do so, the City Attorney’s Office determined that under State law, each proposed conversion of a loan to a grant would require an individual public benefits analysis. The Council may wish to have further discussion about this intent given the long-standing policy. Page | 4 1.Partial Forgiveness. The Department would determine a new, reduced payment amount based on the applicant’s ability to pay and calibrated to a re-amortization period of up to ten years rather than the original five-year repayment period. If, at the end of the five years, the borrower has made consistent payments of the new, lower amount, the portion of the loan which remains unpaid would be forgiven. The Council may wish to have further discussion about the proposal, given the long- standing policy of not converting loans to grants, and discuss alternatives with the Department. 2.Enhanced Forgiveness. Based on some Council Member comments in the 2022 briefing, the Department also proposed potentially reducing monthly payments for some businesses based on both their ability to pay (as above), as well as their proposals to offer some sort of “public or economic benefit to Salt Lake City.” The idea of allowing borrowers to essentially repay their loans in this way was not formalized into a Legislative Intent because, as was mentioned in the Work Session, it would likely create inequities among City loan programs in other departments. The example provided in the Work Session was that this option is not offered to participants in CAN’s Home Repair Program, who receive low- and no-interest loans with no possibility of forgiveness. The program offers grants to those participants who earn less than 50% AMI, but the determination of whether a homeowner receives a loan or a grant is made before work begins. Other inequities could potentially be created within the Emergency Loan Program itself including: - for those who chose not to apply for these loans in 2020, when they were offered, because of concerns about their ability to repay them, and - those borrowers in the Emergency Loan Program who have already repaid or begun repaying their own loans before this option was proposed. Given that this aspect of Department’s proposal was not initially included in the Council’s intent, the Council may wish to provide feedback on it. Staff note: Related Policy Questions for potential Council discussion can be found in the next section. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. For the past several years, the Council’s policy has been to prohibit any City loan from being transformed into a grant. Concurrently, the Council also began to assert its fiscal authority, reclaiming budget-related functions including oversight of a variety of loan programs across several departments, which had been ceded to the Administrative branch over the years. In the October 2022 Work Session on ELP loans, it was unclear whether some Council Members were proposing to change (or suspend) the current loan policy— which would be the essential effect of the forgiveness process proposed in DED’s transmittal. The Council may wish to discuss whether or not it wishes to modify this policy and consider “loan forgiveness” for ELP loans. To assist in this discussion, Council staff suggests some potential straw polls: a.If the Council does choose to offer a process of “loan forgiveness” for some ELP loans, would it consider this a one-time policy exception, or a decision that would change its current policy that prohibits transforming City loans into grants? Alternatively, would the Council prefer to reconsider its Legislative Intents given the Federal aid that was offered subsequent to City aid, along with improving economic conditions since 2022, and long-standing City policy regarding loan forgiveness? Page | 5 b.If this is to be a one-time exception, what would be the rationale for it? i. The rationale might, for example, be related to the uniqueness of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the City’s tradition of small-business support. ii. In this case, the Council might like to consider other City loan programs that could be eligible for this kind of exception. c.If Council Members are interested in a broader policy change that would allow other loan programs to potentially change existing loans into grants, is there a rule of thumb (or criteria) that might help determine which City loans would be eligible? How that could be determined on an equitable basis across departments and businesses? 2.Would the Council like to consider a different alternative repayment option for borrowers who would special hardships with repayment? The Department proposes to forgive certain loans after five years of partial repayment, which does not comply with current Council policy. One potential alternative for borrowers experiencing special hardships could be to extend the repayment period to ten years without offering forgiveness of the remaining balance after the first five years. For those borrowers who owe the maximum of $333 per month, this would reduce monthly payments to $166.50 per month. This approach could help avoid granting any loan forgiveness, but the Council may wish to ask the Department whether the costs of administering loans of this relatively small size over an additional five years (for a total of ten years) would justify the benefits. 3.Since there is a disincentive to repay loans when the interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation, the Council could ask the Attorney’s Office whether a low (but non-zero) interest rate could be added to loans for which borrowers request loan extension. The Council might also wish to consider adding some level of interest payment to loans that do not begin repayment by a certain deadline. 4.Other Potential Policy Questions. a. The Economic Hardship Application template attached to the transmittal gathers information from borrowers who seek assistance with repaying their ELP loans, but the actual criteria that the Department would use to make the decision of whether to allow some sort of forgiveness is not spelled out. Would the Council like to request this information from the Department? b. The Department also did not mention any criteria in the transmittal for rejecting applications for loan forgiveness. The Council may wish to ask whether the Department intends not to refuse any requests. The Council also could consider scheduling additional conversations with the Department to review its draft assessment plans. c.Would the Council like to initiate a policy discussion on the City’s current policies in cases of loan default? In response to a staff question, the Finance Department reported that while it offers collection services to City departments, this process is primarily used for individuals and companies that fail to pay fines or fees owed, rather than for loan collections. The Attorney’s Office also is likely to be key resource in this respect. ERIN MENDENHALL LORENA RIFFO JENSON MAYOR DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 07/25/2023 Date Received: __________________________________ Lisa Shaffer (Jul 25, 2023 14:05 MDT)07/25/2023 Date sent to Council: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer __________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council Darin Mano, Chair DATE: 7/13/2023 FROM:Lorena Riffo Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Emergency Loan Program Repayment Legislative Intent Follow Up STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, (roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com) DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item RECOMMENDATION: BUDGET IMPACT: $1M issued for the Emergency Loan Program in FY20. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Upon City Council approval for funding from the general fund balance in March of 2020, the Department of Economic Development (DED) created the Emergency Loan Program (ELP). The creation of the ELP was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the immediate shutdown of many small brick and mortar businesses and nonprofit operations. The program provided $1M in funding to small businesses and nonprofits until federal support programs were created and further financing was received to keep the businesses afloat. Repayment of loans funded by the Emergency Loan Program was intended to commence 90 days upon the end of the Emergency Proclamation, however, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be long lasting and detrimental to the business community. Consequently, in October of 2022, DED proposed a further deferment of repayment to the City Council as businesses and nonprofits were still struggling to reach revenue levels prior to the pandemic. The City Council approved the deferment of all loan repayments until December 31, 2024, and also provided further guidance with three legislative intents. One legislative intent: “That by March 1, 2023, the Department of Economic Development propose criteria and processes for borrowers that might not have an alternative to loan forgiveness or write-off.” DED is the proposed criteria below that will be processed and approved by the department on a case-by-case basis. To date, four (out of 52) recipients have paid off their ELP loan in full and eight (8) have opted to begin monthly payments. The majority (92%) of the remaining borrowers, upon expiration of the deferral period, will owe $333.33/month for 60 months, and the remaining (8%) will owe up to $250/month for 60 months. All loans were provided at 0% interest, so all payment goes toward paying down principal balance. The program did not include any collateral requirements; however, all borrowers signed a personal guarantee (with the exception of a few nonprofits) that gives the City discretion to pursue the guarantors personally for nonpayment. Program Repayment Alternative: Economic Hardship Application Upon expiration of the deferral period, DED proposes implementing an application process for borrowers who can demonstrate an economic hardship. A borrower will be considered for partial loan forgiveness if hardship is demonstrated, or full loan forgiveness if borrower can demonstrate their business provides some public benefit. The hardship application would request from the borrowers the following information: • • • • • Personal income status: personal financials for past 2 years Business income status: business income for past 2 years (if applicable) Business projections for next 3 years (if applicable) Summary of personal and business/nonprofit assets, if any Narrative that explains the current state of the business’/nonprofit’s financial health and how full repayments of the loan would provide financial harm to the borrower (if borrower cannot make repayment). Proposed Criteria 1) Reduced payment with partial forgiveness, based on ability to pay Upon receipt of a hardship application, a financial analysis (form attached) would be completed with the above requested information to determine the borrower's ability to make lower payments. If the borrower makes consistent payments of the agreed-upon amount for the 5-year repayment period, the remaining portion of the loan may be forgiven. a. A re-amortization period of up to 10-year max would be considered to achieve lower monthly payment amounts (current amortization is a 5-year period) b. Reduced payment with enhanced forgiveness (up to full forgiveness), based on ability to pay AND public benefit. In addition to granting a reduced payment based on financial hardship as outlined above, DED could consider some type of public benefit to be proposed by the business in determining enhanced loan forgiveness. •Borrower must include narrative on how the business/nonprofit could provide a public or economic benefit to Salt Lake City to qualify for enhanced loan forgiveness. o o Public benefit would have to be objective and quantifiable. (i.e. providing a service for free or reduced rate to a Salt Lake City resident or business). Enhanced loan forgiveness would be determined administratively. Next Steps DED will communicate relevant information on loan repayment and partial forgiveness options to the borrowers by the end of 2023. DED will begin accepting any hardship applications (as needed) early 2024 and begin the financial analysis process. This will allow for borrowers to have a decision by the time they are requested to begin repayment on January 1, 2025. Attachments Emergency Loan Program Financial Analysis Template Previous Emergency Loan Program transmittals dated April 13, 2020 and September 14, 2022. SLC Emergency Loan Program Financial Analysis Business Name: Guarantor(s) Loan Summary Original Loan Amount: Current Loan Balance: Business Performance Summary Application Projection Financials from Tax Returns Projection 2026Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 2022 2023 2024 (if avai 2025 2027 Revenue COGS Operating Expense Net Operating Income Depreciation/Amort Cash Flow $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Service Coverage ELP Debt Service Other Debt Total Cash Requirement DSCR $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #REF!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00 Amended Annual Debt Payment Original Loan @ 0% Monthly Annual $0 $0 $0 $0 Year to Repay $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0 Personal Financial Data Personal Balance Sheet at time of Application Assets Liabilities Net Worth $0Guarantor #1: Guarantor #2: Guarantor #3: Comment: 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: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:October 17, 2023 – UPDATED SINCE OCTOBER 13 RE: ORDINANCE: OPEN SPACE AMENDMENTS ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will consider adopting ordinance amendments that would change processes for “conveying” City open space lands through easements, sales, or exchanges, and would govern their removal from the official City Open Space Inventory. In most cases, conveyance of Salt Lake City property is an Administrative process, but additional steps are required by City ordinance to for designated “significant parcels” and “open space lands.” These extra steps came at the request of the Council serving at the time, which wanted to ensure that conveyance of open space be a very deliberative and transparent process, given the value City residents place on public open space. The amendments would create an exemption to these requirements under two conditions and only if approved by the for the Department of Public Lands. The conditions are: 1. when granting public utility easements that do not interfering in a property’s intended use or character, and 2. for the sale or exchange of de minimis parcels (less than one-quarter acre). The Council would still receive notice and public hearings would still be required for other types of easements, sales, or exchanges which affect other open space lands, as well as other significant properties. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed Open Space Amendments and consider adopting the corresponding ordinance amendments. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.Background. Conveyance of City property for fair market value is an Administrative decision, but there are two sections of City code that require a more public and deliberative process: “significant” properties and “open space lands.” These sections define whether the Administration must complete a detailed series of Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: November 7 Page | 2 mandatory steps before an interest in significant parcels of real property may be conveyed (Section 2.58) and/or a property is removed from the Open Lands Inventory (Section 2.90). The steps can include public notice, public hearings by the Council, public hearings by a relevant City board or commission, and for open space, an optional “advisory vote” by the Council. 1.Significant City Parcels. To be considered “significant,” a parcel must meet several conditions; the most relevant in this case is that all City open spaces are significant by definition. (See Attachment C1 for the list of other such properties.) 2.City Open Space. City open space is defined as any parcel of land owned by the City that is in a predominantly open condition, zoned as open space land, or purchased through the Open Space Lands Fund. This includes natural land; wildlife habitat; important wetlands or watershed lands; greenway or stream corridors; parks; trails; community gardens; golf courses; and the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Open space lands do not include land acquired through or managed by the Department of Public Utilities or the Airport. B.Proposed Changes. The proposed amendments to these ordinances would create exceptions to the mandatory procedures related to significant parcels of real property, and open space lands. They would include the following changes: 1.Easement Amendments. These revisions would allow the City more flexibility for approving necessary public utility easements, as long as they would not interfere with the intended use or character of the property. These determinations would be made by the Public Lands Director, or their designee. 2.Land Exchange for De Minimis Parcels. This change would allow the City to approve land exchanges of open space parcels that measure less than one-quarter acre, and which have similar character and intended use. Again, these determinations would be made by the Public Lands Director, or their designee. 3.Other Changes. The proposed ordinance amendment also would replace some outdated or unclear language without affecting the meaning or intent of the ordinance. C.Department of Public Lands Rationale. The Department explains the request for these changes and provides two recent examples below. Over the past two years, there have been a few specific situations that have prompted this amendment to allow for desired uses of open space while preserving the City’s open space inventory. There have also been state law changes that necessitate changes to the noticing requirements. Easement Amendment Example: Riverside Park Easement Request: Dominion Energy approached the City with the need to construct an upgraded gas line to service the Rose Park area. After evaluating multiple different options with the City, the City and Dominion agreed that preferred alignment is to bore underneath the Jordan River and into Riverside Park at 700 North. Dominion is requesting a perpetual pipeline easement and a temporary construction easement in Riverside Park. Under the current ordinance, to grant the easement the City would have to go through the process to dispose of a significant parcel and remove the parcel from the open space inventory. While Public Lands supports Dominion Energy’s desire to service Rose Park area residents and the proposed easement, we are not in favor of removing it from the open Page | 3 space inventory. The proposed revision will allow greater flexibility in approving these necessary utility easements while not permanently affecting the character or access of the open space. De Minimis Parcel Example: The Backman Elementary bridge project completed in 2022 was significantly delayed due to a restriction within [City code] 2.90 that prohibited the necessary land exchange for a very small parcel of land until the City complied with the hearing and [six-month] waiting period required to remove the parcels from the open space inventory. In this case the City owned a portion of the subdivision parking lot (used by the adjacent development) and the adjacent parcel owner owned a portion of the Jordan River Open Space. While there was no net loss of open space, this exchange, ultimately approved by SLC Council, benefited both the project and the open space and was not allowed under the existing ordinance without significant hurdles. The amendment will provide the ability to approve de minimis land exchanges for similar character properties. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Open Space Lands Ordinance seems to have been designed to deliberately slow the process of selling any open space parcels, and to ensure that maximum public notice and public comment is gathered about any such proposal. Would the Council like to request additional information on the Administration’s reasons for proposing these changes? 2. The Council may wish to discuss how it would like to balance the competing desires to speed up some City processes and to ensure that information is collected from all residents who may have a stake in specific public open lands. ATTACHMENTS Attachment C1. Table of Significant Parcels of Real Property (Table 2.58.035C of Salt Lake City Code). Attachment C2. Open Space Lands Map, October 12, 2023. (Online version at https://slcgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=52861da34ec24e2dbafcb6f0737c5671) Page | 4 Attachment C1. Table of Significant Parcels of Real Property (Table 2.58.035, of Salt Lake City Code) Transactions Granting Fee Title Transactions Granting An Interest Revocable Permits Type Of Property1 Property Sales Property Exchanges Lease Or Temporary Use Agreements Ease- ments Utility Permits Commercial Residential Airport Y Y N N N N n/a Golf courses Y Y Y4 Y Y Y Y Open space2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Public buildings (except airport property) Y Y N N N N N Public utilities properties: Canal properties Y Y N N N N N Sewer facilities Y Y N N N N N Storm drain facilities Y Y N N N N N Water facilities Y Y N N N N N Watershed Y Y N N N N N Streets and alleys: Aerial rights Y Y N N N n/a n/a Subsurface rights Y Y N N N n/a n/a Surface rights3 Y Y Y4 N N N N Notes: n/a = Not applicable. 1. To the extent that the property falls into more than 1 category, the more restrictive process will apply. 2. Includes all open space property within or without City boundaries, as defined in chapter 2.90 of this title and title 21A of this Code. 3. To the extent that any surface use involves a street or alley closure, the street or alley closure process satisfies the process outlined under this chapter. 4. More than 10 years' initial term or more than 30 years' total with option terms. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS MAYOR KRISTIN RIKER DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLCGOV.COM 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH TEL: 801-972-7800 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 PAGE 1 OF 2 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 14, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Kristin Riker, Director, Department of Public Lands ________________ SUBJECT: Open Space Lands Amendment 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 STAFF CONTACTS: Kristin Riker Public Lands Director Kristin.Riker@slcgov.com Tyler Murdock Public Lands Deputy Director Tyler.Murdock@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: SLC Public Lands Department recommends that City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Open Space Ordinance outlined in section 2.58.040 (Sale of Significant Parcels of Real Property; Notice and Hearing) and 2.90.070 (Removal of Lands from the Open Space Lands Inventory). BUDGET IMPACT: N/A Lisa Shaffer (Aug 25, 2023 11:39 MDT)08/25/2023 08/25/2023 Open Space Lands Amendment 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Transmittal to City Council Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Program was established to facilitate the City’s acquisition, management, promotion, preservation, protection, and enhancement of open space lands and to encourage public and private gifts of land, money, securities, or other property to be used to preserve the natural, scenic, historic, and important neighborhood open space lands (Ord. 52-15, 2015). The purpose of this transmittal is to amend the Open Space Lands Ordinance related to the sale or disposal of significant parcels of real property and removal of lands from the Open Space Inventory. The proposed amendment revises three key sections outlined in the attached redlined copy in attachment 3 and located in sections 2.58.040 (Sale of Significant Parcels of Real Property; Notice and Hearing) and 2.90.070 (Removal of Lands from the Open Space Lands Inventory). Easement Amendments: Amendment revisions to allow the City greater flexibility in approving necessary utility easements which must be for the primary benefit of the City and which must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by the City and the Public Lands Director. THE GRANTING OF EASEMENTS OR OTHER USE RIGHTS TO PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDERS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. ANY SUCH EASEMENT OR USE RIGHT MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THE INTENDED USE OR CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY. WITH RESPECT TO OPEN SPACE LAND UNDER CHAPTER 2.90 OF THIS TITLE, SUCH EASEMENT OR USE RIGHT MAY BE GRANTED ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY’S PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT OR THEIR DESIGNEE IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION. Land Exchange for De Minimis Parcels: Amendment revisions to allow the City greater flexibility in approving land exchanges of de minimis open space parcels (less than ¼ acre) of similar character and intended use as determined by the City and the Public Lands Director. A LAND EXCHANGE FOR A DE MINIMIS PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY FOR ANOTHER DE MINIMIS PARCEL OF LAND WHERE THE INTENDED USE OR CHARACTER OF THE PARCELS IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A DE MINIMIS PARCEL IS ONE CONSISTING OF NOT MORE THAN ¼ OF AN ACRE. WITH RESPECT TO OPEN SPACE LAND UNDER CHAPTER 2.90 OF THIS TITLE, SUCH EXCHANGE MADE BE MADE ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY’S PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT OR THEIR DESIGNEE IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION. Public Noticing Requirements: Amendment revisions to public noticing requirements for sale or disposal of real property within the Open Space Inventory to align with public noticing requirements in state code. PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SALE OR TRANSFER AND THE PUBLIC HEARING THROUGH THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN STATE CODE FOR CLASS A PUBLIC NOTICE. Open Space Lands Amendment 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Transmittal to City Council Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC PROCESS: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails and Urban Forestry Advisory Board: TBD Planning Commission Public Hearing: TBD City Council Public Hearing: TBD EXHIBITS: A. Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Final Approved B. Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Clean C. Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Redline EXHIBIT A Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Final Approved 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Exception to mandatory process for sale of significant parcels of real property and removal of lands from the open space lands inventory) An ordinance amending Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of significant parcels of real property, and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory. WHEREAS, the City desires to make certain changes relating to an exemption, for certain easements to public utility providers, from the mandatory procedures of those sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 2.58.040 and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: SECTION 1. Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of significant parcels of real property, is amended as follows: 2.58.040: SALE OF SIGNIFICANT PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY; NOTICE AND HEARING: A. A significant parcel of real property owned by the City or any significant legal interest therein shall not be sold, traded, leased or otherwise conveyed or encumbered until the City has provided reasonable notice to all interested parties and held at least one public hearing on the proposed conveyance as set forth herein. B. Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall follow the process outlined in state code for class A public notice. C. No significant parcel of City owned real property identified in section 2.58.035, including table 2.58.035C, of this chapter may be conveyed until after a public hearing has been held 2 before one or more of the following as may be applicable: the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Airport Board, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, or the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. D. In addition to the public hearing required above, the City Council may also request a second public hearing before the conveyance of the property. Any request for a hearing before the City Council must be delivered to the Office of the Mayor no less than fifteen (15) days after delivery of the notice to the Office of the City Council pursuant to subsection B2 of this section. If no request for a hearing is made within that time period, the City Council shall be deemed to have waived any right to request a hearing. If a written call for hearing has been made by the City Council, the Mayor or his or her designee shall attend the hearing to hear and consider comments upon proposals to convey the property specified in the notice. The hearing shall take place during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. E. Any notice of a proposed conveyance of a significant parcel of City owned real property shall specify the following: 1. A description of the property to be conveyed or encumbered; 2. The nature of the proposed conveyance or encumbrance, whether the property is to be sold, traded or encumbered, including the nature of the conveyance if the property is to be sold, or if a trade or lease of property is contemplated, a brief summary of the proposed transaction; 3. Persons to whom interests are to be conveyed; 4. Any consideration tendered; 5. The name of the person, department or entity requesting such action; 6. The basis upon which the value of the interest has been determined by the City; 3 7. The date, time and location of the public hearing to be held before the City Council, the Planning Commission, Airport Board, Public Utilities Advisory Committee, Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board, or Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board, as applicable. The notice shall further state that interested persons may appear and comment upon the proposal. F. The conveyance or encumbrance of a significant parcel of real property of the City may be finalized: 1. By the Mayor, at his/her discretion following notice and any public hearings required by this section; or 2. By the Mayor, if the transfer is revocable and the Mayor has determined that an unanticipated combination of facts and conditions of pressing necessity has emerged that requires that action be taken before a City Council hearing. Such conditions shall not be deemed to arise unless it appears that delay from the notice or a City Council hearing would produce: a. Great or irreparable injury to persons seeking the conveyance or encumbrance, with negligible impact upon City interests; b. Serious detriment to the social or economic interest of the community as whole; or c. Substantial economic loss to the City. G. Any decision by the Mayor to forego the City Council hearing provisions of this section shall be made in writing to the City Council, stating the specific reasons upon which the decision was based. H. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities; 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 4 Mayor for a reason identified by the Mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than thirty-one (31) days; 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use; 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery; and 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in connection with safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of easements or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by the City. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of land owned by the City for another de minimis parcel of land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar to each other. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than ¼ of an acre. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such exchange made be made only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. SECTION 2. Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory, is amended as follows: 2.90.070: REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE OPEN SPACE LANDS INVENTORY: A. Open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land placed in the open space lands inventory shall remain in the inventory in perpetuity unless: 1) they are transferred to a qualified public or nonprofit land conservation entity; or 2) a sale, conversion 5 from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange, or other transfer of the land, conservation easement or other interest in land is approved by the mayor, subsequent to the following mandatory procedures: 1. Any proposal to sell or transfer open space land must be in writing, signed by the mayor, and must include a description of the land to be sold or transferred, the purpose of the proposed sale or transfer, the proposed purchaser of the land, the amount of the proposed purchase price, the anticipated future use of the land, any anticipated change in zoning that would be required to implement that proposed future use, and a statement by the mayor explaining why the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land is in the best interest of the City. 2. Holding a public hearing before the City Council. 3. Providing notice of the proposed sale or transfer and the public hearing through the process outlined in state code for class A public notice. a. Any notice published, posted or mailed pursuant to this section shall state substantially as follows: NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OR TRANSFER OF PUBLICLY OWNED OPEN SPACE LAND The Mayor of Salt Lake City is proposing to sell or transfer certain Open Space Lands owned by Salt Lake City located at [street location] for $[proposed amount of consideration] to [proposed transferee] for future use as [proposed future use]. A public hearing on this proposal will be held before the Mayor and the City Council on [date of hearing] at the Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street, room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah, at [time of hearing] p.m. 6 Any individual wishing to address this proposal is invited to participate and to express their views to the Mayor and the City Council at that hearing. 4. Following the public hearing, the City Council may elect to conduct an advisory vote as to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. 5. No sale or transfer of open space land may occur until at least six (6) months after the conclusion of the public hearing in order to provide an opportunity to explore other alternatives to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. B. Any open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land: 1) acquired by the City in partnership with other entities, units of government, or other parties; or 2) received by donation, bequest, devise, or dedication, may only be authorized for sale, conversion from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange or other transfer if such action is allowed for in the instrument under which the open space land, conservation easement or other interest in open space land was conveyed to, or acquired by, the City. C. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities. 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the mayor for a reason identified by the mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than thirty-one (31) days. 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use. 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in connection with safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of easements or other use rights to public utility providers 7 for public utility purposes. Any such easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by the City. With respect to open space land under this chapter, such easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of open space land owned by the City for another de minimis parcel of open space land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar to each other, provided that such exchange may be made only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than ¼ of an acre. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published or posted in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-713. 8 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: _____________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Kimberly Chytraus Date: __________________ June 23, 2023 EXHIBIT B Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Clean 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Exception to mandatory process for sale of significant parcels of real property and removal of lands from the open space lands inventory) An ordinance amending Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of significant parcels of real property, and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory. WHEREAS, the City desires to make certain changes relating to an exemption, for certain easements to public utility providers, from the mandatory procedures of those sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 2.58.040 and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: SECTION 1. Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of significant parcels of real property, is amended as follows: 2.58.040: SALE OF SIGNIFICANT PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY; NOTICE AND HEARING: A. A significant parcel of real property owned by the City or any significant legal interest therein shall not be sold, traded, leased or otherwise conveyed or encumbered until the City has provided reasonable notice to all interested parties and held at least one public hearing on the proposed conveyance as set forth herein. B. Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall follow the process outlined in state code for class A public notice. C. No significant parcel of City owned real property identified in section 2.58.035, including table 2.58.035C, of this chapter may be conveyed until after a public hearing has been held 2 before one or more of the following as may be applicable: the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Airport Board, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, or the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. D. In addition to the public hearing required above, the City Council may also request a second public hearing before the conveyance of the property. Any request for a hearing before the City Council must be delivered to the Office of the Mayor no less than fifteen (15) days after delivery of the notice to the Office of the City Council pursuant to subsection B2 of this section. If no request for a hearing is made within that time period, the City Council shall be deemed to have waived any right to request a hearing. If a written call for hearing has been made by the City Council, the Mayor or his or her designee shall attend the hearing to hear and consider comments upon proposals to convey the property specified in the notice. The hearing shall take place during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. E. Any notice of a proposed conveyance of a significant parcel of City owned real property shall specify the following: 1. A description of the property to be conveyed or encumbered; 2. The nature of the proposed conveyance or encumbrance, whether the property is to be sold, traded or encumbered, including the nature of the conveyance if the property is to be sold, or if a trade or lease of property is contemplated, a brief summary of the proposed transaction; 3. Persons to whom interests are to be conveyed; 4. Any consideration tendered; 5. The name of the person, department or entity requesting such action; 6. The basis upon which the value of the interest has been determined by the City; 3 7. The date, time and location of the public hearing to be held before the City Council, the Planning Commission, Airport Board, Public Utilities Advisory Committee, Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board, or Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board, as applicable. The notice shall further state that interested persons may appear and comment upon the proposal. F. The conveyance or encumbrance of a significant parcel of real property of the City may be finalized: 1. By the Mayor, at his/her discretion following notice and any public hearings required by this section; or 2. By the Mayor, if the transfer is revocable and the Mayor has determined that an unanticipated combination of facts and conditions of pressing necessity has emerged that requires that action be taken before a City Council hearing. Such conditions shall not be deemed to arise unless it appears that delay from the notice or a City Council hearing would produce: a. Great or irreparable injury to persons seeking the conveyance or encumbrance, with negligible impact upon City interests; b. Serious detriment to the social or economic interest of the community as whole; or c. Substantial economic loss to the City. G. Any decision by the Mayor to forego the City Council hearing provisions of this section shall be made in writing to the City Council, stating the specific reasons upon which the decision was based. H. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities; 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 4 Mayor for a reason identified by the Mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than thirty-one (31) days; 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use; 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery; and 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in connection with safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of easements or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by the City. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of land owned by the City for another de minimis parcel of land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar to each other. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than ¼ of an acre. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such exchange made be made only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. SECTION 2. Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory, is amended as follows: 2.90.070: REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE OPEN SPACE LANDS INVENTORY: A. Open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land placed in the open space lands inventory shall remain in the inventory in perpetuity unless: 1) they are transferred to a qualified public or nonprofit land conservation entity; or 2) a sale, conversion 5 from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange, or other transfer of the land, conservation easement or other interest in land is approved by the mayor, subsequent to the following mandatory procedures: 1. Any proposal to sell or transfer open space land must be in writing, signed by the mayor, and must include a description of the land to be sold or transferred, the purpose of the proposed sale or transfer, the proposed purchaser of the land, the amount of the proposed purchase price, the anticipated future use of the land, any anticipated change in zoning that would be required to implement that proposed future use, and a statement by the mayor explaining why the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land is in the best interest of the City. 2. Holding a public hearing before the City Council. 3. Providing notice of the proposed sale or transfer and the public hearing through the process outlined in state code for class A public notice. a. Any notice published, posted or mailed pursuant to this section shall state substantially as follows: NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OR TRANSFER OF PUBLICLY OWNED OPEN SPACE LAND The Mayor of Salt Lake City is proposing to sell or transfer certain Open Space Lands owned by Salt Lake City located at [street location] for $[proposed amount of consideration] to [proposed transferee] for future use as [proposed future use]. A public hearing on this proposal will be held before the Mayor and the City Council on [date of hearing] at the Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street, room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah, at [time of hearing] p.m. 6 Any individual wishing to address this proposal is invited to participate and to express their views to the Mayor and the City Council at that hearing. 4. Following the public hearing, the City Council may elect to conduct an advisory vote as to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. 5. No sale or transfer of open space land may occur until at least six (6) months after the conclusion of the public hearing in order to provide an opportunity to explore other alternatives to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. B. Any open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land: 1) acquired by the City in partnership with other entities, units of government, or other parties; or 2) received by donation, bequest, devise, or dedication, may only be authorized for sale, conversion from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange or other transfer if such action is allowed for in the instrument under which the open space land, conservation easement or other interest in open space land was conveyed to, or acquired by, the City. C. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities. 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the mayor for a reason identified by the mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than thirty-one (31) days. 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use. 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in connection with safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of easements or other use rights to public utility providers 7 for public utility purposes. Any such easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by the City. With respect to open space land under this chapter, such easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of open space land owned by the City for another de minimis parcel of open space land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar to each other, provided that such exchange may be made only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than ¼ of an acre. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published or posted in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-713. 8 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: _____________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Kimberly Chytraus Date: __________________ EXHIBIT C Amending 2.58.040 and 2.90.070 Redline 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. ______ of 2023 2 3 (Exception to mandatory process for sale of significant parcels of real property 4 and removal of lands from the open space lands inventory) 5 6 An ordinance amending Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale 7 of significant parcels of real property, and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating 8 to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory. 9 WHEREAS, the City desires to make certain changes relating to an exemption, for 10 certain easements to public utility providers, from the mandatory procedures of those sections; 11 and 12 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 2.58.040 13 and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 15 SECTION 1. Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of 16 significant parcels of real property, is amended as follows: 17 2.58.040: SALE OF SIGNIFICANT PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY; NOTICE AND 18 HEARING: 19 20 A. A significant parcel of real property owned by the City or any significant legal interest 21 therein shall not be sold, traded, leased or otherwise conveyed or encumbered until the City has 22 provided reasonable notice to all interested parties and held at least one public hearing on the 23 proposed conveyance as set forth herein. 24 B. Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall follow the process outlined in state 25 code for class A public notice.Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall .include the 26 following: 27 1. Notice of the proposed conveyance shall be mailed to all abutting property owners. 28 2 2. Notice of the proposed conveyance shall be delivered to the Office of the City Council, 29 posted in the Office of the City Recorder, delivered to a local media representative, and posted 30 on the City's website. 31 C. No significant parcel of City owned real property identified in section 2.58.035, including 32 table 2.58.035C, of this chapter may be conveyed until after a public hearing has been held 33 before one or more of the following as may be applicable: the City Council, the Planning 34 Commission, the Airport Board, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, the Golf Enterprise 35 Fund Advisory Board, or the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. 36 D. In addition to the public hearing required above, the City Council may also request a 37 second public hearing before the conveyance of the property. Any request for a hearing before 38 the City Council must be delivered to the Office of the Mayor no less than fifteen (15) days after 39 delivery of the notice to the Office of the City Council pursuant to subsection B2 of this section. 40 If no request for a hearing is made within that time period, the City Council shall be deemed to 41 have waived any right to request a hearing. 42 If a written call for hearing has been made by the City Council, the Mayor or his or her designee 43 shall attend the hearing to hear and consider comments upon proposals to convey the property 44 specified in the notice. The hearing shall take place before, after or in conjunction with during a 45 regularly scheduled City Council meeting, as determined by the Mayor. 46 E. Any notice of a proposed conveyance of a significant parcel of City owned real property 47 shall specify the following: 48 1. A description of the property to be conveyed or encumbered; 49 2. The nature of the proposed conveyance or encumbrance, whether the property is to be 50 sold, traded or encumbered, including the nature of the conveyance if the property is to be sold, 51 3 or if a trade or lease of property is contemplated, a brief summary of the proposed transaction; 52 3. Persons to whom interests are to be conveyed; 53 4. Any consideration tendered; 54 5. The name of the person, department or entity requesting such action; 55 6. The basis upon which the value of the interest has been determined by the City; 56 7. The date, time and location of the public hearing to be held before the City Council, the 57 Planning Commission, Airport Board, Public Utilities Advisory Committee, Golf Enterprise 58 Fund Advisory Board, or Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board, as 59 applicable. The notice shall further state that interested persons may appear and comment upon 60 the proposal. 61 F. The conveyance or encumbrance of a significant parcel of real property of the City may be 62 finalized: 63 1. By the Mayor, at his/her discretion following notice and any public hearings required by 64 this section; or 65 2. By the Mayor, if the transfer is revocable and the Mayor has determined that an 66 unanticipated combination of facts and conditions of pressing necessity has emerged that 67 requires that action be taken before a City Council hearing. Such conditions shall not be deemed 68 to arise unless it appears that delay from the notice or a City Council hearing would produce: 69 a. Great or irreparable injury to persons seeking the conveyance or encumbrance, with 70 negligible impact upon City interests; 71 b. Serious detriment to the social or economic interest of the community as whole; or 72 3. Substantial economic loss to the City. 73 G. Any decision by the Mayor to forego the City Council hearing provisions of this section 74 4 shall be made in writing to the City Council, stating the specific reasons upon which the decision 75 was based. 76 H. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 77 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities; 78 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 79 Mayor for a reason identified by the Mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than 80 thirty-one (31) days; 81 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use; 82 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery; and 83 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in 84 connection with utilities or safety equipment such as traffic signal poles. Any such easement or 85 use right must be, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of 86 easements or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such 87 easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as 88 determined by the City. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such 89 easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public 90 lands department or their designee in their sole discretionCity’s Open Space Lands Manager. 91 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of land owned by the City for another de 92 minimis parcel of land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar 93 to each other. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than 94 ¼ of an acre. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such exchange 95 made be made only with the approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or 96 their designee in their sole discretion. 97 5 SECTION 2. Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the removal of 98 lands from the open space lands inventory, is amended as follows: 99 2.90.070: REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE OPEN SPACE LANDS INVENTORY: 100 101 A. Open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land placed in the 102 open space lands inventory shall remain in the inventory in perpetuity unless: 1) they are 103 transferred to a qualified public or nonprofit land conservation entity; or 2) a sale, conversion 104 from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange, or other transfer of 105 the land, conservation easement or other interest in land is approved by the mayor, subsequent to 106 the following mandatory procedures: 107 1. Any proposal to sell or transfer open space land must be in writing, signed by the mayor, 108 and must include a description of the land to be sold or transferred, the purpose of the proposed 109 sale or transfer, the proposed purchaser of the land, the amount of the proposed purchase price, 110 the anticipated future use of the land, any anticipated change in zoning that would be required to 111 implement that proposed future use, and a statement by the mayor explaining why the proposed 112 sale or transfer of the open space land is in the best interest of the Ccity. 113 2. Holding a public hearing before the mayor and the Ccity Ccouncil. 114 3. Providing notice of the proposed sale or transfer and the public hearing through the 115 process outlined in state code for class A public notice.by: 116 a. Publication of a notice for two (2) successive weeks, beginning at least thirty (30) days 117 in advance of the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, no less than one- 118 fourth (1/4) page in size, with type no smaller than 18-point, surrounded by a one-fourth inch 119 (1/4") border, in a portion of the newspaper other than where the legal notices and classified 120 advertisements appear, containing the information set forth in the form below; 121 6 b. Posting two (2) signs measuring at least two feet by three feet (2' x 3') each, on the land 122 proposed for sale or transfer at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing, containing the 123 information set forth in the form below; and 124 c. Mailing notice, at least thirty (30) days in advance of the hearing, to all property owners 125 of record within one thousand feet (1,000') of the land proposed for sale or transfer, containing 126 the information set forth in the form below. 127 ad. Any notice published, posted or mailed pursuant to this section shall state substantially 128 as follows: 129 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OR TRANSFER OF PUBLICLY OWNED OPEN SPACE 130 LAND 131 The Mayor of Salt Lake City is proposing to sell or transfer certain Open Space Lands 132 owned by Salt Lake City located at [street location] for $[proposed amount of 133 considerationsale] to [proposed buyertransferee] for future use as [proposed future use]. 134 A public hearing on this proposal will be held before the Mayor and the City Council on 135 [date of hearing] at the Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street, room 315, Salt 136 Lake City, Utah, at [time of hearing] p.m. 137 Any individual wishing to address this proposal is invited to attend participate and to 138 express their views to the Mayor and the City Council at that hearing. 139 4. Following the public hearing, the Ccity Ccouncil may elect to conduct an advisory vote 140 as to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. 141 5. No sale or transfer of open space land may occur until at least six (6) months after the 142 conclusion of the public hearing in order to provide an opportunity to explore other alternatives 143 to the proposed sale or transfer of the open space land. 144 7 B. Any open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land: 1) 145 acquired by the cCity in partnership with other entities, units of government, or other parties; or 146 2) received by donation, bequest, devise, or dedication, may only be authorized for sale, 147 conversion from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange or other 148 transfer if such action is allowed for in the instrument under which the open space land, 149 conservation easement or other interest in open space land was conveyed to, or acquired by, the 150 city. 151 C. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 152 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities.; 153 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 154 mayor for a reason identified by the mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than 155 thirty-one (31) days.; 156 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use.; 157 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. 158 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in 159 connection with utilities or safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which . Any such 160 easement or use right must be primarily for the benefit of the cCity, and the granting of 161 easements or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such 162 easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as 163 determined by the City. With respect to open space land under this chapter, such easement or use 164 right may be granted only with the approval of the city's open space lands managerdirector of the 165 City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 166 8 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of open space land owned by the City for 167 another de minimis parcel of open space land where the intended use or character of the parcels 168 is substantially similar to each other, provided that such exchange may be made only with the 169 approval of the director of the City’s public lands department or their designee in their sole 170 discretion. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than ¼ 171 of an acre. 172 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published or 173 posted in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah 174 Code section 10-3-713. 175 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 176 2023. 177 ____________________________ 178 CHAIRPERSON 179 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 180 181 ___________________________ 182 CITY RECORDER 183 184 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 185 186 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 187 188 189 ____________________________ 190 MAYOR 191 192 193 194 ___________________________ 195 CITY RECORDER 196 197 198 (SEAL) 199 200 201 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Kimberly Chytraus Date: __________________ 9 Bill No. ______ of 2023. 202 Published: _____________________. 203 204 SLC Council Work Session October 17, 2023 Study Background •Study will investigate new transit connections in Salt Lake City •Builds on previous studies •Funded by RAISE Grant Background TechLink Study Future of Light Rail (2022) Research Park Strategic Vision (2021) Downtown Salt Lake City Rail Extensions and Connections Feasibility Study (2021) Study Partners Study Overview Further developing and analyzing: •New TRAX Orange line •Realigned TRAX Red line •TRAX Blue Line and Green Line termini switch Alignments shown as starting points, additional work to consider: •Design options •Station location Study Schedule Public Engagement •Public Engagement milestones •Purpose & Need (October 2023) •Range of Alternatives (January 2024) •Preferred Alternative (May 2024) •Grassroots opportunities •Station and on-vehicle signage •Station pop-up events •Event truck •Local partnerships •Community-based organization partnership Next Steps •TechLink Study •Alternative development – now through end of year •Long-term Implementation •Timing based on funding Planning and Alternatives Analysis Investigation of Alternatives Identify Preferred Alternative (Alignment and Mode) Environmental Review Environmental Study (State or NEPA) Preliminary Engineering Agency Issues Discussion Final Design Final Route and Station Design Property and ROW Acquisition Funding Secured Construction Groundbreaking Testing and Operations PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Contact Us Hotline: Email: Website: 385-446-8005 info@techlinkstudy.com techlinkstudy.com Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:October 17, 2023 RE: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In April 2022 as part of Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022, the Council approved one-time $2 million from American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA for local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards managed by the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN). The advisory Community Recovery Committee and the Mayor are recommending the full $2 million be awarded across 23 applications (see Attachment 1 for the funding log). The Council has final decision-making authority over the grant awards including the dollar amounts and uses. Please see “Additional Information” section for more on applications, award limits, scoring, and clarifications about the recommended funding log. Applications were accepted during the month of September last year. The Administration reviewed all applications for eligibility and compliance with federal ARPA guidance. In Budget Amendment #6 of FY2023 the Council changed the funding source for the $2 million from ARPA to instead be from the General Fund. The Administration has proceeded to align the grant eligibility with ARPA regulations in keeping with the program’s original intent. Tracking and compliance reporting to the Federal Government is no longer necessary because ARPA funds are not being used. Organizations will be required to track and submit documentation to the City. The $2 million is still subject to City Code Chapter 2.20 governing the Community Recovery Committee and grants program (see Attachment 2 for the ordinance). The funding recommendations propose to award the full eligible amount requested by applicants. This results in more funding per applicant and less applicants receiving funding. Note this is a different approach than the local business assistance grant awards managed by the Economic Development Department where funding recommendations were for a percentage of the full eligible amount (e.g., scored 85 so received 85% of the eligible amount requested). The Council also approved a separate one-time $2 million from ARPA for local business assistance grant awards that are managed by the Economic Development Department. Note the direct nonprofit assistance grants managed by CAN are not a passthrough to local businesses like the Economic Development nonprofit passthrough grants which the Council approved on October 3. The advisory committee issued funding recommendations for the $481,400 of remaining local business assistance grant awards which will have a separate Council briefing tentatively scheduled for November. Goal of the briefing: Review the recommended grant awards, identify questions and potential modifications to the awards, and determine whether the Council is comfortable scheduling an adoption vote. Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: October 17, 2023 2nd Briefing: November 7, 2023 (if needed) Potential Final Vote: November 7 or 14, 2023 Page | 2 40 Applications Reviewed and Scored by the Committee A total of 40 applications were reviewed and scored by the Committee as shown in the Attachment 1 funding log. The total requested funding is $3,833,313. The total eligible funding requested is less at $3,317,126 because $516,187 was found to be ineligible. The project description column in the funding log identifies whether an application was fully or partially eligible. The highest possible score is 100. The top scored application (#1) received a score of 87.17 points. The lowest scored application (#23) that is recommended for funding received a score of 75 points. In the Attachment 1 funding log, the third column from the right identifies the service category for each application. Of the 23 applications recommended for funding: - 10 applications (#1, #3, #4, #7, #10, #12, #14, #15, #17, and #19) are in the mental health assistance category, - Seven applications (#5, #6, #8, #9, #13, #22, and #23) are in the expanded educational opportunities category, - Three applications (#16, #20, and #21) are in the rental assistance / eviction prevention category, - One application (#2) is in the retraining displaced workers category, - One application (#11) is in the healthcare access category, - One application (#18) is in the mitigating the digital divide category. Applicants Receiving Multiple Awards for Different Programs There are several organizations that submitted multiple applications for different programs and are recommended to receive multiple grant awards. Below is a list of those organizations and their applications. - $151,230 for First Step House o $51,322 for #3 case management, and o $99,908 for #4 restorative care pathways - $163,846 for The Children’s Center Utah o $76,923 for #7 young children outpatient clinic services, and o $86,923 for #14 therapeutic preschool - $300,000 for The United Way; note that all three applications would build out well-being rooms and expand experiential learning o $100,000 for #5 Bryant Middle School, o $100,000 for #6 Bennion Elementary School (see policy question #4), and o $100,000 for #8 Rose Park Charter School - $200,000 for The Road Home o $100,000 for #11 access to health services in homeless resource centers, and o $100,000 for #12 access to mental health services - $185,801 for the Asian Association of Utah o $92,791 for #19 behavioral health support, and o $93,010 for #20 rental assistance Rounding Awards to Nearest $100 or $1,000 The Finance Department recommended rounding grant awards to the nearest $100 for easier tracking and compliance reporting to the Federal Government. The Council adjusted Phase 1 local business direct grant awards and local nonprofit passthrough grant awards to be rounded to the nearest $100. The local nonprofit direct grant recommendations are not rounded. In response to staff questions on this topic, CAN provided a funding log that rounds grant awards to the nearest $100. Page | 3 POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Questions about Recommended Grant Awards – Does the Council have any questions about the 23 recommended local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards? 2. Rounding Awards – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to round the awards to the nearest $100 as recommended by the Finance Department. This rounding was done for two phases of local business assistance grant awards. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration to use the rounding approach for other grant programs going forward such as the annual HUD grants. 3. Awarding Grants to Organizations with Multiple Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of awarding grants to organizations that submitted multiple applications vs spreading limited grant awards further to more organizations. A list of applicants proposed to receive multiple grant awards is listed on the prior page. 4. Application #6 The United Way at Bennion Elementary – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Salt Lake City School District studying potential closure of Bennion Elementary could impact the intended benefits of the $100,000 grant award. For example, the project description states the funds would be used for physical improvements to “build out a well-being room.” The School Board has not decided which elementary schools to close and is currently studying a list of seven potential closures. 5. Annual HUD Grants and New Five-year Consolidated Plan (2025-2029) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to share information with the nonprofit applicants about how to apply to the City’s other grant programs such as annual HUD grants. The Council may also wish to ask whether feedback on community needs received during this process could inform updating the City’s Consolidated Plan for the next five-year period (2025-2029) such as new or modified goals and strategies. ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Award Limits The maximum award is $100,000 for any of the ARPA assistance grants per City Code Chapter 2.20.040(A) (see Attachment 2). There is no minimum award set in ordinance. The City uses minimum awards for other programs such as annual grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Capital Improvement Program or CIP. Grant recipients must submit documentation for reimbursements and file quarterly reports with the City. Scoring See Attachment 1 funding log where scores for all applications are shown in the right most column ordered from highest to lowest score. A total of 100 points was available. Up to 35 points were awarded by the Administration through a risk assessment which is a common requirement of federal funding. Up to 65 points were available by averaging the individual scores from the advisory committee members. The administrative and committee member average points were combined to yield the total score. Spending Deadlines Under federal guidelines ARPA funds must be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and must be fully spent by the end of calendar year 2026. City Code Chapter 2.20.050 (see Attachment 2) sets an earlier spending deadline of December 31, 2024, to provide public benefits at a faster pace. Community Recovery Committee (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) In April 2022, the Council enacted Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code creating the time-limited Community Recovery Committee as an official City board. Section 2.20.060 of the ordinance identifies a sunset for the Committee once all the ARPA program funds are expended or the federal spending deadline has passed. The Committee reviews applications and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for the ARPA local business and nonprofit assistance grants. The Committee has seven or nine members who also serve on other City boards or committees. Page | 4 Grant Categories (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) No specific categories are identified for the business assistance grants. These grants are focused on small and local businesses, tourism, travel, or hospitality, and support for artists and artisan businesses. A business must first demonstrate an economic and/or operational hardship caused by the pandemic, and then propose an ARPA eligible use for the grant funds. Specific categories are identified for the nonprofit assistance grants which are: “offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services including mental health support.” (2.20.040(A)) Note nonprofits may submit applications for programs not listed above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Funding Log 2. Community Recovery Committee Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code ACRONYMS ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act CRC – Community Recovery Committee CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CIP – Capital Improvement Program FY – Fiscal Year HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 1 Rape Recovery Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 2 Wasatch Community Gardens REQUEST:76,173.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,173.00$ CRC:76,173.00$ MAYOR:76,173.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 3 First Step House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:51,322.00$ CRC:51,322.00$ MAYOR:51,322.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 4 First Step House REQUEST:99,908.40$ ELIGIBLE:99,908.40$ CRC:99,908.40$ MAYOR:99,908.40$ COUNCIL:-$ 5 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ The program will provide behavioral health care to individuals who have suffered from sexual violence, a problem that has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide job training services to women facing or experiencing homelessness, whose existing economic and mental health challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide case management for individuals with mental health challenges, substance use disorders, and increased medical needs who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Women experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, staff wages and benefits Wasatch Community Gardens 82.50 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING Clinical Therapy Services for Survivors of Sexual Violence Case Management Restorative Care Pathways Bryant Middle School Title 1 students Salaries, program supplies, and training PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) 87.17 85.00 83.00 82.50 Service Category The program will provide behavioral health treatment for individuals experiencing homelessness alongside substance use disorders and mental illness. This service helped bridge service gaps for the homeless population amidst the challenges posed by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE Bryant Middle School by engaging the community, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Salaries and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and histories of homelessness, incarceration, and unstable employment; AMI <= 40% Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and recurrent homelessness; AMI <= 40% sexual assault survivors; unhoused; AMI <= 65% Staffing salaries and benefits COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Retraining Displaced Workers Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 1 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 6 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 7 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:76,923.00$ MAYOR:76,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 8 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 9 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah REQUEST:80,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 10 Odyssey House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title 1 students Rose Park Charter School 82.33 82.17 82.00 81.20 individuals with substance use disorders, mental illness, and a history of homelessness; AMI <= 40% Harm reduction kits, staff wages, and program supplies Outpatient Clinical Services M. Lynn Bennion School Program and training supplies AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Title 1 students Salaries, grants, supplies, and training One-to-One Youth Mentoring Harm Reduction & Outreach Program 81.83 underserved youth; AMI <= 65% Employee salaries and benefits Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE M. Lynn Bennion Elementary School by employing the Playworks program, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide outpatient clinical services to enhance the emotional well-being of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend Rose Park Charter School by engaging the community, enhancing after-school programs, building out a well- being room, and promoting experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide professional development to volunteers who would bring developmental relationships to underserved youth in Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide outreach events, distribution and expansion of harm reduction kits, and healthcare appointments for individuals experiencing homelessness who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 2 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 11 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 12 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 13 University Neighborhood Partners REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,500.00$ CRC:96,500.00$ MAYOR:96,500.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 14 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ AMI <= 65% ELIGIBLE:86,923.00$ CRC:86,923.00$ MAYOR:86,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 15 Fourth Street Clinic REQUEST:91,352.00$ ELIGIBLE:91,352.00$ CRC:91,352.00$ MAYOR:91,352.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Salaries and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Salary and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% 81.17 81.17 Hartland Education Pathways 80.33 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, and program supplies Access to Mental Health Services Expanded Educational Opportunities 80.17 Integrated Behavioral Healthcare 79.33 Therapeutic Preschool Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Access to Health Services The Program will offer services to West side communities hit hard by COVID-19 which include expanding afterschool programming for youth, helping residents apply for household assistance, and offering weekly English courses to aid adults in their education and career advancement. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide intervention to young children ages 2-5 who need additional support beyond their outpatient therapy services to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The Program will provide increased access to mental health services to low income, uninsured adults who are or have experienced homelessness to address needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide improved access to healthcare by assisting individuals with COVID-19 detection and mitigation, and medical service coordination in established homeless resource centers. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide direct support to individuals with mental health conditions, addiction, and other behavioral challenges that could impact housing stability which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 3 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 16 Disability Law Center REQUEST:40,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,960.00$ CRC:34,960.00$ MAYOR:34,960.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 17 Volunteers of America REQUEST:99,605.00$ ELIGIBLE:99,605.00$ CRC:99,605.00$ MAYOR:99,605.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 18 International Rescue Committee REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,334.51$ CRC:86,334.51$ MAYOR:86,334.51$ COUNCIL:-$ 19 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:92,791.00$ CRC:92,791.00$ MAYOR:92,791.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 20 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:93,010.00$ CRC:93,010.00$ MAYOR:93,010.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Salaries, wages, and fringe refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% Digital Inclusion 77.33 Behavioral Health Support Rental Assistance 76.83 76.00 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% 79.17 Youth Clinician 77.50 AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe youth experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, fringe benefits, and program supplies Disability Law Center Rental and utility assistance, salaries, wages, and fringe benefits Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention The program will provide individualized advocacy, technical assistance in self-advocacy, information about legal rights, and training to children with disabilities and their families to prevent academic regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Funding will go towards meetings the behavioral health needs of youth ages 15-22, alleviating the behavioral health impacts of COVID-19 by providing clinical services such as crisis intervention, counseling etc. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide linguistically accessible, culturally relevant technology access, training, and support to refugees and new Americans disproportionately impacted by the digital divide as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide treatment services to the refugee and immigrant communities who are experiencing behavioral health and/or substance use disorders that have been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will assist city residents who do not meet the eligibility requirements for our other housing grants with rental assistance who have experienced hardships due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Mitigating the Digital Divide Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 4 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 21 Friends of Switchpoint REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 22 University of Utah College of Education REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 23 Boys & Girls Club of GSL REQUEST:100,000.00$ AMI <= 65% ELIGIBLE:75,043.57$ CRC:54,198.09$ MAYOR:54,198.09$ COUNCIL:-$ 24 REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 25 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Salary and fringe individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, vehicle expenses, and program supplies/equipment Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. dba NeighborWorks Financial Success Programs: Financial Education and Coaching AMI > 80% Salaries and benefits Title 1 students, teachers, and administrators Employee wages and benefits Guadalupe Early Learning Center Programs Transportation 74.00 Academic Success & Career Readiness 75.00 Expanded Educational Opportunities The program funds a staff position providing TA for school mental health teams to address mental health needs made worse by COVID-19 in Title I elementary and secondary schools in Salt Lake City School District. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide academic remediation and career readiness programming for youth to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide financial education, one-on-one coaching, and community connections to help individuals acquire the financial skills and behaviors needed for taking control of their finances, decreasing dependence on public assistance, increasing net worth through savings and asset building, and achieving financial self-sufficiency to combat economic struggles due to COVID- 19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. 76.00 Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention 75.83 AMI <= 65% Expanding Mental Health Systems of Support Across Ten Salt Lake City School District Title I Elementary and Middle Schools Other The Point at Fairpark The program will provide case management to individuals who have faced barriers and became displaced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 74.50 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities The program will increase overall student attendance in school and participation in the After School program by providing bus services from home to school and home from the After School program to provide academic support and prevent regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 5 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 26 Family Support Center REQUEST:50,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:50,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 27 Suazo Business Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 28 The INN Between REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:70,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 29 Community Health Centers REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 30 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:73,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Salaries and benefits individuals with serious health conditions experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 40% Mental Health Access 72.17 Education Programs - Outdoor Class 72.17 AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits AMI > 80% Construction costs, salary and benefits Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling 74.00 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless 73.67 AMI <= 65% Salaries and workshops Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Supporting Underserved and Low-Income Entrepreneurs in Utah Latino/Hispanic and minority business owners; AMI <= 65% 73.83 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities The program will provide individual therapy sessions to uninsured individuals not capable of affording services, fund and support Clinical staff with necessary training and certifications, and expand 2-3 more community and group therapy classes each quarter to address mental health struggles exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide beginning, intermediate, and advanced business training, one-on-one business advising, business development training, and a microloan program providing long-term support for low-to-moderate-income minority entrepreneurs and professionals throughout Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide medical housing to homeless adults from Salt Lake City who are medically compromised in some way and disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide increased access to essential and vital mental healthcare services where cost is a barrier to low-income and uninsured residents of Salt Lake City disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program help pay construction costs and supply costs for Outdoor STEAM Classroom and salary for a part-time STEAM educator for the outdoor classroom for 2 years to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 6 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 31 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 32 Alliance House, Inc.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 33 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 34 Create Reel Change DBA Mental Healthy F.i.T.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:25,500.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 35 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Workforce Development Intern Program Mental Health Assistance 69.50 AMI <= 65% Program and training supplies Community Mental Health Awareness and Elevation Salaries and program support Respite Program Fund Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) children 0-6 who have suffered childhood trauma; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, program supplies and fees Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) individuals with medical diagnosis; AMI <= 40% Access to Alliance House Salaries and fringe benefits 70.00 AMI <= 65% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 70.17 69.33 68.67 underserved communities with unique mental health challenges; AMI <= 65% Program development and training supplies Social Prescribing Program Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities The program will support children ages 7-17 with mental health diagnosis, an opportunity to build relationships, experience their community, connect with nature, and engage in service to combat negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad in providing nonspecific services to students. The program will provide psychosocial supports and other targeted case management services to low-income, uninsured individuals who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide mental health services by creating a pipeline of licensed psychologists specializing in Infant/Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) to treat mental health issues exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support a series of monthly health community education and awareness events, offering youth workshops to develop youth creativity and conversation to provide support for those disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide social prescribing services that involve health professionals referring patients to support in the community in order to improve their overall well-being from issues brought by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 7 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000 Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS 36 The Leonardo REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 37 Catholic Community Services of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 38 Fit to Recover REQUEST:96,275.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,275.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 39 UAACC Charitable Foundation REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:-$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 40 Salt Lake Acting Company REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,583.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ REQUESTS:3,833,313.40$ ELIGIBLE REQUESTS:3,317,126.48$ CRC:2,000,000.00$ MAYOR:2,000,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title I Arts Education Program 57.67 minority children from ages 5 to 9; AMI <= 65% Program supplies and operation costs Supporting Utah's Black Community 65.50 Expanded Educational Opportunities FTR Pillars of Mental Health Minority business professionals; AMI <= 80% Program and training supplies Digital Literacy for Refugees Employee salary and benefits, program supplies AMI <= 65% The program would support the Afterschool Tech Program which counters the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with on-site, experiential afterschool learning concluding with a community-based project that addresses a real-world problem. ELIGIBILE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Clarification was requested from applicants during and after Committee scoring regarding details related to proposal eligibility. Responses from applicants were reviewed to determine eligibility status. Some proposals were determined to be totally eligible and some partially eligible. Other notes for some proposals note some of these questions. 67.00 Salaries and benefits, program supplies 68.00 68.50 recently resettled refugees; AMI <= 40% Employee salary and benefits, program supplies mental health and substance misuse treatment communities; AMI <= 80% Afterschool Tech Program Mitigating the Digital Divide Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Other TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS/ALLOCATIONS The program will provide access to digital literacy training to recently arrived refugees. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will increase support to treatment centers, create new programs to address youth prevention, and further enhance existing programs and internships to support mental health issues due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide resources and support for Black entrepreneurs that reside in Salt Lake City to rebuild following the impacts of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide children's musical performances to low-income K-2 Title I students and their teachers to engage students and lessen negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated October 12, 2023 Page 8 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/1/2 CHAPTER 2.20 COMMUNITY RECOVERY COMMITTEE SECTION: 2.20.010: Purpose 2.20.020: Responsibilities 2.20.030: Membership 2.20.040: Community Grant Program 2.20.050: Minimum Requirements For Community Grant Program Applications 2.20.060: Sunset 2.20.010: PURPOSE: The Community Recovery Committee will assist with and oversee the distribution of certain Rescue Plan funds under the City's community grant program. Consistent with this Chapter, the Community Recovery Committee will review applications for community grant program funding and make funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor shall review the Community Recovery Committee's recommendations and make a final recommendation on the use of funds to the City Council. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.020: RESPONSIBILITIES: The Community Recovery Committee will: A. Advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on decisions related to the City's community grant program. B. Coordinate with relevant City departments on the review and evaluation of current strategic plans, goals, and policies of the departments' grant programs. C. Review all eligible project proposals submitted by various business, and nonprofit organizations for the community grant program and to make recommendations to the Mayor on such requests for funds. D. Monitor the community grant program and ensure that the program is being implemented as planned and the funds from the program are utilized as recommended and approved by the Council. E. Help ensure that the community grant program goals are consistent with the strategic plans and goals of the City and are consistent with the federal requirements for utilization of Rescue Plan funds. F. Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the community grant program. G. Consider geographic equity in the overall funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council under the community grant program. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.030: MEMBERSHIP: A. The Community Recovery Committee shall be made up of a total of seven (7) or nine (9) members, with at least three (3) members from the Human Rights Commission, one (1) member from the Business Advisory Board, up to three (3) members from the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, one (1) member from the Economic Development Loan Fund Committee and one (1) member from the Salt Lake Arts Council. B. Members of the Community Recovery Committee will be appointed by the Salt Lake City Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Individuals appointed to the Community Recovery Committee will be authorized under City Code to serve on two (2) City boards. (Ord. 50-22, 2022: Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.040: COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM: The Administration will create the community grant program to efficiently deploy the Rescue Plan community grant program funds utilizing the following policies and objectives: 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/2/2 A. No single application for a community grant will exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). B. Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, by offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support. C. Any application for a community grant for local business will focus on supporting the business's operations or employees who have been economically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.050: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS: Community grant program applications for either nonprofit organizations or local businesses will include, at a minimum, the following information to be considered by the Community Recovery Committee: A. The amount of community grant funds the organization is seeking and how the nonprofit organization or local businesses intends to use the proposed funds. B. Affirmation, after consultation with the City's Finance Department, that the proposed use is eligible under the federal Rescue Plan guidelines and that the applicant will be able to spend the funds by December 31, 2024. C. Identification of how the proposed grant will meet the City's objectives of supporting underserved communities, mitigating economic impacts on local businesses or arts organizations, or mitigating the effects of COVID-19 on the community. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.060: SUNSET: Upon either full expenditure of the Rescue Plan funds, or expiration of the deadline to expend such funds, the Community Recovery Committee shall cease to exist under City Code, unless the City Council expands the scope of the Community Recovery Committee’s responsibilities, in which case the Community Recovery Committee will remain in effect. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) Department of Community & Neighborhoods Community Recovery Assistance Grants Program (CAN) CITY CODE DESCRIPTION “Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, by offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support.” - SLC Code Chapter 2.20.040 PROGRAM OVERVIEW CAN Grants One-time grants for nonprofits to provide services for low-to-moderate income members of the community impacted by COVID-19. $2M Available Council allocated $2 million to be distributed by CAN. If approved, CAN will award the full $2 million to community partners. 40 Applications Funding Direct Service This funding is focused on direct services provided by applicants to at-risk community members, as opposed to revenue replacement or general operational funding for organizations. The Committee had 40 applications submitted for review. All applications were reviewed by Community Recovery Committee for merit and cost eligibility. SERVICE ELIGIBILITY Direct Services SLC Residency Low- to Moderate-Income Principally provide direct services to the community. Serve households and individuals residing in the municipal boundaries of Salt Lake City. Principally serve low- to moderate-income households. GUIDELINES: Primary eligibility standards were drawn from the guidance in City Council Ordinance (SLC Code Chapter 2.20). Also used as standard guidelines were City and federal grant management best practices, including 2 CFR 200 and ARPA guidelines. COVID recovery-related activities Award Amount Funding used to address COVID community recovery efforts. No single application for a community grant will exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Spenddown Timeline Applicant will be able to spend the funds by December 31, 2024.* COMMITTEE REVIEW Intended Use of Funds The applicant’s requested costs and intended uses of funds. Objective Alignment How grant will support underserved communities and mitigate the effects of COVID- 19. Eligible Spending If proposed grant uses aligned with service eligibility guidelines. The following information was considered by the Community Recovery Committee in reviewing CAN applications (Feb - Apr 2023): TRANSMITTAL SUMMARY The Community Recovery Committee’s and Mayor’s funding recommendations of twenty-three (23) applicants for the allocation of $2,000,000 through the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, Community Recovery Assistance Grants. All funding recommendations in accordance with City Code 2.20.040 and at the Council’s discretion. RECOMMENDATION: Distribution of $2M in funding allocated to Community and Neighborhoods as American Rescue Plan Act funds in April 2022, and reallocated as general funds in May 2023. BUDGET IMPACT: 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: September 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Tony Milner, Director, Housing Stability Division Jack Markman, Community Development Grant Specialist __________________________ SUBJECT: Community and Neighborhoods Department, Community Recovery Assistance Grant Program, Community Recovery Committee Recommendations for Allocation STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, 801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com Jack Markman, 801-535-7762 jack.markman@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Review the Community Recovery Committee’s (CRC) funding recommendations of twenty-three (23) applicants for the allocation of $2,000,000 through Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN), Community Recovery Assistance Grants (CRAG). Approve funds in accordance with City Code 2.20.040, at the Council’s discretion. BUDGET IMPACT: Distribution of $2M in funding allocated to CAN as American Rescue Plan Act funds in April 2022, and reallocated as general funds in May 2023. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City received $85.4M from the US Department of the Treasury through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Of this total award, City Council set aside $4M to establish a community grant program to help Salt Lake City recover from the effects of COVID-19 (City Code 2.20.040, passed in April 2022) and tasked the respective departments of Economic Development (DED) and Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to deploy and administer $2M each. Lisa Shaffer (Sep 21, 2023 10:39 MDT)09/21/2023 09/21/2023 For the $2M in funds administered by CAN, a publicly noticed, open competitive application period ran from September 1-30, 2022, and this portion of funds received forty (40) applications. The Community Recovery Committee (CRC), created through City Code 2.20.040 and composed of current members of other City boards and commissions, reviewed these applications between February and mid-April 2023. During their seven (7) meetings, the CRC scored and put forth their recommendations for twenty-three (23) applicants. Attached is Exhibit B with the funding recommendations. In May of 2023, Council transferred $19.8M of the awarded ARPA funds, which included the $2M for the CAN CRAG towards City revenue replacement general funds. Finance has confirmed that these funds are no longer American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Note: City Code 2.20.040 references “Rescue Plan community grant program funds,” and at the time of the open application process and CRC recommendations, these funds adhered to ARPA regulations. The administration of these general funds will continue to align with ARPA regulations as much as possible, along with any additional guidance provided by Council. Award Eligibility Requirements: CAN worked closely with Finance to determine eligibility requirements. The requirements for funding eligibility are as follows: ●A community grant application will not exceed $100,000. Awards will not be greater than $100,000 or less than $30,000. ●Any community grant application must focus on one of the six (6) categories, as outlined in City Code 2.20.040(b): i.Retraining displaced workers ii.Legal or other assistance for eviction prevention or rent relief iii.Expanding educational opportunities iv.Mitigating the digital divide v. Supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 vi. Providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support ●Any community grant application must provide a direct service to Salt Lake City residents that have been impacted or disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.. ●Any community grant application must abide by all relevant federal, state, and city activity standards and regulations, and any subsequent changes made while applying to the same. Scoring: Eligible applicants were scored on a base-100 scale with the following breakdown: ●One-third of the total score was derived from the Admin Score. The highest possible Admin Score was 35 points. Housing Stability staff and Finance staff conducted an initial application review for eligibility and risk (history of administering federal funding, independent audit findings, key staff turnover, etc.). ●Two-thirds of the score was derived from the CRC’s review. The highest possible Committee score was 65 points. CRC members independently scored the applications, by reviewing each application and scoring in a qualitative manner, that determined overall program merit. Staff aggregated and averaged the individual scores for a final application score. Of the forty (40) applications that were received, thirty-one (31) were determined to be for the CAN CRAG program, based on ARPA guidance and the City Code authorizing the use of the funds. Ineligibility factors included insufficient or lack of: COVID recovery-related activities, direct client services, and/or services to Salt Lake City residents. Due to funding availability, the top scored twenty-three (23) applications have been recommended for funding. The recommended applications have been sorted based on their final scores (highest to lowest). Attached to this transmittal is the CRC’s and the Mayor’s list of funding recommendations for consideration of final funding approval by the Council. PUBLIC PROCESS: A notice of available funding was publicly noticed and all CRC meetings were publicly-noticed in accordance with the Open and Public Meetings Act. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Resolution Exhibit B – CAN CRAG Recommended Funding Allocations for Nonprofit Organizations 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 A resolution adopting funding allocations for the Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN) Community Recovery Assistance Grant (CRAG) program WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (the “Council”) appropriated general funds in the amount of $2,000,000 to CAN for the CRAG program to be disbursed to nonprofit organizations; WHEREAS, the Division of Housing Stability publicly noticed and administered a competitive application process to solicit funding requests from nonprofit organizations; WHEREAS, the Community Recovery Committee and Mayor reviewed applications and the Mayor recommends that the Council approve the funding allocations for applicants as described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Council does now meet on this _________, 2023 to adopt funding allocations for the CAN CRAG program for nonprofit organizations funds. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. That the Council hereby adopts funding allocations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the grant documents and any other relevant documents consistent with Exhibit A, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office, and to act in accordance with their terms. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of _____________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _____________________________ CHAIR Approved as to form: __________________________ Kimberly Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER September 12, 2023 2 EXHIBIT B Funding Allocations TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000.00 1 Rape Recovery Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 2 Wasatch Community Gardens REQUEST:76,173.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,173.00$ CRC:76,173.00$ MAYOR:76,173.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 3 First Step House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:51,322.00$ CRC:51,322.00$ MAYOR:51,322.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 4 First Step House REQUEST:99,908.40$ ELIGIBLE:99,908.40$ CRC:99,908.40$ MAYOR:99,908.40$ COUNCIL:-$ 5 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 6 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 7 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:76,923.00$ MAYOR:76,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 8 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title 1 students The program will provide behavioral health care to individuals who have suffered from sexual violence, a problem that has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide job training services to women facing or experiencing homelessness, whose existing economic and mental health challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide case management for individuals with mental health challenges, substance use disorders, and increased medical needs who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Women experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, staff wages and benefits Wasatch Community Gardens Rose Park Charter School 82.33 82.17 82.00 Outpatient Clinical Services M. Lynn Bennion School 82.50 Program and training supplies AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Title 1 students Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING Clinical Therapy Services for Survivors of Sexual Violence Case Management Restorative Care Pathways Bryant Middle School Title 1 students Salaries, program supplies, and training Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) 87.17 85.00 83.00 82.50 Service Category The program will provide behavioral health treatment for individuals experiencing homelessness alongside substance use disorders and mental illness. This service helped bridge service gaps for the homeless population amidst the challenges posed by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE Bryant Middle School by engaging the community, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and histories of homelessness, incarceration, and unstable employment; AMI <= 40% Salaries and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and recurrent homelessness; AMI <= 40% sexual assault survivors; unhoused; AMI <= 65% Staffing salaries and benefits Salaries, grants, supplies, and training Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Retraining Displaced Workers Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE M. Lynn Bennion Elementary School by employing the Playworks program, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide outpatient clinical services to enhance the emotional well-being of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend Rose Park Charter School by engaging the community, enhancing after-school programs, building out a well-being room, and promoting experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Exhibit B 9 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah REQUEST:80,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 10 Odyssey House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 11 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 12 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 13 University Neighborhood Partners REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,500.00$ CRC:96,500.00$ MAYOR:96,500.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 14 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,923.00$ CRC:86,923.00$ MAYOR:86,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 15 Fourth Street Clinic REQUEST:91,352.00$ ELIGIBLE:91,352.00$ CRC:91,352.00$ MAYOR:91,352.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 16 Disability Law Center REQUEST:40,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,960.00$ CRC:34,960.00$ MAYOR:34,960.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 17 Volunteers of America REQUEST:99,605.00$ ELIGIBLE:99,605.00$ CRC:99,605.00$ MAYOR:99,605.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 18 International Rescue Committee REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,334.51$ CRC:86,334.51$ MAYOR:86,334.51$ COUNCIL:-$ 81.17 81.20 individuals with substance use disorders, mental illness, and a history of homelessness; AMI <= 40% Harm reduction kits, staff wages, and program supplies individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits 81.17 Hartland Education Pathways 80.33 individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, and program supplies Access to Mental Health Services Expanded Educational Opportunities 80.17 Integrated Behavioral Healthcare 79.33 AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits Therapeutic Preschool Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 79.17 Youth Clinician 77.50 AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe youth experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, fringe benefits, and program supplies Disability Law Center Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 77.33 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Digital Inclusion One-to-One Youth Mentoring Harm Reduction & Outreach Program Access to Health Services The Program will offer services to West side communities hit hard by COVID-19 which include expanding afterschool programming for youth, helping residents apply for household assistance, and offering weekly English courses to aid adults in their education and career advancement. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide intervention to young children ages 2-5 who need additional support beyond their outpatient therapy services to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The Program will provide increased access to mental health services to low income, uninsured adults who are or have experienced homelessness to address needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide individualized advocacy, technical assistance in self-advocacy, information about legal rights, and training to children with disabilities and their families to prevent academic regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Funding will go towards meetings the behavioral health needs of youth ages 15-22, alleviating the behavioral health impacts of COVID-19 by providing clinical services such as crisis intervention, counseling etc. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide linguistically accessible, culturally relevant technology access, training, and support to refugees and new Americans disproportionately impacted by the digital divide as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 81.83 underserved youth; AMI <= 65% Employee salaries and benefits Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Mitigating the Digital Divide The program will provide professional development to volunteers who would bring developmental relationships to underserved youth in Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide outreach events, distribution and expansion of harm reduction kits, and healthcare appointments for individuals experiencing homelessness who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide improved access to healthcare by assisting individuals with COVID-19 detection and mitigation, and medical service coordination in established homeless resource centers. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide direct support to individuals with mental health conditions, addiction, and other behavioral challenges that could impact housing stability which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. 19 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:92,791.00$ CRC:92,791.00$ MAYOR:92,791.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 20 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:93,010.00$ CRC:93,010.00$ MAYOR:93,010.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 21 Friends of Switchpoint REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 22 University of Utah College of Education REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 23 Boys & Girls Club of GSL REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:75,043.57$ CRC:54,198.09$ MAYOR:54,198.09$ COUNCIL:-$ 24 Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. dba NeighborWorks REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 25 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 26 Family Support Center REQUEST:50,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:50,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 27 Suazo Business Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 28 The INN Between REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:70,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Behavioral Health Support Rental Assistance 76.83 76.00 refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% Salaries, wages, and fringe refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% AMI > 80% Salaries and benefits Salaries and benefits 75.83 Title 1 students, teachers, and administrators Employee wages and benefits Guadalupe Early Learning Center Programs Transportation 74.00 Academic Success & Career Readiness 75.00 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, vehicle expenses, and program supplies/equipment Expanded Educational Opportunities The program funds a staff position providing TA for school mental health teams to address mental health needs made worse by COVID-19 in Title I elementary and secondary schools in Salt Lake City School District. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide academic remediation and career readiness programming for youth to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide financial education, one-on-one coaching, and community connections to help individuals acquire the financial skills and behaviors needed for taking control of their finances, decreasing dependence on public assistance, increasing net worth through savings and asset building, and achieving financial self-sufficiency to combat economic struggles due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. Supporting Underserved and Low-Income Entrepreneurs in Utah Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling 74.00 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless 73.67 AMI <= 65% Salaries and workshops 76.00 individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Other Rental and utility assistance, salaries, wages, and fringe benefits Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention The Point at Fairpark The program will provide treatment services to the refugee and immigrant communities who are experiencing behavioral health and/or substance use disorders that have been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will assist city residents who do not meet the eligibility requirements for our other housing grants with rental assistance who have experienced hardships due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide case management to individuals who have faced barriers and became displaced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Financial Success Programs: Financial Education and Coaching AMI <= 65% Expanding Mental Health Systems of Support Across Ten Salt Lake City School District Title I Elementary and Middle Schools individuals with serious health conditions experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 40% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Healthcare Access Latino/Hispanic and minority business owners; AMI <= 65% 73.83 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies 74.50 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) The program will increase overall student attendance in school and participation in the After School program by providing bus services from home to school and home from the After School program to provide academic support and prevent regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide individual therapy sessions to uninsured individuals not capable of affording services, fund and support Clinical staff with necessary training and certifications, and expand 2-3 more community and group therapy classes each quarter to address mental health struggles exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide beginning, intermediate, and advanced business training, one-on-one business advising, business development training, and a microloan program providing long-term support for low-to-moderate-income minority entrepreneurs and professionals throughout Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide medical housing to homeless adults from Salt Lake City who are medically compromised in some way and disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 29 Community Health Centers REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 30 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:73,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 31 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 32 Alliance House, Inc.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 33 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 34 Create Reel Change DBA Mental Healthy F.i.T.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:25,500.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 35 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 36 The Leonardo REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 37 Catholic Community Services of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 38 Fit to Recover REQUEST:96,275.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,275.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Workforce Development Intern Program Mental Health Assistance 69.50 AMI <= 65% Program and training supplies Mental Health Access 72.17 Education Programs - Outdoor Class 72.17 AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits AMI > 80% Expanded Educational Opportunities Community Mental Health Awareness and Elevation FTR Pillars of Mental Health Salaries and program support Construction costs, salary and benefits Respite Program Fund Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) children 0-6 who have suffered childhood trauma; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, program supplies and fees Digital Literacy for Refugees Employee salary and benefits, program supplies Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) AMI <= 65% individuals with medical diagnosis; AMI <= 40% Access to Alliance House Salaries and fringe benefits 70.00 The program would support the Afterschool Tech Program which counters the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with on-site, experiential afterschool learning concluding with a community-based project that addresses a real-world problem. ELIGIBILE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities AMI <= 65% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 70.17 69.33 67.00 Salaries and benefits, program supplies 68.00 68.67 68.50 recently resettled refugees; AMI <= 40% Employee salary and benefits, program supplies underserved communities with unique mental health challenges; AMI <= 65% Program development and training supplies mental health and substance misuse treatment communities; AMI <= 80% Afterschool Tech Program Social Prescribing Program Mitigating the Digital Divide Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) The program will provide access to digital literacy training to recently arrived refugees. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will increase support to treatment centers, create new programs to address youth prevention, and further enhance existing programs and internships to support mental health issues due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide increased access to essential and vital mental healthcare services where cost is a barrier to low-income and uninsured residents of Salt Lake City disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program help pay construction costs and supply costs for Outdoor STEAM Classroom and salary for a part-time STEAM educator for the outdoor classroom for 2 years to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support children ages 7-17 with mental health diagnosis, an opportunity to build relationships, experience their community, connect with nature, and engage in service to combat negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad in providing nonspecific services to students. The program will provide psychosocial supports and other targeted case management services to low-income, uninsured individuals who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide mental health services by creating a pipeline of licensed psychologists specializing in Infant/Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) to treat mental health issues exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support a series of monthly health community education and awareness events, offering youth workshops to develop youth creativity and conversation to provide support for those disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide social prescribing services that involve health professionals referring patients to support in the community in order to improve their overall well-being from issues brought by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 39 UAACC Charitable Foundation REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:-$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 40 Salt Lake Acting Company REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,583.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ REQUESTS:3,833,313.40$ ELIGIBLE REQUESTS:3,317,126.48$ CRC:2,000,000.00$ MAYOR:2,000,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title I Arts Education Program 57.67 minority children from ages 5 to 9; AMI <= 65% Program supplies and operation costs Supporting Utah's Black Community 65.50 Minority business professionals; AMI <= 80% Program and training supplies Clarification was requested from applicants during and after Committee scoring regarding details related to proposal eligibility. Responses from applicants were reviewed to determine eligibility status. Some proposals were determined to be totally eligible and some partially eligible. Other notes for some proposals note some of these questions. Other Other TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS/ALLOCATIONS The program will provide resources and support for Black entrepreneurs that reside in Salt Lake City to rebuild following the impacts of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide children's musical performances to low-income K-2 Title I students and their teachers to engage students and lessen negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________________________________ TO: Darin Mano, City Council Chair DATE: October 6 2023 FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Olivia Hoge, Elections Management Coordinator SUBJECT: Amended 2023 Municipal Election: SL County Interlocal Cooperation Agreement STAFF CONTACT: Olivia Hoge, Elections Management Coordinator IMPORTANT DATES: •October 31, 2023: Return the signed Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. LEGISLATION: Resolution to approve the Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement BUDGET IMPACT: $228,000 Total Election Cost with the Salt Lake City District 7 Race In May, the Council passed a resolution approving the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Salt Lake County to conduct the 2023 Municipal Election using the Ranked Choice Voting Method. The races that were agreed to be listed on the ballot were as follows: Salt Lake City Council District 2 Salt Lake City Council District 4 Salt Lake City Council District 6 Salt Lake City Mayor Due to the timing of the vacancy of Salt Lake City Council District 7, that seat will need to be added to the ballot as a two-year term. The estimated cost to add this seat will make the total election cost $228,000. Salt Lake County was unable to provide the amended interlocal agreement before the date the ballots were printed, they put the District 7 race on the ballot as the City Council had been informed of this necessity when this vacancy occurred. Salt Lake City is anticipating the approval of this interlocal agreement and cost adjustment. Attachment A: Amended Interlocal Agreement Attachment B: Resolution to Approve the Amended Interlocal Agreement Attachment A Attachment B Type text here 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: 9/22/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/22/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/22/2023 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 Ben Raskin 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 September 22, 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. Ben Raskin to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on September 7, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 9/22/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/22/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/22/2023 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 Thomas Walker 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 September 22, 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. Thomas Walker to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on September 7, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 9/22/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 9/22/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 9/22/2023 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 Antonio Esquibel 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 September 22, 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. Antonio Esquibel to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on September 7, 2026. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 10/3/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 10/3/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/3/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Adrienne White member of the Historic Landmark Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 October 3, 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 Historic Landmark Commission. Adrienne White to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. 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: 10/3/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 10/3/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/3/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Alan Barnett member of the Historic Landmark Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 October 3, 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 Historic Landmark Commission. Alan Barnett to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. 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: 10/3/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 10/3/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/3/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jared Stewart member of the Historic Landmark Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 October 3, 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 Historic Landmark Commission. Jared Stewart to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________ Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205( l )(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; §52-4-205(l )(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) if 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; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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. Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Salt Lake City CouncilDarin Mano October 17, 2023 4 44 Darin Mano (Oct 27, 2023 13:24 MDT)10/27/2023 Closed Session - Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-10-27 Created:2023-10-24 By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAPJoH8c8jY__BmF-uWBXd5RuIuhIl505Y "Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) 2023-10-24 - 7:43:13 PM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-10-24 - 7:47:33 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-10-24 - 11:28:42 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-10-26 - 3:51:58 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-10-27 - 3:11:31 AM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-10-27 - 7:24:10 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-10-27 - 7:24:10 PM GMT