Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   November 14, 2023 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.   Council Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com   CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Darin Mano, Chair District 5 Victoria Petro, Vice Chair District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7   Generated: 09:24:30 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES   A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of September 19, 2023; October 3, 2023; and October 10, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of October 3, 2023. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing December 1st as World AIDS Day in Salt Lake City. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Subdivision Code Amendments The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance repealing and replacing all text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to subdivisions and condominiums. This proposal reorganizes the subdivision regulations, updates application requirements, makes minor changes to subdivision approval processes, updates the standards for approval for dividing land and modifying lots and parcels, updates the subdivision standards to align with City goals identified in the City's general plan, and makes changes necessary to align with State code mandates for review times and review processes. The changes are necessary to bring the City's subdivision regulations into compliance with recent State code changes that require Cities to update their codes by February 1, 2024. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00494. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SubdivisionCodeUpdates.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. 2023-2024 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community Development Needs Annual Public Hearing The Council will accept public comment for the 2023-2024 U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) General Community Development Needs. Each year Salt Lake City receives several million dollars of grant funds from HUD for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) programs. HUD requires an annual public hearing for the City to hear about community development needs from the public. This feedback helps to prioritize the grant funds between many competing needs.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 116 East Edith Avenue The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 116 East Edith Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to CC (Corridor Commercial District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Community Commercial. The proposed amendments would allow for further commercial and multi- family development of the site and would make the property consistent with the adjacent property that shares the same owner. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Ian Kaplan of ADDVirtue, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01160 & PLNPCM2022-01161    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time, however the applicant may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Larsen Sequist. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   3. Ordinance: Historic Preservation Overlay District Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance 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. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00123 For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC.    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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   4. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 1518 South 300 West The Council will consider adopting 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, Petition No.:PLNPCM2023-00408    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 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   5. Ordinance: Northpoint Small Area Plan The Council will consider 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. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00687 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 - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE.   F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Certification of Downtown Plan The Council will consider approving a resolution about certifying the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for 13 TRAX and Frontrunner stations in the downtown area. Certification is necessary to be in compliance with recent state law requirements for municipalities to have station area plans for all fixed rail transit stations within their boundaries or within a half mile of City limits.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Open Space Lands Amendments The Council will consider adopting an ordinance 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 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street from R-2 (Single- and Two- Family Residential District) to I (Institutional District). The proposal also would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow the use of the existing church building as a school. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Ordinance: Rezone at 680 South Gladiola Street The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street from M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). This proposal would enable the use of the property as a commercial truck driving school, classified as a vocational school with outdoor activities. The applicant has not included development plans with this request. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Tony Sieverts. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00236    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   3. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 1380 South 900 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant owns the property located at 1380 South 900 West and intends to only develop that property. The other two properties are owned by a separate organization that asked to be included in this request to enable additional development flexibility. This proposal would accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Drake Powell of TAG SLC, representing the various property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00172    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.3 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes four new full-time paramedic employees in the Fire Department's Medical Response Team, creation of a Legislative Division with four new full-time employees in the City Attorney's Office, over $6 million of additional transportation impact fees for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business district and the 600 North / 700 North corridor transformation project among other items.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date.   5. Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Robyn Taylor-Granda The Council will consider approving the appointment of Robyn Taylor-Granda to the City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee Board for a term ending July 19, 2027.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   6. Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Landon Kraczek The Council will consider approving the appointment of Landon Kraczek to the Planning Commission for a term ending November 14, 2027.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Lorena Riffo Jenson – Economic Development Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Jorge Chamorro – Director of Public Services, Jacob Maxwell – Deputy Director Economic Development, Jonathan Larsen – Transportation Director, Jojo Liu – Justice Court Judge, Alicia De Leon – Community Liaison, Cassie Younger – CAN Senior Planner, Sara Javoronok – Senior Planner, Todd Andersen – Economic Development ARPA Project Coordinator The meeting was called to order at: 2:05 pm.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1 Work Session Items   1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.  15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a   Alicia De Leon provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates •Ways to engage with the City: www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Public Lands events/projects •Public Utilities events/projects •Arts Council – 2023 Public Art Goals, engagement updates •Mayor’s Office of Equity & Inclusion – ADA Workshops •Mayor’s Office Community Office Hours dates/locations •September 2023 City events Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Homeless Resource Center (HRC) utilization data •Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation updates •Kayak Court scheduled for September 22, 2023 canceled due to weather •Winter overflow plans/temporary shelter community work updates •Costs involved in running non-congregate shelter and service programs •Community outreach teams would be on the streets to make persons aware of shelter/overflow availability and how to transport to those locations •The public could contact Central Intake for information on all shelters and winter services (801 990-9999)   2.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street ~ 2:15 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2 properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023   Item moved to a future agenda.   3.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 East 900 South ~ 2:35 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the property located at 1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner greater flexibility in housing types if the property were to be redeveloped. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioners: Tina and Evan Jenkins FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023   Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction to the proposal. Cassie Younger provided information regarding: •Current and proposed zoning •Surrounding property details MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3 •Comparison of development standards (RMF-35 vs. RMF-30) •Compatibility with the Master Plan •Planning Commission having forwarded a positive recommendation for the proposal   4.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives ~ 2:55 p.m.  60 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD   Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction to the proposed ordinance. Nick Norris and Sara Javoronok provided information regarding: Affordable Housing Incentives •Origin of the proposal •Goals of the Affordable Housing Incentives •Process timeline – surveys, internal draft with discussions, outreach, research, etc. •Proposal summary: Incentive-based and income-restricted •Defining “affordable” – income vs. cost of living •Details of the focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor including subsequent recommendations •Incentives for multi-family and mixed-use zones •2022 vs. 2023 incentive options for mixed-use and multi-family (not RMF) •RMF zone affordability incentive thresholds, restrictions, etc. •Single and two-family zoning district affordability incentive thresholds, permitted housing types, etc. •Design standards MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4 •Historic preservation considerations •How the program would be administered/Administrative considerations •Enforcement penalties •Incentives for preservation of existing housing •Development and infrastructure requirements Council Members discussed the above listed elements presented by Planning Staff. Council Member Petro requested a future Work Session discussion, where the Council could consider with Council Staff this topic universally/globally alongside the Thriving In Place program to ensure the City was allocating appropriate attention, resources, and strategy. Council Member Wharton joined the meeting during this agenda item.   5.Tentative Break ~ 3:55 p.m.  20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a   6.Ordinance: Residential Parking Permit Program Amendment ~ 4:15 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow the transportation director to waive the minimum requirement of eight standard block faces for establishing a parking permit area. The waiver is proposed to be limited to areas where parking impacts are created by a hospital or medical building, a university or college building, or a TRAX station. The proposed text changes could allow for the creation of a residential parking permit program in the Central Ninth neighborhood. The standard process for creating a residential parking permit area would still need to be followed including petitions, a parking study, ballot, public hearing, and multiple public notices FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5 Ben Luedtke provided an introduction to the proposal and provided information regarding: •Overview of the City’s parking permit program •Details of the proposed amendment •Presentation of a map of current permit parking areas •Policy questions for the Council to consider Jon Larsen said as a reminder, this change in ordinance would not guarantee the creation of a new residential parking permit zone in Central Ninth (900 South and 200 West), but it would allow for discussions to move forward. Jon Larsen added that the program worked well in the designated parking permit areas of the City, and stated there was adequate staffing in the Transportation Department for the added work of a newly designated parking area. Council Member Petro expressed excitement for how the proposed amendment would impact the Fairpark community of the City, resolving continual requests for a parking program in the area. Council Member Puy inquired about the capacity for enforcement of the newly added parking permit area, the future costs involved, and the need for more enforcement officers if more areas were designated. Jorge Chamorro spoke to the enforcement aspect and said depending on the demand, it might require additional resources to move forward with additional proposed parking permit areas for it to be effective and described some of the equipment needed for efficient enforcement.   7.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 4:35 p.m.  45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6   Ben Luedtke provided an introduction to the Budget Amendment and presented information regarding: •Fund Balance Chart (Page 5 of Staff Report) •Tracking new ongoing General Fund Costs approved midyear Budget Amendments (Pages 2 & 3 of Staff Report) •Item G1 – Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1M from Misc. Grants) – covering four years of salary and benefits for a new full-time employee (FTE) ◦Mary Beth Thompson explained that when the grant was received, it was the total amount of the grant and it was recognized revenue and off-setting expenditures until the grant expired – if expenses were not used then money would be returned to the federal government •Item E1 – TANF Capacity Building grant-financial capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants) •Item E2 – TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants) ◦Straw Poll: Support for both Items E1 & E2. All Council Members present were in favor of the poll •Item I1 – Council Added Item – Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($TBD) ◦Andrew Johnston explained the use of the previously allocated funds ($500K) and the newly proposed funds, noting expenses would be tracked, as well as time and funds expended throughout various departments of the City and reported back to the Council ◦Straw Poll: Support for $1M for sanctioned camping (various funding options), to be placed into a holding account subject to Council approval. All Council Members present were in favor of the poll •Item D5 – General Obligation Series 2023 Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP Fund) ◦Straw Poll: Support for funding all proposed projects. All Council Members present were in favor of the poll. ◦Jorge Chamorro spoke to the FTE position that had not yet been filled and clarified that the Senior Project Manager (Engineering Division) position was still needed but required reclassification to reflect the role of construction management   8.Ordinance: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Nonprofit Passthrough Assistance Grant Awards ~ 5:20 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit passthrough assistance grant awards from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. The grant funds would be MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7 passed through the nonprofits to the local small businesses and artists that are the ultimate beneficiaries. Applicants must meet eligibility and compliance standards per federal ARPA guidance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023   Ben Luedtke provided an introduction to the proposed ordinance, detailing the current funding request for seven applicants as well as the scoring process for each applicant/application, and noted the policy questions for the Council’s consideration. Todd Andersen provided information regarding: •Applicant scoring and awarding details •Reasoning for why only $500K was requested for this proposal •Details of the phasing of distributing ARPA funding (Phase I vs. Phase II) Council Members expressed concern and frustration regarding the length of time it had taken to disperse the ARPA funding, the funding disbursement phasing, and the excessive amount of administrative time taken to release the funds. Lorena Riffo- Jenson explained that Phase II of the small businesses had been completed and was awaiting the Council’s approval and review of the non-profits that served small businesses and noted that the Community Recovery Committee had just completed their work for Phase II for small businesses. Jacob Maxwell added that it was noted during the previous briefing that the impulse to create a Phase II was due to an equity best practice of launching the program, providing awareness of the program, thus providing additional time and opportunities for businesses to apply, noting at the time there seemed to be Council support for the phasing. Council Member Petro requested more information as to the prompt to which the applicants responded and which components of the organizations applying matched the criteria/which ones did not.   9.Ordinance: Establishing The Justice Court as a Third Branch of Government ~ 5:40 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would establish the Justice Court as a third branch of government in Salt Lake City. In May 2023 a new law went into effect which provides that a justice court must be independent from other branches of municipal government and may not be treated as part of the executive or legislative branches of government in a City. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - TBD Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD   Katie Lewis, Rachel Otto, and Judge Jojo Liu provided information regarding: •Overview of the proposed ordinance •Details of House Bill HB210 – passed in the 2023 Legislative Session, codified in Utah Code 78A •Justice Court’s personnel to remain Salt Lake City employees •The ordinance establishes that the presiding judge and Justice Court Judges would appoint the Justice Court Administrator who would have the authority to manage all of the City employees and operations of the Justice Court •The proposed ordinance included a mission statement/purpose of the Justice Court •Utah Law having required that Justice Court Judges were paid at a minimum 70% and maximum of 90% of what District Court Judges were paid, and this proposed ordinance proposes that Justice Court Judges would be paid at 90% •The ordinance sets forth rules of the court and establishes the general rules of the Court Administrator – overall, the purpose and parameters for the leadership and operations of this new branch of government •The proposed ordinance contained a reporting provision – on an annual basis, the presiding judge would provide a report in a public meeting to the City Council and Mayor regarding operations, rules, and objectives as well as a public hearing   10.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Caitlin Tursic ~ 6:00 p.m.  5 min The Council will interview Caitlin Tursic prior to considering appointment to the Arts Council Board for a term ending September 19, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9 Interview held. Council Member Mano said Caitlin Tursic’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.   Standing Items   11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair   Report of Chair and Vice Chair.    Item not held.   12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -  - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.    Item not held.   13.Tentative Closed Session -  - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10 f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.    Item not held.     MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11 Meeting adjourned at: 6:00 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 3, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Lorena Riffo Jenson – Economic Development Director, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Tammy Hunsaker – Deputy Director of Community Services, Roberta Reichgelt – Business Development Director, Weston Clark – Mayor's Senior Advisor, Xris Macias – Language Access Coordinator, Michelle Mooney – Equity Manager, Ashley Lichtle – Community Liaison, Lex Traughber – Senior Planner, John Anderson – Planning Manager, Grant Amann – Associate Planner, Andrew Hulka – Principal Planner, Greg Cleary – City Budget Director The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Weston Clark provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Planning ◦ Transmitted projects ◾Reorganization of Local Historic District Chapter ◾Landscape Chapter Update ◦ Planning Commission ◾Adaptive Reuse Ordinance – September 27, 2023 ◾Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map – October 11, 2023 ◾Subdivision Code Updates – October 11, 2023 ◾Community Benefit Requirements – October 11, 2023 • Transportation ◦ Capitol Hill Traffic Calming ◾Working with community to improve project • Public Lands ◦ Glendale Regional Park Playground ◾Pickleball ◦ Making the Emerald Ribbon ◾Dinner Party – October 18, 2023 from 5:00pm to 7:00pm ◦ Allen Park ◾Phase 2 – active • Public Utilities ◦ City Creek Water Treatment Upgrade ◾November 1, 2023 kick off • Mayor’s Office Community Office hours and locations • October Events ◦ Renter Resource Night – October 4, 2023 at Marmalade Library MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2 ◦ IRC’s Spice Kitchen Incubator Discover Food Festival – October 7, 2023 – 200 East between Library and City Hall ◦ Resource Fair – October 13, 2023 at Pioneer Park Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Resource Center utilization data • Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation locations • Resource Fair to be held Friday, October 13, 2023 at Pioneer Park with My Hometown Chili Dog BBQ providing food Council Members and Andrew Johnston discussed: • The Huntsman Mental Health Facility would be offering beds for unhoused individuals with mental health needs • Thanked staff for working on the community outreach event held October 2, 2023 2.Informational: Equity Update ~ 2:15 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3 Xris Macias presented the language access update including: • 28 Language Liaisons • 24 Workshop Sessions of which 11 are completed and 8 more are scheduled for October • Training Material content Council Members and Xris Maxias discussed: • Who attended the workshops and if the sessions were recorded Michelle Mooney reported on the Eradicate Hate Global Summit. Council Members and Michelle Mooney discussed: • The way people are treating each other, especially immigrants and people of color • Hate Crime brochures available for communities Ashley Lichtle reported on the Disability Community Forum that will be held on October 26, 2023, from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm at Marmalade Library (280 West 500 North Salt Lake City). Council Members and Ashley Lichtle discussed: • Thanked staff for all their hard work on helping people in the community and representing Salt Lake City. 3.Ordinance: Rezone at 2157 South Lincoln Street ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street from RB (Residential/Business District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). This proposal would facilitate the redevelopment of this, and the adjacent parcels into a multi-family residential project. The property is currently occupied by a Victorian home used as an office building. Under the proposal, the home would be preserved and used as part of the project. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Mark Isaac, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 4 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the request to amend the zoning map for the approximately 0.7-acre parcel at 2157 South Lincoln Street in City Council District Seven from its current RB (Residential/Business District) zoning designation to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). Lex Traughber presented the request highlighting • Preservation of the Victorian home on the property • Increasing the width of the sidewalk eliminating the park strip • Planning Commission’s positive recommendation for the request • Site maps of the property and surrounding area Council Members and Lex Traughber discussed: • The recommendation to remove the park strip, widen the sidewalk and what it would look like if approved • What would happen to the proposal if the Council choose to not adopt the sidewalk condition • If the current design allowed for affordable housing • Parking requirements • Preservation of the historic home and if it would benefit the development agreement to require the home to be designated on the National Historical Registry Mark Isaac (property owner’s representative) reviewed: • Historic home was being remodeled/restored and used as the community facility for the development • Designating the home as historical would cause issues for ADA access to the upper floors of the building • Why the building had not been previously designated historic • The request to widen the sidewalk and where it would and would not improve the project regarding ADA access • Exhibits of the pros and cons to sidewalk size would be provided at the public hearing, for the Council to review prior to making a decision Council Members, Brian Fullmer, Lex Traughber and Mark Isaac discussed: • Electric vehicle (EV) station requirements • Parking for all modes of transportation • Current bike storage requirements • Concerns with EV stations and the way it would be metered • How preservation was defined in a development agreement and how to ensure the next owner did not change what was agreed on ◦ The development agreement would stay with the land • Whether or not to require ten foot sidewalks MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5 Edith Avenue 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at 116 East Edith Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to CC (Corridor Commercial District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Community Commercial. The proposed amendments would allow for further commercial and multi- family development of the site and would make the property consistent with the adjacent property that shares the same owner. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Ian Kaplan of ADDVirtue, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6 4.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 116 East ~ 2:55 p.m. Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the request to amend the zoning map for property at 116 East Edith Avenue (approximately 1200 South) in City Council District Five from its current R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning designation to CC (Corridor Commercial) and noted the proposal called for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from the current Low-Density Residential designation to “Community Commercial”, the current R-1/5,000 and CC zoning allowed buildings up to 28 feet and 30 feet respectively and an additional 15 feet of height (45 feet total) could be approved in the CC zoning district through the design review process. Grant Amann presented the request highlighting: • Project request • Property size • Current and surrounding zoning • Required landscape buffer • Currently no development proposal had been submitted • Public response to the project • Zoning district comparison • Planning Commission’s negative recommendation Iqbal Sial (Applicant) reviewed/stated: • History of purchasing the properly and its use as a car lot • Was not aware it was residential use upon purchase • Would like to make the zoning commercial to match the current use • Access to the property from Edith Avenue • Property would be maintained and kept in good repair Council Members, Grant Amann, John Anderson, Brian Fullmer, and Iqbal Sial discussed: • No house was or had been located on the lot • Tax records showed it was used as commercial property • Planning Staff’s positive recommendation to the Planning Commission and why the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation • Use of the property for large truck rental ◦ Commercial vehicles would not be stored on the street • Edith Avenue access would not be used 5.Ordinance: Text Amendment Related to Maximum Height in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District ~ 3:15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend Section 21A.28.020 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to maximum height in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The proposed amendment would allow bulk material storage MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7 structures up to 150 feet in height to be built west of 5600 West, between 100 feet and 1000 feet south of Interstate 80. Petitioner: The Salt Lake Garfield and Western Railway Company FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the proposal initiated by the Salt Lake Garfield and Western Railway Company to amend the zoning ordinance related to maximum height in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District, noting the proposal would allow bulk material storage structures associated with a railroad freight terminal up to 150 feet high to be constructed west of 5600 West, and within the area between 100 feet and 1,000 feet south of Interstate 80, in the Utah Inland Port jurisdiction. Andrew Hulka presented the request including: • Summary and recommendation • Planning Commission having forwarded a positive recommendation • Location and spacing in relation to height, neighboring buildings, and storage structures Council Members, Brian Fullmer, Nick Norris and Andrew Hulka discussed: • Where zoning currently allowed bulk material storage structures • The current allowable height for bulk material storage structures versus the request • What would be stored in the structures and the requirements for hazardous materials ◦ State regulations would determine the regulations that would be followed for hazardous materials • Reasoning for the height of the storage structures • Reasoning for the 100 foot to 1000 foot buffer south of I-80 • Coming changes to the rail yards and how this proposal would benefit the changes 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8 of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Ben Luedtke presented the budget amendment including: • Items discussed at previous meetings regarding the budget request • Council Member Young’s request for an amendment to the funding for Re- Imagining Neighborhood parks, shifting funding from the McClelland trail to lighting and safety improvements for Fairmont Park ◦ Council Member Young reviewed the need to address the time sensitive issue of safety at Fairmont Park and asked the Council to support the change in funding ◦ Council Members stated they did not have any concerns over redirecting the funding • Transmittal indicated there was an increase of eight full time employees (FTE’s) ◦ Five of the eight FTEs were being requested in Items A-1 & E-3 - State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant for FY2024 ($3,107,201) •A-1: 50% Cost Share for a New FTE Community Development Grant Specialist in the Housing Stability Division (Budget Neutral – Shifting $44,620 in the General Fund from Street Ambassador Program to New FTE) •A-2: U.S. Treasury Emergency Rent Assistance Program Funding ($2,339,009 to Misc. Grants Fund) •A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Donation from Utah Jazz ($100,000 to CIP Fund) •A-4: Rescope Miller Park Trail ADA Access Improvements and Historic Structure Preservation (Budget Neutral in the CIP Fund) •A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division (Transfer $543,144 and four FTEs from the Engineering Division) •A-6: New FTE Senior Community Programs Manager (Budget Neutral – Shifting $113,798 from County Contract for Sorenson Center Services to New Position) •A-7: New FTE Economic Development Project Manager to Facilitate Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) ($128,000 from General Fund Balance) •G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1 million from Misc. Grants) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9 •G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($50,000 from Misc. Grants) •G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) •G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) •G-5: Backman Community Open Space ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) •G-6: Utah Office for Victims of Crime – VOCA Misc Grants ($92,846 from Misc. Grants) •G-7: YouthCity Summer Food Service Program - Utah State Board of Education ($11,000 from Misc. Grants) Council Members, Ben Luedtke, Tammy Hunsaker, Roberta Reichgelt, Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Andrew Johnston, Mary Beth Thompson and Greg Cleary discussed: • Proposed Grant Manager position, how the position would be funded if the grant was not awarded, position workload, funding, and how funding was divided between divisions • Funding for police services around homeless resource centers, how to ensure the officers assigned to the homeless centers stayed in those areas • Working with other cities to capture funding for homeless center mitigation and lobbying the Legislature to assist with this process • Item A4 -Rescope of Miller Park ◦ Council Member Dugan reviewed the meetings held with Parks Departments regarding the rescope, stated he would like to discuss this with the project team and return with more clarity on the request prior to Council approval • FTE request for Public Services, the workflow they would cover and if transferring the positions would leave a gap in the Engineering Department • Funding for the Sorenson Unity Center programs and how the funding was divided between the City and the County • The process of creating a Special Assessment Area (SAA) • Item A7 and reasoning why was this coming to the Council now and not when the budget was being reviewed • Workload for the FTE managing SAAs • How many staff persons were currently working on SAAs • Reviewing SAAs to ensure they were properly working and benefiting the communities they served • If the SAA could reimburse the City for the creation of an SAA • Administrative fees included in the SAA that would compensate City staffing use • Could an SAA be leveraged to get a community benefit from the programs such as jobs ◦ Could be researched further • Expanding the language in the SAA FTE job description to include working with business districts Straw Poll Support for funding item G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1 million from Misc. Grants). All present Council Members were in favor. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10 7.Informational: UDOT Interstate 15 Study Follow-up: Potential Widening and Interchange Improvements ~ 4:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) about an environmental study on the Interstate 15 corridor between 400 South in Salt Lake City and the US-89 interchange in Farmington. The study aims to provide solutions to improve safety and mobility for all users, meet future demand, and replace aging infrastructure while better connecting communities. The study examines issues and needs, proposes potential solutions, evaluates their environmental impacts, and ultimately recommends a preferred option. For more information visit https://i15eis.udot.utah.gov/. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 and October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Brandon Weston (UDOT Environmental Director), Shane Marshall (Consultant Project Manager), Siobhan Locke (Public Involvement Specialist), and Mike Romero (UDOT Project Director) presented the draft I-15 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Release Update highlighting: • I-15 EIS • Draft EIS Release – i15eis.udot.utah.gov • Public Comment • Quality of Life – better mobility, good health, connected communities, and strong economy • Other Improvements • I-15 EIS assumes all other projects in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan are successfully implemented • Plan includes over 53 planned projects and improvements for all modes within the study area • Aging Infrastructure • Existing travel times and what would happen if improvements were not made to I- 15 • Addressing the existing shape curves • Interchange needs and options • Limited connections • Study purpose and need • I-15 Mainline alternatives and travel times • Proposed walking and biking improvements • Local area working groups MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11 • Alternative Open Houses • Efforts to reduce barriers • Alternatives Screening process – public input • Draft EIS public meetings and comment period • Public comments Council Members, Brandon Weston, Shane Marshall, Siobhan Locke, and Mike Romero discussed/stated: • How the plan incorporated public input • Other options to improve transportation that did not include increasing the size of I-15 • The sacrifice the residents would be making in terms of health and wellbeing with the construction of the expansion • If changes to I-15 would happen regardless of what the public wanted • The timeline of the expansion and other projects • Accident rate decreases and other potential improvements with the expansion • How the operations of the proposed interchanges would impact I-15 • Would the interchanges be enough to improve the traffic flow without expanding I- 15 ◦ No, the traffic from the interchanges would back up onto I-15 • Most of the widening would take place in the existing footprint • No homes would be lost in Salt Lake City with the expansion • The current wall on the east side could be reconstructed but would not be moved • On the west side, except around 500 North, there would be a small portion of property encumbered into the project • Residents should not have to leave their homes but they could choose to do so during construction • Topics the public could comment on that would still make an impact to the project • Public trust was needed and the plan needed to reflect the public’s input to increase trust • The Council requested a report of the comments from the public to show how the comments were incorporated in the plan and what could be done in the future to address concerns ◦ Consultant was currently working with NeighborWorks on this documentation • Need to protect homes/properties and determine how this project benefited the community • Important to maintain the underpasses and other areas where the community would be impacted • Potential art installations included in the project ◦ Would be determined after the proposal was approved for construction MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 12 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 13 8.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 p.m. 20 min. 9.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives Follow-up ~ 4:40 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Nick Tarbet reviewed the purpose and history of the discussion and what was being done in each program to address the concerns of the Council. Council Members, Nick Norris, and Nick Tarbet discussed: • If additional staff would be needed for affordable housing projects • Time saving ways to allow affordable housing projects to move through the approval process as fast as possible • Addressing the prioritization between Thriving in Place and the Affordable Housing plans • Different areas where housing was being addressed within the City • If the plan was creating an issue for projects to move forward and reach full potential ◦ The plans were meant to incorporate and optimize all of the aspects of housing not create issues • Was everything premised on 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or were there other opportunities for deeply affordable housing • Outlining the incentives in the Affordable Housing Plan regarding for sale housing • Affordable home ownership AMI percentages versus multi-family or rentals • The City’s process for addressing construction outside of the permit and the enforcement options • Development requirements and setbacks in different zones, where the plan proposed changes and how it would affect surrounding neighbors • When reducing initial checks for these proposals, if something was violated down the road, and how would the City address it • What could property owners do outside of a City fine to help remedy potential issues • Incentives to build affordable housing in single family homes • The options for qualifying for incentives in Type B and Type C zones, the number of units accommodated in each zone and why for sale units were not included in Type C • Extending the for sale provisions to for sale units in the code • Provisions that allowed for income averaging to allow for more people to qualify for affordable housing • The number of stories required in a development and if a maximum ceiling height should be added to the language • Staff asked the Council to send any questions prior to the item being listed on a future agenda MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 14 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Thriving in Place plan as part of the City’s general plan. Thriving in Place is the City's proposed anti-displacement and mitigation plan, developed with public engagement and feedback from experts and community organizations. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/thrivinginplace. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Allison Rowland stated the purpose for the discussion was for the Council to determine whether the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place, was ready for adoption, noting the aim of the plan was to identify policy measures that could help current residents remain in Salt Lake City during this period of rapid growth and change. (For additional information, see the September 12, 2023, Staff Report in the meeting materials). Council Members and Allison Rowland discussed/stated: • Options for obtaining new funding sources for housing • The funding request being appropriate as housing stability needed to be addressed • The goals outlined in the plan should be adopted and then funding could be addressed down the road • Concern over where the resources were coming from to address all needs of the programs • Creation of a high level timeline to assist the Council in making decision on priority issues • The plan was a road map moving in the right direction and the first three steps were vital to moving forward • Using existing programs such as the Good Landlord and Tenants Assistance to improve services • Using remaining funds from the Tenant Assistance programs to fund other areas MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 15 10.Ordinance: The Anti-Gentrification and -Displacement Plan, Thriving in Place Follow-up ~ 5:25 p.m. Park. The proposed amendment would add language to keep Madsen Park at its current location and would also reimagine and improve the park. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 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 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11.Ordinance: North Temple Boulevard General Plan Amendment to Not Relocate Madsen Park Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan to remove a recommendation to relocate Madsen Written briefing only. Kathryn Carlisle-Kesling 12.Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee –~ 6:10 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Kathryn Carlisle-Kesling prior to considering appointment to the Cultural Core Finance Committee for a term ending October 3, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Kathryn Carlisle-Kesling’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 16 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Helen Langan’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 14.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Josh Stewart ~ 6:20 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Josh Stewart prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 17 13.Board Appointment: Utah Performing Arts Center Agency – Helen Langan ~ 6:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Helen Langan prior to considering appointment to the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency Board for a term ending October 3, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Josh Stewart’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report 16.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. No report 17.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; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 19 f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Closed Session started at 6:39 pm Held in the Work Session Room Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Dugan, Petro, Mano, Wharton, Young and Puy. City Staff in Attendance: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Lindsey Nikola, Katherine Lewis, Katie Nichols, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Nick Tarbet, Ben Luedtke, Whitney Gonzalez-Fernandez, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 6:58 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Wharton to exit Closed Session. AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young ABSENT: Ana Valdemoros Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 20 Meeting adjourned at 6:58 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 21 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Mary Beth Thompson – Chief Financial Officer, Bill Wyatt – Executive Director of Airports, Ashley Cleveland – Mayor's Senior Advisor, Tammy Hunsaker – Deputy Director of Community Services, Diana Martinez – Senior Planner - Community & Neighborhoods, Brooke Olson – Principal City Planner, John Anderson – Planning Manager, Tony Milner – Director of Housing & Neighborhood Development, Heather Royall – Deputy Director Housing & Neighborhood Development, Brady Fredrickson – Director of Airport Planning & Capital Programming, Laura Briefer – Director of Public Utilities The meeting was called to order at 2:23 pm   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:30 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.      Ashley Cleveland and Andrew Johnston gave the following updates: •Arts Council called for artists to participate in City Programs •The I-15 Environmental Impact Statement available for the public •Community office hours and events •Homelessness Update ◦Homeless Resource Center Utilization and Capacities ◦Resource Fair was held Friday, October 13, 2023, at Pioneer Park ◦State Request for Purchasing closed and State decision being made ◦Outreach Centers 2.Informational: Initial Discussion of Legislative Intents for Fiscal Year 2023-24 ~ 2:45 p.m.  40 min. The Council will hold the first of three planned briefings on its Legislative Intent statements for Fiscal Year 2023-24. Legislative Intents are formal requests the Council makes of the Administration that are adopted along with the annual budget. This briefing will consist of conversations with the Administration designed to exchange any preliminary information and feedback needed to clarify each Intent. In addition, the Council will review and consider any staff recommendations for closing some previous years’ intents.      Allison Rowland gave the following updates on the Legislative Intent Statement, (see staff report, attachment number two for the full list of intents): •Intents Adopted in the 20023-2024 Budget •Airport Legislative Intents ◦The department was asked to submit a written plan on air quality and transit investment •Attorneys Office Legislative Intents ◦Pay Compensation, City Code Review •Community and Neighborhoods Zoning Intents ◦Trips to Transit intent to expand the program •Finance Department Intents •Public Services Intents •Mayors Office Intents ◦Apprenticeship Incentive Program Intents •Public Lands Intents •Public Services Intents ◦Hiring a new Full Time Safety and Security Manager MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2 •Council Led Intents Bill Wyatt and Brady Fredrickson presented the following regarding the Airport Intents: •Additional public transit bus routes to and from the airport for employees •Free Fair Months and other incentives to get more people out of single-rider cars •Grant for electric buses/subway system in the airport John Larson gave the following updates on the Trips to Transit Legislative Intent: •Only 1% of rides were not fulfilled •Expansion to different zones and neighborhoods needs more time to review and discuss •Timeline to roll out to different districts was 1-2 years •Request for funding at the next budget discussion •Revisit in 2025 for funding Laura Briefer gave an update regarding the water usage report was upcoming and would be made public. Council Members requested the following: •Running list of the Legislative Intents that need to be addressed in the upcoming weeks. •Trips to Transit updates on the timeline of Intent •Cost analysis on the Boarded Business Intent 3.Resolution: Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds ~ 3:25 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about substantial amendments to the City’s five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The amendments to recognize the funding and eligible uses are necessary for compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs. This is a follow-up from prior Council briefings about how to use unallocated housing program income.      Ben Luedkte, Tammy Hunsaker, Tony Milner, and Heather Royall presented the following; •HUD Program Income •HUD Timeline deadlines need to be reviewed •Restricted Funds •Accumulated funding sources •$6.4 million approved in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget to go into the RDA NOFA Project for development plus an additional $463,696.23 received •$5.6 million for the acquisition of property for future housing development •$250,000 for Westside Improvements •$250,000 for Facade Program AKA Neighborhood Business Improvement Program MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3 •$10 million for RDA NOFA program •$3 million for Housing Development around the Ballpark Area •Council to set a date for Public Hearing, adopt a resolution and submit amendments to HUD, at which time HUD has 30 days to approve the amendments 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 3:45 p.m.  20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.2 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.      Ben Luedtke and Mary Beth Thompson presented the following: •Item A8 – one-time transfer of remaining cash balances •Love Your Neighbor – staffing was grant-funded but is now reliant on funding from the City Budget •City Pay Plan needed to match other plans in the City and Intents •Accounting change for RDA – annual fund transfer from RDA back into the Grant Account •Sanctioned Camping funding account transfer of $1 million from canceled development escrow grant •Creation of a new department and move 4 Public Land Architects and a new Division Director ◦Tyler Murdock from Public Lands explained the need to figure out how to compensate the individual if the position became appointed Council Member Wharton requested a meeting to understand the need for the new position and structural changes. 5.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street ~ 4:05 p.m  20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4 the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC      Brian Fullmer, Brooke Olson, and John Anderson presented the following: •Ballpark Station Area Plan •Jefferson Park Mixed Use Area vs rezone proposal •Future Land Use Description ◦Uses and Density •Compatibility with Adjacent Properties concerns •Public Input – over 20 emails and several calls opposing the master plan •Commission recommended denial of the zoning map and master plan amendments – did not align with the area Jordan Atkin (applicant representative TAG) spoke on the properties in the application proposed for rezoning to a mixed-used area. Council Member Mano expressed concern with the proposed amendment so soon after the Master Plan was approved with unanimous support from the community. 6.Tentative Break ~ 4:25 p.m  20 min.      7.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple ~ 4:45 p.m.  15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time, however the applicant may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Larsen Sequist      Brian Fullmer and Diana Martinez presented the following; •Rezone from R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed-Use) ◦Subject properties are approximately 0.48 acres ◦Property was located in the Ballpark Area but not included in the Ballpark Plan Area ◦Under R-MU-45 zoning will require at least 20% of the lot area to be maintained as an open space MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5 Lars Sequist (applicant) gave a presentation on the reasons for the rezoning request highlighting consistency with the adjacent zoning regulations: •Fairly large and underutilized properties •Other adjacent properties were not following current zoning regulations Council Member Mano and Diana Martinez discussed the adjacent zoning laws and regulations of building setbacks from the street. Council Member Valdemoros entered the meeting during this discussion. 8.Informational: Housing Report from the Gardner Policy Institute ~ 5:00 p.m.  60 min. The Council will have a presentation and discussion with James Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow at the Gardner Policy Institute, on their Housing Market Report, released in September.      James (Jim) Wood (Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow at Gardner Policy Institute) presented a report on housing and discussed the following: •Current decrease in building permits issued for Residential Units in Utah •Utah housing shortage – new households would outnumber new housing units being built •Housing affordability continues to prevent homeownership opportunities for many households •Salt Lake City's Median sales price is $522,700 and ranks 27 in the highest price •Median Middle as Measure of Affordability ◦Median price of a home divided by the median household income •Housing situation was not sustainable •Best practices of local municipalities to address housing affordability ◦Land use regulations determine effectiveness ◦Preservation of affordability ◦RDA’s and Tax Increment Financing ◦Leadership and Political Will ◦Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) •Wage increases are starting to slow •Mortgage rates remain high at 7.5% and up •No recession in Utah •Many sectors would see a modest slowdown in economic growth and activity over the next 12 months •Home building drops to 22,750 in 2023, a 24% drop. A modest recovery in 2024 Council Member Petro requested a map depicting wage growth for the City. 9.Dinner Break ~ 6:00 p.m.  30 min.      10.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives Follow-up ~ 6:30 p.m.  30 min. th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 6 The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives.      Council Member Dugan read a statement regarding concerns from the community and residents on homeownership/wealth building as a priority of the city and other information. (See meeting materials for the attached statement.) Council Members and Nick Tarbet discussed the following: •Traffic safety •Keeping low-income housing once it passed to the next resident by deed restrictions •Incentivizing homeownership •Perpetual housing •Making moderate increases to density in neighborhoods ◦Council would like additional information on this topic forwarded to them •Avenues and the successful and unique zoning situation and how to replicate that throughout the city •There was a big investment in the Budget just passed towards more compliance Council Member Wharton thanked Council Member Dugan for bringing up the concerns of the residents around the City. Nick Tarbet made a statement regarding the team and their efforts in the enforcement of affordable housing regulations and requested more appreciation towards them. 11.Resolution: Certification of Downtown Plan Written Briefing  - The Council will receive a written briefing about certifying the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for 13 TRAX and Frontrunner stations in the downtown area. Certification is necessary to be in compliance with recent state law requirements for municipalities to have station area plans for all fixed rail transit stations within their boundaries or within a half mile of City limits.      Written briefing no discussion held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 7 Standing Items   12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair   Report of Chair and Vice Chair.    No report.   13.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.    Cindy Gust-Jenson gave the following updates: •The Board of Canvassers will be held on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 4 p.m. •Will need a majority present to vote either in Zoom or in Person   14.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. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8 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.    Meeting adjourned at 7:24 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, October 10, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203.   MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, October 3, 2023.  The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Brian Fullmer – Public Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Stephanie Elliott – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany –  Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst  The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Sarah Young will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of June 12, 2023 and July 13, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of July 11, 2023; July 13, 2023; July 18, 2023 and August 8, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to approve work session minutes of June 12, 2023 and July 13, 2023 as well as the formal meeting minutes of July 11, 2023; July 13, 2023; July 18, 2023 and August 8, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. Council Member Young welcomed guests from the Indigenous Community and the Council took a photo with the group.  Council Member Puy read the Resolution 26 of 2023 regarding Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. Council Member Valdemoros took a point of privilege to thank the Indigenous community for the poncho gift. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Petro, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 26 of 2023 with Mayor Mendenhall declaring the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day in Salt Lake City. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 6.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring November as Native American Heritage Month in Salt Lake City. Council member Young read the Resolution 27 of 2023 declaring November as Native American Heritage Month in Salt Lake City. Council Member Puy took a point of privilege to thank the Indigenous Community for the gift of the Poncho and thanked them for their presence in Salt Lake City. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2 adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 27 of 2023 with Mayor Mendenhall declaring November as Native American Heritage Month in Salt Lake City. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 – B3 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: Marathon Community Investment Grant - Fire-Swift Water Rescue The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Fire Department to the Marathon Community Investment Program. If awarded, the grant would fund two Ice Suits and two Water Rescue Dry Suits.  FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a    Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. See item B3 for minutes.  2. Grant Application: 2024 Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Allocation Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Fire Department to the Utah Department of Health and Human Services. If awarded, the grant would fund medical supplies for the Fire Department.  FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a    Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3 agenda. See item B3 for minutes.  3. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-Represented Employees.   For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Sylvia Richards and Ben Luedtke gave a brief introduction to items B1, B2, and B3. Janet Hemming expressed the need for the money to be used for Miller Park and the trail restoration. Tom Lund expressed the need to use the Capitol Improvement Plan (CIP) money to restore the upper trail in the Miller Park area and urged the Council to review the engineering report. Steve Long stated the need to have the money used for its original intent and re-install the lower trail in Miller Park. Lisa Long expressed disregard for the safety in Miller Park and the trail needs to be moved back to its original location next to the stream. Kristina Robb stated the need to support the Emergency Medical Support (EMS) members in ice and swift water rescue for the Salt Lake City Area and thanked the Council for working through the Special Assessment Districts along the 900 South corridor. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 4 Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Petro to close the public hearing and refer the budget amendment and two grants to a future date for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1435 South State Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2), amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/1435SouthStateRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Brian Fullmer gave a brief introduction to the Rezone and Master Plan Amendment. Joe Gallegos stated concerns about the development construction not being separated from his property, creating parking issues, and suggested parking permits. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5 5. Ordinance: The Anti-Gentrification and -Displacement Plan, Thriving in Place The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the Thriving in Place plan as part of the City’s general plan. Thriving in Place is the City's proposed anti-displacement and mitigation plan, developed with public engagement and feedback from experts and community organizations. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/thrivinginplace. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Allison Rowland introduced the “Thriving in Place” Plan regarding the Anti- Gentrification and Displacement Plan. Cindy Cromer thanked the Council for doing a great job with the Thriving in Place plan and the help it will have in the community. Todd McMullin stated the dire need to engage the community with the homeless to create a better situation for all. Kristina Robb thanked the Council and City for putting together a plan that will help the community. Jason Wessel commended the team and Council for their work on the Thriving in Place Plan. Monica Hilding stated their concern for the plan not having enough support to enforce the laws and regulations.  Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to close the public hearing and defer action to a later date. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 6 NONE. D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Council Member Valdemoros asked Mayor Mendenhall to talk about the development agreement that was signed regarding the “Other Side Village". The Mayor thanked the Council for their work and stated that the Other Side Village was moving forward. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)   Bernie Hart thanked the Council for the work being done in the City and expressed more need for community involvement. Kristina Robb spoke in support of the zoning changes to bring in higher-density zoning in certain residential areas that already allow for it. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Residential Parking Permit Program Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Section 12.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow the transportation director to waive the minimum requirement of eight standard block faces for establishing a parking permit area. The waiver is proposed to be limited to areas where parking impacts are created by a hospital or medical building, a university or college building, or a TRAX station. The proposed text changes could allow for the creation of a residential parking permit program in the Central Ninth neighborhood. The standard process for creating a residential parking permit area would still need to be followed including petitions, a parking study, ballot, public hearing, and multiple public notices. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 7 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 51 of 2023 Residential Parking Permit Program Amendment, amending Section 12.64.040 of Salt Lake City Code related to criteria for the Parking Permit Program. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano thanked Central 9  Community Council for all the hard work to get to this point in the ordinance. 2. Ordinance: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Nonprofit Passthrough Assistance Grant Awards The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit passthrough assistance grant awards from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. The grant funds would be passed through the nonprofits to the local small businesses and artists that are the ultimate beneficiaries. Applicants must meet eligibility and compliance standards per federal ARPA guidance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Council Member Petro disclosed that they were on the organizing committee for the Suazo Business Centers’ 20th Gala and stated they are no longer with the entity and will not be benefiting from any of these grants. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 52 of 2023 approving the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Nonprofit Passthrough Assistance Grant Awards as shown in the Exhibit B Funding Log. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 8 G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD    Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 East 900 South The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner greater flexibility in housing types if the property were to be redeveloped. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioners: Tina and Evan Jenkins. Petition No.PLNPCM2022-01120 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Text Amendment Related to Maximum Height in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Section 21A.28.020 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to maximum height in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The proposed amendment would allow bulk material storage structures up to 150 feet in height to be built west of 5600 West, between 100 feet and 1000 feet south of Interstate 80. Petitioner: The Salt Lake Garfield and Western Railway Company. Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00282 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Kathryn Carlisle- Kesling The Council will consider approving the appointment of Kathryn Carlisle-Kesling to the Cultural Core Finance Committee for a term ending October 3, 2027.  FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Utah Performing Arts Center Agency – Helen Langan MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10 The Council will consider approving the appointment of Helen Langan to the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency Board for a term ending October 3, 2027.  FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6. Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Josh Stewart The Council will consider approving the appointment of Josh Stewart to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026.  FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7. Board Reappointment: Transportation Advisory Board Reappointment: Jim Espeland The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Jim Espeland to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11 8. Term Correction: Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Turner Bitton The Council will consider approving a term correction for the reappointment of Turner Bitton to the Planning Commission for a term ending September 5, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. 9. Term Correction: Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Carlos Santos-Rivera The Council will consider approving a term correction for the appointment of Carlos Santos-Rivera to the Planning Commission for a term ending September 5, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023    Staff Recommendation - Approve. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Puy to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Alejandro Puy, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 12 Meeting adjourned at: 7:58 pm Minutes Approved:  _______________________________  City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________  City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely.    This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, October 3, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 3, 2023 13 JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING WORLD AIDS DAY 2023 IN SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, according to estimates from the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, there are now more than 39 million people throughout the world living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); of these, 51% are women and girls; 1.5 million are children; 1.3 million new infections occurred among adults and children in 2023 alone; and WHEREAS, in Utah, HIV incidence has not seen a significant decrease in new HIV infections when other metropolitan areas have; and WHEREAS, in Utah, the rate of new HIV diagnoses with stage 3 infections has not decreased in the last five years; and WHEREAS, up to 85 percent of people living with HIV in Utah reside along the Wasatch Front; and WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that HIV-related stigma has a significant negative impact on people living with HIV, increases new infections, and delays people seeking testing for HIV; and WHEREAS, stigma, shame, and fear make people less likely to discuss their sexual health with doctors and often lead to delays in seeking testing or treatment for sexually transmitted infections and HIV, which can have serious long-term health consequences; and WHEREAS, people with HIV who take HIV medicine as prescribed maintain and keep an undetectable viral load, can live long and healthy lives, and will not transmit HIV to an HIV-negative partner; and WHEREAS, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a daily regimen of two oral antiretroviral drugs in a single pill, has proven to be highly effective in preventing HIV infection for individuals at high risk, reducing the risk of acquiring HIV from sex by about 99 percent; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City supports the efforts of the Utah AIDS Foundation in its mission to provide support to people living with HIV/AIDS and prevention services for those at risk for HIV. Salt Lake City also supports the important work of the Salt Lake County Health Department Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Clinic, which provides testing for HIV at no cost; and WHEREAS, the elimination of stigma in Utah will lead to better physical and mental health outcomes for people living with HIV, increased HIV disclosure, increased HIV testing and decreased HIV infections; and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day was established in 1988 and is observed each year on December 1 to provide an opportunity for individuals and communities to take action and help educate for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has joined other cities around the world in an effort to increase awareness, reduce stigma, provide education about HIV/AIDS and demonstrate compassion for those affected by HIV. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City hereby recognize December 1, 2023, as World AIDS Day in Salt Lake City and encourage all residents to unite together in the fight against HIV/AIDS, reduce the stigma of HIV/AIDS, and support those who are living with or have been affected by HIV/AIDS. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Salt Lake City urges the FDA to rescind its recommendation that blood donation centers turn away donors in the LGBTQ community based solely on sexual history since, according to the CDC, all blood for transfusion is tested for evidence of certain infectious disease pathogens such as HIV. Adopted this _____ day of November 2023 __________________________ _____________________________ Erin Mendenhall Darin Mano, Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member, District Five __________________________ ____________________________ Victoria Petro, Vice Chair Alejandro Puy Salt Lake City Council Member, District One Salt Lake City Council Member, District Two ______________________________ ________________________________ Chris Wharton Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council Member, District Three Salt Lake City Council Member, District Four __________________________ _____________________________ Dan Dugan Sarah Young Salt Lake City Council Member, District Six Salt Lake City Council Member, District Seven Item B1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Subdivision Code Amendments PLNPCM2023-00494 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Subdivision Code Amendments PLNPCM2023-00494 BRIEFING UPDATE The City Planning Director briefed the Council on proposed changes to City code related to subdivisions. These changes are intended to streamline the process and would bring the City into uniformity with State code changes, and include the following: •Reorganizes City code into a more logical order, •Updates application requirements, •Minor modifications of design standards to align with City goals and master plans, •Changes or eliminates outdated standards, •Clarifies existing regulations. Changes made by the Utah State Legislature this year set “shot clocks” mandating review timelines and processes for some subdivisions. These include: •Applications must be reviewed for completeness within 15 days of submission, •No more than four review cycles, each of which must be completed within 20 days, •After the fourth review, the City must accept the proposal, •Once the application complies with all standards, a subdivision must be approved. Planning discussed the City process for subdivision approval. It was noted that a public hearing is not a required step in the process. The Planning Commission reviewed a total of 119 subdivision applications in 2022. Requiring a public hearing would result in a 46% increase in the Planning Commission’s workload. In response to a Council Member question, Planning said state law does not allow the City to request that Salt Lake County withhold recording subdivisions until provided notice they were approved by the City. Item Schedule: Briefing: November 7, 2023 Set Date: November 7, 2023 Public Hearing: November 14, 2023 Potential Action: December 5, 2023 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 17, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Subdivision Code Amendments (petition PLNPCM2023-00494) STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director at nick.norris@slcgov.com or 801-535-6173 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission adopted a motion that recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposal is an update to the city’s subdivision code. The subdivision code establishes regulations related to the division of land, how lots and parcels can be altered and combined, and how streets are dedicated. A subdivision is a technical type of review that results in the layout of lots, the location of streets, and the construction of public improvements. A public improvement is any sort of public infrastructure that is required to be built as part of a subdivision of land. This includes streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, storm drains, street lighting, and street trees. These are all installed and paid for by the subdivider and turned over, or dedicated, to the city once the improvements are completed. Under Utah Law, subdivisions are required to be approved if adopted standards are complied with. The proposed subdivision chapter establishes the standards either directly in the code or by adopting construction standards by reference. The code includes a long list of information that must be shown on a plat, in public improvement construction agreements, or in supplementary documents that are the responsibility of the applicant to provide. The city departments use this information to determine if standards are complied with. rachel otto (Oct 17, 2023 11:37 MDT)10/17/2023 10/17/2023 This proposal replaces the existing subdivision code in Chapter 20 of the City Code of Ordinances. Most of the requirements are in the existing code, but the chapter is being reorganized so the changes are shown as new. The proposed code is in Attachment A. The version in attachment A is the legislative version that is prepared for the city council. The version that was presented to the commission and the public included footnotes that indicate sections that are new and changes that have been made based on the review done by various city departments. A link to that version can be found in attachment C. The proposed code is organized into the following sections: • 20.02: Title, Authority, Purpose, and Applicability o This establishes the legal purpose for the chapter, why the city has adopted the regulations, and how the regulations apply. • 20.04 Decision Making Bodies o This describes the roles and powers of the different city departments and individuals who are involved in any of the processes identified within the chapter. • 20.10 Application Requirements o This is a list of all the items that an applicant must submit for the specific type of application. • 20.12 Public Improvement Requirements and Agreements o This chapter identifies all the public improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, trees, and other infrastructure) that are necessary to serve the subdivision. It also outlines the agreements between the city and the developer installing the infrastructure to ensure it is installed according to adopted standards. • 20.14 Public Hearing and Notice Requirements o This chapter identifies the noticing requirements for each type of application and the way applications are approved. Please note, that public hearings are only required if the Utah Code requires a public hearing or if the application includes a planned development (or other zoning application) that requires a public hearing. • 20.16 Preliminary and Final Plats o This outlines the process for reviewing and approving subdivisions. It is typically a two-step process, one process for preliminary plats and one process for final plats. The state code mandates a certain number of review cycles for subdivision improvement plans, which in Salt Lake City occurs during the final plat process. • 20.18 Lot and Parcel Line Adjustments o This outlines the process for reviewing and approving changes to a property line. • 20.20 Lot and Parcel Consolidations o This outlines the process for combining adjoining properties. • 20.22 Street Dedication Plats o This is a rarely used process for creating new streets when a subdivision plat is not otherwise required. • 20.26 Subdivision Standards o This is a list of standards that must be included and implemented by the applicant. • 20.30 Appeals o The appeals chapter outlines the process for appealing a final decision related to a subdivision application. • 20.40 Enforcement o Establishes the process for enforcing violations of the subdivision chapter. • 20.50 Definitions o The definitions are used to administer and interpret the subdivision code. The Planning Commission held a briefing on August 23, 2023, and a public hearing on October 11, 2023. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved a motion that recommended that the city council adopt the proposal. The motion included giving planning staff the ability to modify some sections of the code prior to transmitting the proposal to the council. Those modifications included clarifying how specific regulations in the subdivision code that refer to other zoning districts apply. After the staff report was published, a few sections of the code that reference specific categories of zoning districts did not include all zoning districts. The modifications included: • Clarifying that any reference to an underlying zoning district also included any underlying overlay district; and • Clarifying which sidewalk widths apply to which types of zoning districts (these are existing standards but did not include references to all zoning districts which would have resulted in sidewalks not being required). These changes have been made to the version of the ordinance attached to this transmittal. PUBLIC PROCESS: This proposal is subject to the required 45-day public input period required by City Code 2.60 because it is a code amendment that impacts the process for someone to obtain a permit or license (subdivision application approval). The 45-day public input process started on August 8, 2023, and ended on September 22, 2023. All registered, recognized organizations receive an email notice of the proposal, the public input period, a summary of the proposal, and instructions regarding how to access project-specific information on the Planning Division website. In addition, the same information was emailed to the Planning Division’s email list which contains email addresses for people, businesses, and organizations that have requested to receive information regarding land use and zoning applications. The Planning Commission held a briefing on the proposed changes on August 23, 2023. The briefing was a public meeting, open to the public, and broadcast on SLCTV and on the city’s YouTube live channel. The briefing was advertised by posting the agenda as required by the Utah State Code and City Code and emailed to those on the Planning Division email list. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2023. The public hearing was posted as required by the Utah State Code and City Code. Utah State Code 10-9a-602 requires specific noticing requirements for adopting amendments to the city’s subdivision code. The specific noticing requirements are identified as a class B Notice. A class B notice for a city the size of Salt Lake City requires the following for noticing the first public hearing on a text amendment: • Posting a notice on the Utah Public Notice Website; • Posting a notice on the city’s website; • Posting a notice in a public location within the city that is reasonably likely to be seen by residents of the municipality. To comply with this requirement, notice was posted within three city libraries: the Main Library, Anderson Branch, and Glendale Branch. One written comment was submitted prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing. That written comment was submitted 15 minutes before the start of the public hearing. It was not included in the staff report for the commission due to the date and time it was submitted, but it was provided to the commissioners and summarized by staff during the presentation of the proposal. Planning Commission Briefing Records a) PC Agenda of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report for August 23, 2023 (Click to Access Report) Planning Commission Public Hearing Records a) PC Agenda of October 11, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 11, 2023 (Due to the time frame required by Utah Code for adoption, this link is to the general PC agenda page. For minutes, follow the link and scroll down to the October 11, 2023 page. The minutes were not available at time of transmittal) c) Planning Commission Staff Report for October 11, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Public Comment Received After Publishing of PC Staff Report 1. Chronology June 20, 2023 Petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall. June 22, 2023 Petition routed to city departments for review. . July 17, 2023 Department review comments due. August 8, 2023 45-day public input period started. August 23, 2023 Planning Commission briefing held. September 22, 2023 45-day public input period ended. September 28, 2023 Public Notice for planning commission public hearing sent and posted. October 11, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing held. 2. City Council Public Hearing Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00494 Subdivision Code Updates. The changes are necessary to bring the city's subdivision regulations into compliance with recent state code changes that require cities to update their codes by February 1, 2024. This proposal reorganizes the subdivision regulations, updates application requirements, makes minor changes to subdivision approval processes, updates the standards for approval for dividing land and modifying lots and parcels, updates the subdivision standards to align with city goals identified in the city's general plan, and makes changes necessary to align with state code mandates for review times and review processes. 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. DATE: October 17, 2023, at 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Roon 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** 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, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including Zoom 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 Nick Norris at 801-535-6173 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at nick.norris@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00494. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801- 535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition 4. Public Comment Received After Publishing PC Staff Report SHCC Letter to PC Subdivision Text Amendments www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1 October 11, 2023 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCM2023-00494Text Amendment Subdivision Code The Subdivision Code Revision was necessitated by changes in Utah State Code and Salt Lake City is using this opportunity to enact further revisions. There are some proposed changes that are concerning, such as: 1. Proposed subdivisions, lot line, or parcel lot line adjustments and consolidations are deemed to be administrative processes to be decided by the Planning Director or designee. While changing more and more processes formerly requiring some form of public input into administrative decisions does cut down on the time and effort by the Planning Commission, it removes valuable public oversight. It is a dangerous precedent and can lead to outcomes that are sometimes contrary to the intent of zoning such as that promoting a more pedestrian friendly environment. For example, the recent decision by the Planning Director for the sidewalk widths in the 2157 S Lincoln project shows why this is a bad idea. The disregard for the hard-fought for new sidewalk widths in the new zoning was extremely discouraging and disappointing to those who worked so hard to try to make SLC more walkable. 2. There are no public hearings required for proposed subdivisions, lot line or parcel line adjustments or consolidations. While this is current practice and “public notice " is required, which is entirely inadequate, and "public input " is allowed, this is not enough public oversight for people who live in the neighborhood. We should want more public engagement not less. 3. State mandated review times mean some projects will " go to the head of the line ". While this is probably unavoidable, it is nonetheless not an optimal situation. We ask that you approve this text amendment after the text is modified as described above. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (An ordinance repealing and replacing all text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to subdivisions and condominiums) An ordinance repealing and replacing all text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the regulation of subdivisions and condominiums pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00494. WHEREAS, on October 11, 2023, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00494) to repeal and replace all of the text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to subdivisions and condominiums; and WHEREAS, at its October 11, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Repealing and replacing the text, tables, and illustrations of Salt Lake City Code Title 20. That Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code (Subdivisions and Condominiums) as it appears up to the time of adoption and publication of this ordinance, including all text, tables, and illustrations, is hereby repealed in its entirety and is hereby replaced with the following text, tables, and illustrations: 2 TITLE 20 SUBDIVISIONS Title, Authority, Purpose, and Applicability 20.02 Decision Making Bodies 20.04 Application Requirements 20.10 Public Improvement Requirements and Agreements 20.12 Public Hearing and Notice Requirements 20.14 Preliminary and Final Plats 20.16 Lot and Parcel Line Adjustments 20.18 Lot and Parcel Consolidations 20.20 Street Dedication Plats 20.22 Subdivision Standards 20.26 Appeals 20.30 Enforcement 20.40 Definitions 20.50 CHAPTER 20.02 TITLE, PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, AND APPLICABILITY 20.02.010: TITLE: This title shall be known and cited as TITLE 20, SUBDIVISIONS ORDINANCE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. 20.02.020: AUTHORITY: This title is enacted pursuant to Chapter 10-9a and Title 57 of the Utah Code, or their successors. This title is further enacted as an implementation element of the adopted Salt Lake City general plan and the components of the adopted general plan for Salt Lake City. 20.02.030: PURPOSE: The purpose of this title, and any rules, regulations and specifications hereafter adopted, is to regulate the subdivision of land, condominiums, and adjustments to and consolidations of lots and parcels, within Salt Lake City to: A. Acknowledge property ownership rights; B. Preserve and enhance the health, safety, welfare, and amenities of the community; and C. Implement the adopted general plan. 3 20.02.040: APPLICABILITY: This title shall apply to all properties in the city where the owner of the property or authorized agent of the property intends to: A. Divide land within the city. B. Amend or modify any existing subdivision within the city. C. Create, modify, or dissolve any condominium within the city. D. Modify any property line between adjacent properties. E. Consolidate any number of existing lots or parcels with other lots or parcels. F. Exceptions: This title is not applicable to properties owned by the federal government or State of Utah or other entity that is exempt from local land use regulations applicable to subdividing, amending, modifying, or consolidating land. 20.02.040: INTERPRETATION: The regulations contained in this title shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the following rules: A. Minimum Requirements: All regulations shall be construed as the minimum requirements necessary to promote the public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the city. B. Relationship to Easements, Covenants and Other Agreements: The provisions of this title are not intended to interfere with, abrogate or require enforcement by the city of any legally enforceable easements, covenants, or other agreements between private parties that may restrict the use of land or dimensions of structures more than the provisions of this title. When the regulations of this title impose greater restrictions than are imposed by such easements, covenants, or other agreements between parties, or than are required by laws or other applicable ordinances, the provisions of this title shall control. C. Number: A word importing the singular number may be applied to plural persons and things. The use of the plural number shall include any single person or thing. D. Tense: The present tense of a word includes the future tense as well. E. Shall, May: The word “shall” is mandatory; the word “may” is permissive. F. Computation of Time: The time within which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first and including the last day. If the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal 4 holiday recognized by the city, that day shall be excluded. Deadlines shall be interpreted to be 11:59 p.m. on the date listed. G. Year: The word “year” shall mean any consecutive 12 month period unless otherwise indicated. H. The numbered sections of this title shall be referred to as follows: 1. Title shall be the first two numbers followed by a decimal point. 2. Chapter refers to the two numbers that follow the first decimal point. 3. Section refers to the three numbers that follow the chapter numbers and separated from the chapter with a decimal point. I. Conflicts with State or Federal Code: Whenever this code conflicts with a state or federal requirement, the state or federal requirement shall take precedence. J. Any reference to an underlying zoning district shall also include any applicable overlay zoning district identified in Title 21A. 20.02.050: AMENDMENTS TO TITLE: Any amendment to this title shall follow the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-9a Part 6, the requirements of Chapter 2.60 and the noticing requirements in this title for public hearings. CHAPTER 20.04 DECISION MAKING BODIES SECTION: 20.04.010: Summary of Authority 20.04.020: City Council 20.04.030: Mayor 20.04.040: Planning Commission 20.04.050: Other City Officials 20.04.010: SUMMARY OF AUTHORITY: The entities described in this chapter, without limitation upon such authority as each may possess by law, have responsibility for implementing and administering this title in the manner described hereto. 5 20.04.020: CITY COUNCIL: The city council shall have the authority for the following actions described in this title, subject to the processes, standards, and factors identified hereto: A. Initiating amendments to the text of this title. B. Final approval of amendments to the text of this title. C. Final decision authority for subdivision amendments involving closure, vacation (in whole or in part), alteration, amendment, or dedication of public right of way or public easements. 20.04.030: MAYOR: The mayor, or the mayor’s designee, shall have the authority for the following action described in this title, subject to the processes, standards, and factors identified hereto: A. Initiating amendments to the text of this title. B. Final approval of final subdivision plats or other recordable instruments evidencing any action under this title. C. Acceptance of lands and public improvements that may be proposed for dedication. 20.04.040: PLANNING COMMISSION: The planning commission, or designee, shall have the authority for the following actions described in this title, subject to the processes, standards, and factors identified hereto: A. Initiate amendments to the text of this title. B. Recommend amendments to the text of this title to the city council. C. Provide a recommendation to the city council on subdivision amendments where the city council has final authority to decide on a proposed amendment. D. Final approval authority on applications required by this title that specify the planning commission is the approval authority, when the planning director defers final authority to the planning commission, or when associated with a planned development as defined in Title 21A. 6 20.04.050: OTHER CITY OFFICIALS: This title shall be administered by city staff as indicated in this section. The specific position listed may designate another employee to fulfill the roles and authority granted within this chapter. Each city position, when specifically authorized by this title, shall have the authority to administer and interpret this title as indicated in the various chapters found within this title and as listed in this section. A. City Attorney: The city attorney shall be responsible for reporting to the mayor as to the form of the final plat or other recordable instruments evidencing any action under this title. The city attorney shall certify that any lands dedicated to the public are dedicated in fee simple and that the person or persons subdividing and dedicating the land are the owners of record. B. City Engineer: The city engineer shall coordinate final approval authority over all subdivision improvement plans with other city departments, inspect all public improvements in coordination with the director of public utilities, administer any assurance devices related to the installation of public infrastructure, and enforce the provisions of this title as the subdivision is developed. C. Director of Public Utilities: The public utility director shall have final approval authority over all subdivision improvement plans involving utility infrastructure administered by the department, inspect all public utility installations in coordination with the city engineer, administer any agreements between a subdivider and the city related to the department, and enforce the provisions of this title related to public utilities as needed. D. Planning Director: The planning director has the responsibility to process and decide any application required by this title. The planning director shall also interpret this title as it is administered. E. Building Official: the building official has the authority to review applications related to condominiums as provided in this title. F. Transportation Director: the transportation director has the authority as indicated in this title. G. Any of the above city officials may seek advice, input, and recommendations from other city personnel not listed in this section at their discretion to ensure compliance with this title. CHAPTER 20.10 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 20.10.010: Application Required 20.10.020: Fees 20.10.030: Complete Application 7 20.10.040: Submittal Requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Applications 20.10.050: Submittal Requirements for Final Plats and Other Recordable Instruments 20.10.060: Submittal Requirements for Lot and Parcel Line Adjustments 20.10.070: Submittal Requirements for Lot and Parcel Consolidations 20.10.080: Submittal Requirements for Street Dedication Plats 20.10.010: APPLICATION REQUIRED: Any proposal that is authorized by this title is required to submit an application, provided by the zoning administrator, to the city. The application shall include all information required by this title. 20.10.020: FEES: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The subdivider shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by this title, in accordance with the consolidated fee schedule, including costs of mailing, preparation of mailing labels and all other costs relating to notification. Plan review fees required for public utility requirements and any public improvements shall be required to pay a separate fee when the fee is listed on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 20.10.030: COMPLETE APPLICATION: An application required under this title will be considered complete when a completed application form is submitted, all submittal requirements have been provided, and all required fees paid. An application will not be processed until it is complete as required in this section. A substantive review of a complete application will start after the application is considered complete. The substantive review may identify missing or incorrect information necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for responding to requests for missing and to correct information as necessary for the city to verify compliance with the requirements of this title. A. Subdivisions that include single family, two family, and single family attached uses: A subdivision that includes single family, two family, or single family attached uses shall be reviewed for completeness as specific in Utah Code Section10-9a-604.2 or its successor. B. All other subdivisions: All other subdivisions shall be reviewed for completeness within 30 days of the subdivider submitting the application and paying the required fees. C. Incomplete Applications: It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to ensure that all applications are completed in full, include all submittal requirements required by this section, and pay all required applications fees. A subdivider who fails to provide all the required information that is necessary to start a comprehensive, substantive review of the 8 application will be provided with one written notice of missing submittal requirements. The notice shall itemize each item that is missing, including the citation from this code and provide a deadline of 30 days to provide the missing information. A subdivider that fails to submit the information or that fails to negotiate a different deadline to submit the information, may be considered withdrawn and closed. 20.10.040: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONS: An application for a preliminary subdivision shall include all information listed in this section. The preliminary subdivision application is required for all new subdivisions, subdivision amendments, and condominiums, including new condominiums, conversions of existing buildings to condominiums, and modifications to an existing condominium. A. Required forms as provided by the planning director; B. All applicable fees; C. The name and address of the subdivider, if different than the recorded owner, there shall be a statement from the recorded owner authorizing the subdivider to act on the owner’s behalf; D. The name, address, phone number, email, of the person and organization preparing the subdivision documents; E. A preliminary plat map that includes: 1. A name that is not a duplicate of any other subdivision in the city or county. Plat maps that are amending an existing subdivision shall include in the name of the original subdivision with the term “amendment” and a number indicating the next number of amendment that is proposed. Example: “Subdivision X, Amendment 1” or “Subdivision X, Amending Lot Y”; 2. The names and addresses of the record of owner or owners. Each name shall match with the names that appear on the title report for the property; 3. The date the preliminary plat map was prepared; 4. A written and graphic scale that is adequate to be able to determine compliance with all applicable subdivision and zoning standards; 5. A description that defines the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; 6. The location, names, and existing widths and grades of adjacent streets; 7. The location, name, widths, and grades of all proposed streets. All street names must be approved by Salt Lake County prior to preliminary plat application being submitted. If a street is a numbered road, such as 100 South Street, it must be approved by the city engineer. To receive a name, a private street must be labeled as such on the plat. A street name will not be provided for cross access easements; 8. The names of adjacent subdivisions and the names of owners of adjacent land that is not within a recorded subdivision; 9 9. Elevation contours at one-foot intervals, for predominant ground slopes within the subdivision between level and 5%, and five-foot contours for predominant ground slopes within the subdivisions over 5%. Such contours shall be based on the Salt Lake City datum. The elevation shall reference an existing benchmark or street monument set by the surveyor provided the elevation is provided and it is consistent with the vertical datum designation shown; 10. A statement about the present zoning and proposed use of the property; 11. Any proposed public areas; 12. Any proposed lands to be retained in private ownership for common use by the owners of property within the subdivision. When a subdivision contains such lands, the subdivider shall submit, with the preliminary plat, the name, and articles of incorporation of the owner or organization empowered to own, maintain, and pay taxes on such lands; 13. The approximate radius of each curve; 14. The approximate layout and dimensions of each lot; 15. The area of each lot in square feet; 16. A statement of the water source; 17. A statement of provisions for sewerage and sewage disposal; 18. All required or needed major storm drain facilities. This may be provided in public improvement plans submitted with a final plat; 19. Any existing or proposed dedications, easements, and deed restrictions; 20. If the development contains lots that are units, the boundaries of such units shall be shown on the preliminary plat; 21. A slope classification map that indicates slopes more than 30% (three feet of rise for every ten horizontal feet) demarcated with a cross hatch and labeled as undevelopable when located in a foothill zoning district; 22. Any required setback or no build area from any water body when required by the adopted general plan or Title 21A Zoning; 23. The area of all blocks within the subdivision; 24. Demonstrate that the subdivision complies with all applicable subdivision design standards found in Chapter 20.26 Subdivision Standards and any requests for a modification to a subdivision design standard; 25. Identification of any adjacent parcels or lots that abut the subdivision, including providing parcel or lot boundaries, tax identification numbers, and addresses; and 26. Identification of any special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance (100 Year) flood based on the most recent FEMA FIRM panel. F. Supplementary documents that include: 1. A grading plan, showing by appropriate graphic means the proposed grading of the subdivision including existing and proposed contours and finished floor elevations of all buildings; 2. The approximate location of all isolated trees with a trunk diameter of four inches or greater, within the boundaries of the subdivision, and the outlines of wooded areas; 10 3. The approximate boundaries of areas subject to inundation or stormwater overflow, and the location, width, and direction of flow of all watercourses. This may be provided in public improvement plans submitted with a final plat; 4. The approximate widths, locations, and uses of all existing or proposed easements for drainage, sewerage, and public utilities; 5. The existing use or uses of the property, and the outline of any existing buildings and their locations in relation to existing or proposed street and lot lines, drawn to scale; 6. The locations, names, widths, approximate grades and a typical cross section of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other improvements of the proposed street and access easements, including proposed locations of all underground utilities. This may be provided in public improvement plans submitted with a final plat; 7. The location of any of the foregoing improvements which may require to be constructed beyond the boundaries of the subdivision shall be shown on the subdivision plat or on the vicinity map as appropriate. This may be provided in public improvement plans submitted with a final plat; 8. A phase one environmental site assessment report to identify the presence of any harmful, dangerous, or hazardous material or pollutant that may be present on any land within a subdivision that is intended to be dedicated to the public. This is not required if there is no land dedication within the boundaries of the subdivision; and 9. If the subdivision includes slopes over 30% or is in a fault rupture zone, a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by a civil engineer specializing in soil mechanics and registered by the State of Utah, based upon adequate test borings or excavations shall be submitted. If the preliminary soil report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils, or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, a soil investigation of each lot in the subdivision may be required. The soil investigation shall recommend corrective action intended to prevent structural damage. This may be required to be submitted after the application is considered complete as part of the substantive review of the application or as a condition of preliminary approval; G. If the preliminary plat map is for a condominium, the following information must be provided: 1. A condominium declaration and plat that complies with applicable Utah Code Chapter 57-8 Condominium Ownership Act or its successor. The declaration shall also include: a. A statement that the homeowners’ association may regulate, limit, or prohibit rentals of condominium units; b. A statement that the homeowners’ association may require the rental of condominium units to be conducted through the homeowners’ association or a designated management company, and may require that all lease agreements be reviewed and approved by the homeowners’ association or the management company, that any tenants be screened and approved by the homeowners’ association or the management company prior to renting the condominium, and 11 that the approval of the homeowners’ association or the management company shall not be unreasonably withheld; c. A statement that prior to renting any condominium unit, the condominium owner and the tenant shall execute a written lease agreement which shall include the following provisions: (1) The tenant shall agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of the condominium declaration and bylaws; (2) The tenant shall agree not to allow or commit any nuisance, waste, unlawful or illegal act upon the premises; and (3) The owner and the tenant shall acknowledge that the homeowners’ association is an intended third-party beneficiary of the lease agreement, that the homeowners’ association shall have the right to enforce compliance with the condominium declaration and bylaws and to abate any nuisance, waste, unlawful or illegal activity upon the premises; and that the homeowners’ association shall be entitled to exercise all the owner’s rights and remedies under the lease agreement to do so; d. A statement requiring that prior to a tenant’s occupancy of a condominium unit, the condominium owner must provide to the homeowners’ association the name, address and telephone number of the tenant and a copy of the written lease agreement; e. A statement that the homeowners’ association shall have the right and the obligation to enforce compliance with the condominium declaration and bylaws against any owner and/or occupant of any condominium unit and shall have all rights and remedies available under state or local law, in addition to its rights and remedies as a third-party beneficiary under any lease agreement, to enforce such compliance; f. A statement that the maintenance of the shared utilities and other shared infrastructure is the responsibility of the homeowner’s association; and g. Each condominium unit must be identified by a number in numerical order; 2. If the proposed condominium is converting an existing building, the following additional info is required: a. A property report must be prepared consistent with the requirements of Section 18.32.050 of this code (adopted building code appendix; nonconforming building conversion), and submitted as part of the application, together with a plan for proposed improvements, renovations, or repairs to existing structures/facility; b. Proof of notice to occupants shall be required before final approval. The notice shall include the estimated purchase price of the units, and information regarding proposed improvements. The notice shall describe any financing packages or economic incentives being offered to tenants to assist in unit purchase. The notice shall also include a date occupants must vacate or purchase, said date shall be no earlier than 90 days after service of the notice. Relocation information for the tenants, specifying available housing relocation resource agencies, and a plan of 12 any services to be voluntarily provided by the owner/developer, shall be included in the notice; and c. The preliminary plat map shall include all information required by Utah Code Section 57-8-13 or its successor; and H. If the application is a subdivision amendment, the following shall be provided in addition to the previous listed items for preliminary plat: 1. A name that is not a duplicate of any other subdivision in the city or county. Plat maps that are amending an existing subdivision shall include in the name of the original subdivision with the term “amendment” and a number indicating the next number of amendment that is proposed. Example: “Subdivision X, Amendment 1” or “Subdivision X, Amending Lot Y”; 2. The boundaries of the proposed subdivision amendment and the total number of lots being proposed because of the amendment; 3. Identification of the lots that are subject to the amendment; 4. If the amendment includes land that is outside of the existing boundary of the subdivision, a new description of the boundary, the legal descriptions of the land that is proposed to be added to the subdivision, the number, size, and dimensions of all lots subject to the proposed amendment; 5. The signature of all owners within the subdivision indicating consent to the proposed subdivision. If not all owners have consented, a list of recorded names of the owners who have not consented to the subdivision amendment; and 6. If the amendment includes an alteration to a public street, alley or other right of way or an alteration to any public easement or note on the plat that grants any public interest, consent from the entity that has a right to the street, easement, or note that the subdivider may proceed with the proposed amendment. In addition, the application shall include the following information about any alterations: a. The legal description of the public street, alley or other right of way or easement or note as it currently exists and how it would be described if the amendment were to be approved; b. Appropriate infrastructure plans for the modification of any public street, alley, or other right of way. This may be provided in public improvement plans submitted with a final plat; and c. If required, a draft written agreement to purchase the entirety or portion of any street, alley, or right of way or any public easement that is proposed to be amended by the subdivision. 20.10.050: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLATS AND OTHER RECORDABLE INSTRUMENTS: An application for a final plat shall include all information provided in this section. The final plat application is required for all new subdivisions, subdivision amendments, and condominiums, including new condominiums, conversions of existing buildings to 13 condominiums, and modifications to an existing condominium. All final plat documents shall be consistent with the preliminary approval and reflect any conditions of approval. If a final plat is not required, the application shall include all information provided for in the applicable section below. A. Submission Requirements for Final Plat: 1. At the time a final plat of a subdivision is submitted to the planning director, the subdivider shall submit therewith the following documents: a. The final plat shall be accompanied by a current property title report naming the persons whose consent is necessary for the preparation and recordation of such plat and for dedication of the streets, alleys and other public places shown on the plat, and certifying that as of the date of the preparation of the report, the persons therein named are all the persons necessary to give clear title to such subdivision; b. If a preliminary soil report was required for the preliminary plat review, a copy of that report shall be included with the final plat. The fact that a soil report has been prepared shall be noted on the final plat and the report shall be recorded as a supporting document with the plat; c. Environmental site assessments and remediation, if remediation was needed, as specified in Subsection 20.26.060.B. d. The public improvement plans, agreement and bonds specified in Chapter 20.12 of this title, or successor sections; and e. Copies of all proposed deed restrictions. 2. Preparation and Materials on Final Plat: A digital final plat shall be submitted by the subdivider with the attributes listed below and that includes all the following information: a. 24 inches x 36 inches in size with a minimum of ½ inch margins from the edge of the sheet; b. The map shall be oriented with north or east at the top of the sheet, whichever orientation best accommodates the proposed subdivision; c. A north arrow, with all labels and descriptions oriented with the north direction; d. The actual plat drawing shall be made on a scale large enough to clearly show all details, and the workmanship on the finished drawing shall be neat, clear, and readable. The preferred scales are one-inch equals twenty feet (1” = 20’) or one- inch equals thirty feet (1” = 30’), but in no cases shall the scale be smaller than one-inch equals one hundred feet (1” = 100’); e. The location of the subdivision within the city shall be shown by a small-scale vicinity map inset on the title sheet; f. The title of each sheet of such final plat shall consist of the approved name of the subdivision at the top center and lower right-hand corner of the sheet, followed by the words “Salt Lake City”. Plats filed for the purpose of showing land previously subdivided as acreage shall be conspicuously marked with the words “Reversion to Acreage”; 14 g. An accurate and complete boundary survey to second order accuracy shall be made of the land to be subdivided. A traverse of the exterior boundaries of the tract, and of each block, when computed from field measurements on the ground, shall close within a tolerance of one foot to 15,000’ of perimeter; h. The final plat shall show all survey and mathematical information and data necessary to locate all monuments and to locate and retrace all interior and exterior boundary lines appearing thereon, including bearing and distance of straight lines, and central angle, radius, and arc length of curves. Identify the basis of bearing between two existing monuments; i. All lots, blocks, and all parcels shall be delineated and include the following information: (1) All dimensions, boundaries, size, and courses clearly shown and labeled No ditto marks shall be used for lot dimensions; (2) Lot numbers shall begin with the numeral “1” and continue consecutively throughout the subdivision with no omissions or duplications. Condominium plats may use a number, such as “101” to label individual condominium units when there are multiple buildings or floors; where the first number indicates a different building or floor within an existing building; (3) Addresses for each lot within the subdivision, assigned by the city engineer, shall be shown on the plat. Parcels offered for dedication other than for streets or easements shall be designated by letter and address; (4) All common areas shall include a unique address; (5) Sufficient linear, angular and curve data shall be shown to determine readily the bearing and length of the boundary lines of every block, lot and parcel which is a part thereof; and (6) Sheets shall be so arranged that no lot is split between two or more sheets and, wherever practicable, blocks in their entirety shall be shown on one sheet; j. The plat shall show the right of way lines of existing and new streets with the street name and number value of the street, the width of any portion being dedicated, label all streets as private or public, and widths of any existing dedications. The widths and locations of adjacent streets and other public properties within 50’ of the subdivision shall be shown. If any street in the subdivision is a continuation or an approximate continuation of an existing street, the conformity, or the amount of nonconformity of such street to such existing streets shall be accurately shown; k. All easements shall be shown by fine dashed lines. The widths of all easements and sufficient ties thereto to locate the same with respect to the subdivision shall be shown. All easements shall be clearly labeled and identified; l. If the subdivision is adjacent to a waterway or any portion of the subdivision is located in special flood hazard area, the map shall show the line of high water with a continuous line and shall also show with a fine continuous line any lots subject to inundation by a 1% chance flood, frequency flood, i.e., a flood having an average frequency of occurrence in the order of once in 100 years although the flood may occur in any year (the 100-year floodplain is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Land that is subject to any overlay district in Chapter 15 21A.34 that requires a buffer from a waterway shall be depicted on the plat where restrictions to future development apply and include appropriate notes on the plat referencing the applicable overlay district restrictions including the minimum flood elevation of all buildings; m. The plat shall show fully and clearly: (1) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, stated at each point or in legend. Monument caps set by surveyor must be stamped with L.S. number or surveyor and/or company name, and date. Drawings of brass caps, showing marked and stamped data for any existing monuments and the monuments to be set, shall be included on the plat; (2) Type of boundary markers and lot markers used; and (3) Other evidence indicating the boundaries of the subdivision as found on the site; n. The title sheet of the plat shall show the following information: (1) Name of the subdivision at the top center and lower right-hand corner of the sheet; with location indicated by quarter section, township, range, base, and meridian; (2) Number of sheets in the lower right right-hand corner; (3) Name of the engineer or surveyor with the date of the survey; (4) North direction; (5) Scale of the drawing; (6) The location of the subdivision within the city shall be shown by a small-scale vicinity map inset; and (7) Plats filed for the purpose of showing land previously subdivided as acreage shall be conspicuously marked with the words “Reversion to Acreage”; o. The following certificates, acknowledgments, and boundary descriptions: (1) Registered, professional land surveyor’s “certificate of survey” together with the surveyor’s professional stamp, signature, name, business address, and phone number; (2) Owner’s dedication certificate (with subdivision name included); (3) Notary public’s acknowledgment (with subdivision name included); (4) A boundary description of all property being subdivided, with sufficient ties to section corner, quarter corner, land corner or recorded subdivision, etc., and with reference to maps or deeds of the property as shall have been previously recorded or filed. Each reference in such description shall show a complete reference to the book and page of records of the county. The description shall also include reference to any vacated area with the vacation ordinance number indicated; (5) The tax parcel identification numbers for all existing parcels shown on the plat; and 16 (6) Such other affidavits, certificates, acknowledgments, endorsements, and notary seals as are required by law and by this chapter; p. Signature blocks for all required entities that are required to sign the recordable document shall include space for a signature and date of signing. Required signature blocks include: (1) The owners of the property to be subdivided, which shall be identical to the recorded owners of record of the property as indicated in the title report; (2) County health department; (3) Public utilities director; (4) City Engineer; (5) Planning director; (6) Building official, if the plat is a condominium; (7) City attorney; (8) Mayor; (9) City recorder; and (10) City surveyor. q. If the final plat is a condominium: the final documents required under Subsection 20.10.040.C that are updated to include any requirement or condition approved as part of the preliminary approval; and r. After review and approval by the city of the draft final plat, the subdivider shall provide the plat in a form that is acceptable to the county recorder’s office for recording the plat after the plat has all required signatures. This version shall be identical to the approved draft final plat. B. Public Improvement Plans: Construction plans and details, reports, studies, and permit applications for all required public improvements shall be provided at the time of final plat applications. Public improvement plans shall include all required information to address the requirements of Chapter 20.12 and any applicable provision of Chapter 20.26 and any other applicable section of the Salt Lake City Code of Ordinances, federal law, or Utah Code that regulate the construction or improvement of public infrastructure and improvements. C. Final Plats for Subdivision Amendments: If a final plat is a subdivision amendment, the final plat shall comply with all the requirements for final plats and include the following additional information: 1. Final condominium declaration as required under applicable Utah Codes; 2. If the amendment includes a public street: a. A binding agreement to pay the fair market value to the city for any portions of the street that are proposed to be vacated; and 17 b. The plat shall indicate how the vacated portion of a public street will be identified, whether added to an existing lot or creating a new lot if authorized by this title; and 3. A traffic impact study that provides an analysis of the impacts of closing or vacating a public street. D. Exceptions to Final Plat: If, after preliminary approval, a subdivision plat is not required as provided in this title or by Utah Code, a subdivider shall submit the following documents to record the subdivision without a plat: 1. A draft “notice of subdivision approval for ten lots or less” on a form that is provided by the planning director; 2. The legal descriptions of the existing parcels that are proposed to be subdivided; and 3. Copies of deeds that transfer the ownership of new lots that include the legal descriptions of each lot that is within the proposed subdivision. 20.10.060: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT AND PARCEL LINE ADJUSTMENTS: An application to amend a lot or parcel line shall include all the following information: A. Required forms as provided by the planning director; B. All applicable fees; C. The name and address of the subdivider, if different than the recorded owner there shall be a statement from the recorded owner authorizing the subdivider to act on the owner’s behalf; D. The name, address, phone number, email, of the person and organization preparing the subdivision documents; E. The signatures of all property owners of record whose land is involved in the adjustment; F. Digital copies of a site plan, record of survey and other items necessary for proper review as specified by the planning director. The site plan shall be verified by a Utah registered land surveyor or licensed engineer and include the following information: 1. Current lot or parcel lines; 2. Proposed adjustment(s) to the existing and adjusted lot or parcel lines; 3. Location of the home(s) and/or building(s) on the parcels involved, including accessory buildings; 4. Setbacks from all buildings to the existing and adjusted lor or parcel line(s); 5. Subdivision standards that are applicable to lot and parcel line adjustments; 18 G. A deed or other recordable instrument that will be used to execute the adjustment on a form provided by the planning director; and H. Verification that relocation of a lot or parcel line(s) will not leave in place a utility easement(s) that will impede future development. 20.10.070: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT AND PARCEL CONSOLIDATIONS: An application to combine lots or parcels shall include all the following information: A. Required forms as provided by the planning director; B. All applicable fees; C. The name and address of the property owner, if different than the recorded owner(s) there shall be a statement from the recorded owner(s) authorizing the subdivider to act on the owner’s or owners’ behalf; D. The name, address, phone number, email, of the person and organization preparing the consolidation documents; E. The signatures of all property owners of record whose land is involved in the consolidation; F. A site plan, verified by a Utah registered land surveyor depicting the following information: 1. Current lot or parcel lines; 2. Location of any home(s) and/or building(s) on the lots or parcels involved, including accessory buildings; and 3. Inclusion of all subdivision standards that are specifically applicable to consolidations; G. Verification that elimination of a lot or parcel line(s) will not leave in place any utility easement(s) that will impede future development; and H. A copy of the deed or other recordable instrument that will be used to execute the consolidation on a form provided by the planning director. The instrument shall clearly indicate that the parcels or lots are to be consolidated into one parcel or lot and one legal description. If the consolidation includes land within an existing subdivision, the name of the existing subdivision and recording reference to the subdivision plat or most recent amended plat shall be referenced and the specific lots that are intended to be consolidated identified. 19 20.10.080: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET DEDICATION PLATS: An application to dedicate a street as a public street, whether the street is proposed or existing, shall include the following information: A. Required forms as provided by the planning director; B. All applicable fees. A street dedication application shall be charged the same fee as a final plat; C. The name and address of the applicant. If different than the recorded owner there shall be a statement from the recorded owner authorizing the subdivider to act on the owner’s behalf; D. The name, address, phone number, email, of the person and organization preparing the dedication documents; E. The signatures of all property owners of record whose land is involved in the dedication; F. A draft plat that complies with all the requirements for a final plat, except those requirements pertaining to proposed lots; G. Construction plans that demonstrate compliance with all adopted and applicable standards for public streets. If the street was approved as a substandard public street as a planned development under Title 21A, the applicant shall provide evidence that the street dedication plat complies with the planned development approval; and H. If the street dedication plat is for an existing street that is not a public street, the applicant shall demonstrate all requirements and processes required by Chapter 14.54 or its successor. I. Any private utilities located in the street dedication shall meet current standards or be replaced and dedicated to Salt Lake City. CHAPTER 20.12 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND AGREEMENTS 20.12.010: Subdivision Improvement Construction Agreement Required 20.12.020: Public Improvements Required 20.12.030: Timing and Phasing of Public Improvements 20.12.040: Underground Utility Installation 20.12.050: Subdivision Improvement Construction Agreements 20.12.060: Bond and Security Requirements 20.12.070: Security Devices Securing Payment Risk 20.12.080: No Public Right of Action 20.12.090: As Built Plans Filed for Public Improvements 20 20.12.010: SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT REQUIRED: A subdivider for a subdivision that requires construction, repair, or replacement of public improvements shall be required to provide subdivision improvement plans with a final plat application. The review cycles in Utah Code Sections 10-9a-604.1 and 10-9a-604.2 or its successor shall apply. When the only public improvements required by this chapter relate to public utilities, any reference to the city engineer shall be interpreted to apply to the director of public utilities. 20.12.020: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: The subdivider shall be responsible for providing all public improvements as required by this section. Any missing or deficient public improvement identified by this section shall be brought up to current standards. A. The subdivider shall improve all streets, pedestrianways or easements in the subdivision, and adjacent streets required to serve the subdivision to the standards and specifications adopted by the city that are found in the Salt Lake City Code of Ordinances or adopted by reference. The subdivider may not begin permanent improvement work until public improvement plans and profiles have been approved by the city engineer and a subdivision improvement construction agreement has been executed between the subdivider and the city. The subdivider shall cause improvements to be installed to permanent line and grade and to the satisfaction of the city engineer, and in accordance with the standard subdivision specifications contained in Chapter 20.12 of this title. The subdivider shall pay the cost of inspection. The subdivider may request that certain public improvements be waived by the city’s complete streets committee. The complete streets committee may waive those improvements for which it has authority. B. The following are minimum improvements that the subdivider normally must agree to install at the subdivider’s cost before acceptance and approval of the final subdivision plat by the city: 1. Grading, curbs and gutter, paving, drainage, and drainage structures necessary for the proper use and drainage of streets and pedestrianways, and for the public safety; 2. Site grading and drainage, taking into consideration the drainage pattern of adjacent improved and unimproved property and treating upstream areas, where appropriate, as though fully improved. All site grading must conform to the specifications contained in Chapter 20.12 of this title; 3. All streets and pedestrianways must be graded, and surfaced to widths and grades shown on the improvement plans and profiles. The subdivider must improve the extension of all subdivision streets and pedestrianways to any intercepting or intersecting streets; 4. Sidewalks must be installed as shown on the improvement plans; 21 5. Sanitary sewer facilities connecting with the existing city sewer system must be installed to serve the subdivision, with a separate private lateral for each lot, and to grades and sizes shown on the plans; 6. Stormwater drains and detention/retention basins must be installed as shown on the plans. Long term stormwater best management practices for stormwater quality must be installed as shown on the plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). All other conditions of the SWPPP shall be completed and permits terminated; 7. Water mains and fire hydrants connecting to the water system serving the city must be installed as shown on the plans signed by the director of public utilities. Mains and individual lot services must be of sufficient size to furnish an adequate water supply for each lot or parcel in the subdivision and to provide adequate fire protection; 8. Street trees, if required, must be of a type approved by the city and planted in approved locations; 9. Street lighting facilities must be provided in accordance with city policy for the area of the city where the subdivision is located, and must be so screened as not to interfere with views from hillsides of the city; 10. All natural gas lines, and telephone, electric power, cable television or other wires or cables must be placed underground. Equipment appurtenant to the underground facilities, such as surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts may be above ground subject to compliance with Section 21A.40.160, “Ground Mounted Utility Boxes”, of this code or its successor. The subdivider shall make necessary arrangements with the utilities involved for the installation of the underground facilities. All installed utilities must meet the minimum separation requirements as shown on the plans; and 11. Provisions must be made for any railroad crossings necessary to provide access to or circulation within the proposed subdivision. C. All public improvements required by this section or provided by the subdivider must be documented in the public improvement plans that show all public improvements are constructed to comply with all applicable provisions of the Salt Lake City Code of Ordinances, referenced standards adopted by the city, and any applicable federal standard or Utah Code. All public improvements required by this section that are shown in the public improvement plans shall meet the applicable standards, which include: 1. American Public Works Association Manual of Standard Specifications and Manual of Standard Plans 2017 edition; 2. Standard Practices for Salt Lake City Public Utilities (January 2010) or its successor; 3. Any standard or reference to a standard specifically identified in the Salt Lake City Code of Ordinances; 4. Any applicable standard that has been adopted by the State of Utah; and 5. Any applicable federal standard. 22 20.12.030: TIMING AND PHASING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The subdivider may propose a timing and phasing plan for installation of public improvement that complies with this section. A. All public improvements must be installed in each respective phase of the subdivision or future subdivisions. B. All public improvements must be designed such that the first phase has the capacity to accommodate the capacity of future phases. C. The subdivider shall include a phasing plan that details how each aspect of the subdivision will be platted and subdivided and the anticipated public improvements for each phase. D. The subdivider shall provide an overall concept plan for required public improvements, indicate on the plan what public improvements will be included in each phase, and enough information to demonstrate that the capacity is sufficient for all phases of the subdivision. E. The public improvement plan must acknowledge that if a subdivision standard or public improvement requirement changes before future phases are platted or constructed, the future phases must comply with those future improvements. F. Any monument or benchmark that is disturbed or destroyed before acceptance of all improvements, must be replaced by the subdivider under the direction of the city engineer. 20.12.040: UNDERGROUND UTILITY INSTALLATION: All underground utilities including water mains and laterals, sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets or alleys must be constructed before the surfacing of such streets or alleys. Connections for all underground utilities and sanitary sewers must be laid to such length as will avert the necessity for disturbing the street or alley improvements when service connections thereto are made. 20.12.050: SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: A. Before the approval by the mayor of the final plat, and if public infrastructure improvements were conditions of preliminary approval, the subdivider shall execute and file a subdivision improvement construction agreement between the subdivider and the city, specifying the period within which the subdivider must complete all public infrastructure improvement work to the satisfaction of the city engineer, and providing that if the subdivider shall fail to complete the public improvement work within such 23 period, the city may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the subdivider’s security device. The subdivision improvement construction agreement must also provide for inspection and testing of all public infrastructure improvements and require the subdivider to pay the cost of such inspections and testing. B. The subdivision improvement construction agreement may also provide for the following: 1. Construction of the public infrastructure improvements in units or phases; or 2. An extension of time under the conditions specified in this agreement. 20.12.060: BOND AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: The subdivider shall file with the city engineer, together with the subdivision improvement construction agreement, a security device in the manner and as described in the subdivision improvement construction agreement. 20.12.070: SECURITY DEVICES SECURING PAYMENT RISK: The terms of a corporate surety payment bond held by the city as a security device together with the applicable provisions of the subdivision improvement construction agreement shall govern claims to the corporate surety by a claimant. 20.12.080: NO PUBLIC RIGHT OF ACTION: Sections 20.12.040 and 20.12.050 of this chapter shall not be construed to provide any private right of action on either tort, contract, third party contract or any other basis on behalf of any property holder in the subdivision as against the city or on the security device required under Section 20.12.050 of this chapter or its successor in the event that the public improvements are not constructed as required. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, any security device obtained pursuant to Section 20.12.050 of this chapter to secure payment obligations with respect to the public improvements shall provide a private right of action to any person, at any tier, who supplies labor, material, or equipment with respect to the public improvements. 20.12.090: AS BUILT PLANS FILED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: A complete improvement plan “as built” (a.k.a. “record documents”) shall be filed with the city engineer upon completion of said improvements. The as built plans shall be in a digital format and a minimum of 24”x36” in size. 24 CHAPTER 20.14 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS 20.14.010: Purpose 20.14.020: Public Hearing Requirements 20.14.030: Public Meeting Requirements 20.14.040: Notice of Application 20.14.050: Identifying Property Owners to be Noticed. 20.14.060: Noticing Errors 20.14.070: Subdivider Responsible for Posting of Property 20.14.080: Applications Not Requiring Public Notice 20.14.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to identify required public processes for each application that is required by this title. The intent of public notice and input is to provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the application and provide input regarding the impact of the proposed subdivision to their ability to utilize their own property. 20.14.020: PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS: Public hearings shall be held and noticed as identified in this section. A. A public hearing shall be held for the following applications required by this title: 1. Subdivision amendments that: a. Include closing or vacating, in whole or in part, a public right of way; b. Alters a public easement when the public easement restricts or prohibits development other than public utility or public walkways or trails; c. Originally were notified through a notice of application and where a property owner within the subdivision has submitted a written objection to the proposed amendment within the timeline identified on the notice of application; and d. A public hearing for a subdivision amendment shall be heard within 45 days of the application being considered complete. 2. Any application that includes an application for a planned development; and 3. Any application that includes a modification to a subdivision design standard. B. Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Any application that requires a public hearing shall be subject to the noticing requirements found in Section 21A.10.020. 25 20.14.030: PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS: The purpose of this section is to identify when a public meeting is required to be held to approve an application under this Title. A public meeting is a meeting that is open to the public to witness the discussion and decision-making process regarding an application that may be required by this title but does not include a public hearing for the application. A. A public meeting shall be held for subdivision amendments when eligible under Utah Code Section 10-9a-608 or its successor. B. Noticing Requirements for Public Meetings: Noticing requirements and notice content shall be the same as in Section 21A.10.020 of this code. C. The planning director may decide the matter during the public meeting or after the public meeting. If the decision is made after the public meeting, the planning director shall indicate the timeframe for a decision at the public meeting. 20.14.040: NOTICE OF APPLICATION: The purpose of this section is to identify the public notice process for a notice of application as required by this title. A. When authorized: Notice of application shall be provided for the following applications that may be required by this title: 1. Preliminary subdivisions that do not require a public hearing or public meeting; 2. Subdivision amendments that include the signatures of all property owners; and 3. Street dedication plats. B. Noticing Requirements: 1. A notice of application shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property subject to the application. If the application is for a subdivision amendment, the notice of application shall be mailed to all owners of property within the existing subdivision in addition to the property owners within 300 feet of the properties subject to the subdivision amendment. The notice shall provide at least 12 days for public comment to be submitted to the city before a decision is rendered on the application. 2. A notice of application shall be sent to all entities as required in Utah Code Sections 10-9a-206, 10-9a-207, 10-9a-208, and 10-9a-603 or the successors of each section. 3. The property shall be posted with a sign advertising the public hearing. Each street frontage shall be posted with one sign that is posted within at least 10 feet of the property line along the street. C. Public Notice Content: Each public notice required under this section shall include: 26 1. The type of application that is subject to the public hearing; 2. The approximate address of the property subject to the application; 3. The date, time, and location of the public meeting, if required; 4. Information on how to attend the meeting if the meeting is an electronic meeting; and 5. Instruction on how the public may find out more information about the application and how input may be submitted. D. Timing of Notice: The notice of application shall indicate that no decision will be made within 14 days of the date of the notice. 20.14.050: IDENTIFYING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE NOTICED: All notices shall be mailed to the property owners of record identified in the city’s GIS database for parcel ownership. 20.14.060: NOTICING ERRORS: If the noticing requirements of this chapter are not complied with, the required notice shall be redone with the error corrected and the timing of the notice restarted. 20.14.070: SUBDIVIDER RESPONSIBLE FOR POSTING OF PROPERTY: The subdivider shall be responsible for any notice required by this chapter to be posted on the property. The posting shall be completed following the requirements of Subsection 21A.10.015.B.3. 20.14.080: APPLICATIONS NOT REQUIRNG PUBLIC NOTICE: The following applications are not required to provide public notice: A. Lot line or parcel line adjustments; and B. Lot or parcel consolidations. CHAPTER 20.16 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS 20.16.010: Purpose 20.16.020: When Required 27 20.16.030: Applications Entitled to Approval 20.16.030: Timing of Public Notice 20.16.040: City Review Process 20.16.050: Preliminary Approval Standards 20.16.060: Determination of Recordable Instrument 20.16.070: Final Plat Review Process 20.16.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to identify the required process and standards for reviewing and deciding applications to subdivide property. This section applies to any new or amended subdivision, condominium, or condominium conversion. 20.16.020: WHEN REQUIRED: A preliminary subdivision application is required for any proposal to create lots or parcels on any land within the city. Preliminary subdivision applications are required for new or amended subdivisions, new or amended condominiums, and condominium conversions. All preliminary subdivision applications are subject to the provisions of this chapter. 20.16.030: SUBDIVIDER ENTITLED TO APPROVAL: Any preliminary subdivision application that complies with all required standards shall be approved provided all process requirements identified in this code are followed. A preliminary subdivision that includes a planned development application shall only be approved subject to the approval of the planned development as required in Chapter 21A.55 Planned Developments. 20.16.040: PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETINGS: An application may request a pre-submittal application for the preliminary subdivision application subject to the provisions of this section in accordance with Utah Code Section 10- 9a-604.1. Feedback at the pre-submittal meeting is limited to the information provided by the applicant and is not considered binding. 20.16.040: CITY REVIEW PROCESS: A. A preliminary subdivision application shall comply with Utah Code Chapter 10-9a Part 6. Any public notice required by this Title or Utah Code Chapter 10-9a shall be started after the application is considered complete. 28 B. A subdivision application that includes closing or vacating a public street, alley, or other right of way or vacating an easement that the city has a right to shall be decided by the city council after receiving a recommendation from the planning commission. The process shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21A.10. 20.16.050: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL STANDARDS: A. Timing of Approval: At the conclusion of any review cycle where no further corrections or additional information is required, each city department shall indicate that the application is eligible for approval. If all the requirements of Chapter 20.14 have been satisfied, the application shall be approved upon finding it complies with all the applicable standards found in this section, Chapter 20.26, and applicable provisions of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. For an application that does not comply with the applicable standards in this title, and the subdivider has not responded within 90 days from the date the subdivider was provided with an itemized, written notice of any deficiency or noncompliance with the standards of this title shall be sent by the city and the application may be denied by the planning director. B. Approval Standards: 1. All preliminary subdivisions shall comply with the following standards: a. The preliminary plat map and associated documents include all information and is properly formatted as required by this title; b. The subdivision shall comply with all subdivision design standards or with approved modifications to the subdivision design standards in Chapter 20.26 of this title; c. Water supply and sewage disposal including all offsite utility improvements, required easements and infrastructure upgrades shall be satisfactory to the public utilities department director; d. The location and design of all water supply and sanitary sewer facilities are appropriately sized, connect to adequately sized infrastructure and found to be compliant with the adopted standards; e. The location and design of drainage elements to handle stormwater, ensure compliance with floodplain regulations, prevent erosion, and minimize formation of dust has been found to be compliant with adopted city standards and if applicable, Salt Lake County Flood Control and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality; f. The subdivision provides access and infrastructure necessary for firefighting equipment as required by the applicable fire code adopted by the city; g. The subdivision provides adequate easements and locations for all necessary utilities that are not provided by the city; h. All required dedications of land for streets, midblock walkways, alleys, parks, trails, and open space are provided for on the preliminary plat as indicated in the 29 adopted general plan of the city or as agreed to as part of any land use approval or development agreement. Any exactions that are not agreed to as part of a land use approval or development agreement shall be roughly proportionate and directly related to the impact of the proposed subdivision; i. The subdivision includes recommendations in the subdivider’s traffic impact study when the transportation director indicates the recommendations are required to mitigate adverse impacts; and j. The proposed subdivision will not create any injury or harm to any other property or persons. 2. Condominiums: The following additional standards shall apply to all condominium conversions preliminary subdivisions: a. The building official shall identify any improvements, repairs or replacements which must be made to bring the structure into compliance with applicable building codes prior to recording the final plat. The building official may require any existing code violations identified to be corrected prior to final approval; and b. Any existing nonconforming use or noncomplying structure that creates an immediate health or safety hazard to the public or future owners within the condominium has been brought into compliance with current standards or has been identified as a condition of approval to be addressed prior to the planning director signing the final plat. C. Effect of Approval: The effect of preliminary subdivision approval shall authorize the subdivider to prepare the final recording documents as required by this title. D. Approval Expiration: Preliminary approval shall expire 18 months from the date of preliminary approval unless a final plat has been submitted. If a final plat is not required, the required recording documents shall be submitted within 18 months from the date of preliminary approval. If the preliminary approval indicated that the subdivision will be divided into phases, the final plat for the first phase shall be submitted within 18 months. Future phases shall be subject to the phasing plan that was approved as part of the preliminary plat. 20.16.060: RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT: A. A final plat is required to be recorded for all subdivisions except those that contain fewer than 10 lots and when the subdivision of fewer than 10 lots does not include any of the following: new public improvements, dedications of land, easements, or amendments to any existing public street or alley. B. Subdivisions with fewer than 10 lots and when this title does not otherwise require a plat, may be recorded without a final plat as authorized under Utah Code Chapter 10-9a Part 6 or its successor. 30 20.16.070: FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCESS: A. After preliminary subdivision approval has been granted, the subdivider may submit all requirements for a final plat under Chapter 20.10. The final plat documents shall be consistent with the approved preliminary subdivision documents and shall be approved if it complies with applicable provisions of this title, matches the preliminary approval, includes all conditions of preliminary approval, and all applicable provisions of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. All final plat applications shall be submitted within 18 months of preliminary approval except for: 1. A subdivision that was indicated during preliminary approval to be phased; in which case the final plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan approved as part of the preliminary approval. Each phase shall require a separate final plat application; and 2. Condominiums where the subdivider desires to complete the framing of the building to ensure the interior dimensions of the condominium as shown on the final plat are consistent with the built dimensions of the building. In this case, the final plat shall be submitted within 30 days of final framing inspection. B. City Review: City review processes and timelines shall be consistent with Utah Code Chapter 10-9a, Part 6 or its successor. C. Subdivision Improvement Construction Agreement: The subdivider and the city shall finalize an agreement regarding the construction of all public improvements required or proposed as part of the subdivision. The agreement shall be finalized prior to the city engineer signing the final subdivision plat. D. The final plat to be recorded shall be on typical mylar material or the common material for plats at the time. The printing or reproduction process used shall not incur any shrinkage or distortions, and the reproduced copy furnished shall be of good quality, to true dimension, clear and readable, and in all respects comparable to the approved final plat. The mylar plat shall be signed separately by all required and authorized parties and shall contain the information set forth in this chapter. E. Prior to the filing of the final plat with the mayor, the subdivider shall file the necessary tax lien certificates and documents. CHAPTER 20.18 LOT AND PARCEL LINE ADJUSTMENTS 20.18.010: Purpose 20.18.020: Applicability 20.18.030: Standards for Lot or Parcel Line Adjustments 20.18.040: City Internal Review and Decision 31 20.18.050: Recordable Instrument 20.18.060: Expiration of Approval 20.18.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to enable lot and parcel line adjustments to be considered and approved administratively by the planning director or designee. 20.18.020: APPLICABILITY: This chapter applies to property line adjustments of existing adjoining parcels or lots that are described by either a metes and bounds description, a notice of subdivision approval, or a recorded plat. 20.18.030: STANDARDS FOR LOT OR PARCEL LINE ADJUSTMENTS: An application for a lot or parcel line adjustments shall result in lots or parcels that comply with the following standards: A. Existing structures comply with all applicable regulations in Title 21A regarding lot size, lot width, and required setbacks unless modified through a planned development or when necessary to comply with a finalized development agreement; B. The resulting lots or parcels do not alter any existing easement unless the existing easements are included in the application for an adjustment. If the easement is shown on a recorded plat and is impacted by the proposed adjustment, a subdivision amendment is required; C. The proposed adjustment does not create any new or increase the amount of noncompliance with Title 21A or does not result in a use expanding to a portion of a property where the use is not authorized in the applicable land use tables in Chapter 21A.33; D. The resulting adjustment will not result in more than one principal building on a single lot unless authorized by Title 21A; E. The resulting adjustment will not alter any public right of way; and F. The resulting adjustment will not create any new lots or parcels. G. The proposed adjustment complies with the applicable standards in Sections 20.26.070 and 20.26.080. 32 H. The proposed adjustment does not place the consolidated lot(s) into noncompliance with public utility requirements, such as meter standards, utility placement, shared facilities, and other adopted standards. 20.18.040: CITY INTERNAL REVIEW AND DECISION: The planning director shall review the application for completeness and for compliance with the standards of review for this type of application. The planning director shall forward the lot line application to the city surveyor for review of the new legal descriptions. Upon review of the application, site plan and finding that the standards of review are complied with, the planning director shall approve the lot line adjustment. If the standards of review are not complied with, the planning director shall deny the application. 20.18.050: RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT: If the lot line adjustment is approved, the planning director shall provide the subdivider with a document approving the adjustment that includes the director’s signature. The notice shall contain the descriptions of both the original parcels and the modified parcels as provided by the subdivider and approved by the city surveyor and state any conditions of approval. A document of conveyance shall be recorded by the subdivider, property owner, or their representative at the same time as the notice of approval with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office. The lot line adjustment is not valid unless the document of conveyance is recorded. 20.18.060: EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: City approval for lot or parcel line adjustment is only valid upon recording of the approved deed or other recordable instrument, and any document of approval issued by the city shall clearly indicate the same. Furthermore, city approval shall expire 180 calendar days from the date the city document was notarized unless both the city approval document and the approved recordable instrument are recorded within that time. CHAPTER 20.20 LOT AND PARCEL CONSOLIDATIONS 20.20.010: Purpose 20.20.020: Applicability 20.20.030: Standards for Lot or Parcel Consolidations 20.20.040: City Internal Review 20.20.050: Recordable Instrument 20.20.060: Expiration of Approval 33 20.20.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to allow for the consolidation of adjacent parcels and/or subdivision lots. 20.20.020: APPLICABILITY: This section applies to adjacent lots or parcels, regardless of a lot or lots being part of a previously recorded subdivision. An application to consolidate parcels is not required when specifically exempt under Utah Code Section 10-9a-523. 20.20.030: STANDARDS FOR LOT OR PARCEL CONSOLIDATIONS: For two or more adjacent lots or parcels to be consolidated into one lot, the following criteria shall be met: A. Compliance with all applicable zoning regulations including maximum lot size, if applicable; and B. A lot consolidation cannot yield two principal buildings on one lot, unless permitted in the zoning district or by an approved planned development. C. The proposed adjustment complies with the applicable standards in Sections 20.26.070 and 20.26.080. D. The proposed adjustment does not place the consolidated lot(s) into noncompliance with public utility requirements, such as meter standards, utility placement, shared facilities, and other adopted standards. 20.20.040: CITY INTERNAL REVIEW: The planning director shall review the application for completeness and for compliance with the regulations of the zoning ordinance. Upon review of the application, the planning director may either approve or deny the lot consolidation. 20.20.050: RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT: City approval of the consolidation shall be in the form of a notarized findings and order executed by the planning director and provided to the subdivider and/or owners. The findings and order shall specify, according to Section 20.20.060 of this chapter, the period after which city approval shall expire. If any portion of the consolidation includes land in a recorded 34 subdivision, the subdivision name shall be referenced in the recording document. The subdivider shall record the approved recordable instrument and the associated findings and order in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. 20.20.060: EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: City approval for lot consolidations is only valid upon recording of the approved deed or other recordable instrument, and any document of approval issued by the city shall clearly indicate the same. Furthermore, city approval shall expire 180 calendar days from the date the city document was notarized unless both the city approval document and the approved recordable instrument for transferring property are recorded within that time. CHAPTER 20.22 STREET DEDICATION PLATS 20.22.010: Purpose 20.22.020: Applicability 20.22.030: Standards 20.22.040: City Internal Review 20.22.050: Recordable Instrument 20.22.010: PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to establish a process for dedicating streets that are not already dedicated for public use and when no subdivision of land is proposed. 20.22.020: APPLICABILITY: This process may be used when: A. Additional right of way for an existing road is proposed by the adjacent landowner; B. Additional right of way for an existing road is necessary to provide adequate width for public improvements when the public improvements are required as part of a land use application authorized under Title 21A or as a condition of approval for a land use application under Title 21A. C. A public street is proposed to access property that does not currently have access to a public street; or D. When a property owner is proposing to construct a public street or portion thereof on land that is currently not part of a public street. 35 E. This process does not apply to the dedication of existing private streets unless the requirements of Chapter 14.54 have been satisfied and after the city has accepted a private street for donation to be a public street. F. A street dedication application shall be charged the same fee as a final plat. 20.22.030: STANDARDS: A street dedication plat shall be subject to the following standards: A. The proposed street to be dedicated complies with all adopted standards for public streets that apply to the classification, size, or typology for the area, property, or land use identified in the general plan or the zoning map; B. The land to be dedicated complies with all applicable subdivision standards in Chapter 20.26; C. The proposed street does not create any new lots or result in any existing lot or parcel being separated or split by the proposed street. In this case, the street can only be dedicated through a subdivision plat; and D. The proposed street does not create parallel streets that are separated by less than 200 feet. 20.22.040: CITY INTERNAL REVIEW: A. A street dedication plat shall be submitted to the planning division and reviewed by the necessary city departments who may be impacted by the proposed dedication. B. Each city department shall review the street dedication plat to determine if it complies with adopted regulations that apply to the width, construction, cross section, subdivision design standards applicable to public streets, public improvements, and any other applicable standard. C. After each city department has indicated that the street dedication plat complies with all applicable regulations, the subdivider shall prepare a final plat for recording the street dedication. The final plat shall comply with all requirements for final plats that relate to the dedication of public streets. D. A public improvement agreement is required for all street dedication plats that include any new public improvements or modifications to existing public infrastructure. 36 20.22.050: RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT: The dedication of the street shall be recorded as a final plat, absent the creation of any new lots, and only having to comply with the subdivision design standards related to streets. The final plat shall comply with all the applicable requirements for preparation of a final plat. The plat shall not be recorded until the public improvement agreement has been finalized and agreed to by the applicant and the city. CHAPTER 20.26 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 20.26.010: Applicability 20.26.020: Modification to Standards 20.26.030: Standards for Utilities 20.26.040: Standards for Flood Control 20.26.050: Standards for Connectivity 20.26.060: Standards for Street Design 20.26.070: Standards for Natural Features 20.26.080: Standards for Blocks 20.26.090: Standards for Lots and Parcels 20.26.010: APPLICABILITY: All subdivisions of land within Salt Lake City shall comply and conform with the standards and requirements as set forth and as referred to in this section. 20.26.020: MODIFICATION TO STANDARDS: A subdivider may request a modification to a subdivision standard as provided for in this section. A. Authority to Approve Modifications: The authority to approve modifications to a subdivision design standard are as follows: 1. Standards for Public Utilities and Flood Control: Shall be determined by the director of public utilities based on the standards for approving modifications in Subsection B. 2. Standards for Connectivity and Street Design: Shall be determined by the transportation director based on the standards for approving modifications in Subsection B. 3. Standards for Natural Features, Blocks, and Lots and Parcels: Shall be determined by the planning director based on the standards for approving modifications in Subsection B. Modifications may also be considered as part of a planned 37 development pursuant to Chapter 21A.55 Planned Developments when a subdivision is associated with a planned development application. However, a planned development may not be submitted when the only modification requested is a modification to a subdivision standard. B. Standards for Approving Modifications: Any request for a modification shall be identified in the preliminary subdivision application or as a supplement to an application in response to city review comments and include evidence provided by the subdivider that the following standards are satisfied: 1. The proposed modification will not diminish the ability of the city to provide service to the properties within the subdivision; 2. The proposed modification does not negatively impact any future city plans related to transportation or public utilities; 3. The proposed modification complies with adopted engineering standards, or a different engineering standard endorsed by a professional organization that provides standards for public infrastructure and the authority identified in Paragraph A finds that the modified standard is substantially similar to the city adopted standard; 4. The proposed modification does not jeopardize the integrity, structure, function, future needs, capacity, or purpose of any other public infrastructure; and 5. The proposed modification does not result in a detrimental effect to nearby properties that may be caused by the proposed modification during the construction process. A detrimental effect includes: a. Dirt, rock, or other debris falling or being placed on adjacent property; b. Storm water, snow melt, or irrigation water flowing onto other property; c. A decrease in access to adjacent properties; d. Degradation of any public property or easement; e. Any impact that jeopardizes the health or safety of any person, structure, vegetation, or property. 20.26.030: STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the requirements of this section. This section shall be administered by the director of public utilities. A. All water and sewer shall be provided through underground services and connections; B. Storm water may not use underground services and connections and shall be managed through surface flow, swales, retention basins or other similar methods for storm water management. C. All lots within the subdivision that are developable shall be provided with access to all required utilities by the subdivider with necessary and required easements shown on the plat; 38 D. Easements for utility and drainage purposes shall be provided within the subdivision as required by the director of public utilities. However, in no event shall such an easement be less than five feet in width when proposed along the front lot line; and E. Watercourses: The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for storm drainage conforming substantially with the lines of any natural watercourse or channel, stream, creek, or floodplain that enters or traverses the subdivision. 20.26.040: STANDARDS FOR FLOOD CONTROL: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the requirements of this section, any applicable requirements of Title 17, and the requirements of Chapter 18.68 of this code. Any applicable state or federal requirement shall also apply. This section shall be administered by the director of public utilities: A. The subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; B. Adequate drainage must be provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards; C. All public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems shall be located, elevated, or constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and D. The subdivider shall dedicate an access easement for storm and flood management that provides adequate access to perform flood control within any river, stream, creek, or similar water way or floodplain that enters or traverses the subdivision. 20.26.050: STANDARDS FOR CONNECTIVITY: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the standards of this section. This section shall be administered by the transportation director unless otherwise indicated. A. The subdivision design shall conform to the pattern of major street as designated in the general plan or on the major street plan map of the city transportation master plan. Whenever a subdivision fronts on a street so designated or contains within the boundaries of the proposed subdivision a public street identified in the general plan, that street shall be platted and dedicated by the subdivider in the location and width so indicated. B. The street pattern in the subdivision shall be in general conformity with a plan for the most advantageous development of adjoining areas and the entire neighborhood or district. The following principles shall be observed: 1. Where appropriate to the design and terrain, proposed streets shall be continuous and in alignment with existing planned or platted streets, or, if offset, streets shall be 39 offset a minimum of 100’ between centerlines of intersecting that are 50’ or less in width and a minimum of 400’ between centerlines of intersecting streets that are wider than 50 feet; 2. Where streets extend to the boundary of the property, resulting in dead end streets may be approved with a temporary turnaround of a minimum 45’ radius. In all other cases, a permanent turnaround shall conform to specifications in Subsection G, “Turnaround”, of this section or have a design otherwise approved by the transportation division; 3. Proposed streets shall intersect one another as nearly at right angles as topography and other limiting factors of good design permit. “T” intersections rather than “cross” intersections shall be used wherever possible for local streets; and C. The proposed subdivision shall include street connections to any streets that abut, are adjacent to, or terminate at the subdivision site. The proposed development shall also include street connections in the direction of all existing or planned streets adjacent to the development site as identified in the adopted general plan. Exceptions to this requirement include situations where the street connection would alter a drainage channel, natural feature, steep slope, utility easement that prohibits such a connection, or other legally existing restriction on the land that would prohibit the street connection. D. The proposed subdivision shall include streets that extend to the boundary of the subdivision and undeveloped or partially developed land that is adjacent to the subdivision. The streets shall be in locations that will enable adjoining properties to connect to the proposed subdivision street system when the streets are public. Exceptions to this requirement include situations where the adjacent land is separated from the development site by a drainage channel, natural feature, steep slope, utility easement that prohibits such a connection, or other legally existing restriction on the land that would prohibit the future development of the land. E. The subdivider shall dedicate or grant an easement for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure through the subdivision and connecting to similar infrastructure as required by this section: 1. When in a right of way that is to be dedicated as part of the subdivision, the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure shall comply with the adopted general plan related to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; 2. When the general plan identifies a trailhead or connects to a trail on land that is within the proposed boundaries of the subdivision; 3. When the general plan identifies public pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure abutting the proposed subdivision and connections to the pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure within the boundaries of the proposed subdivision are necessary to complete the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; 4. When existing trails, sidewalks, walkways, bike path, or other infrastructure is located on land that is adjacent to the boundary of the proposed subdivision; 5. When required by Chapter 14.06 of this code; and 40 6. Any required pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure required by this section shall be the minimum width necessary to provide the connection. The connection may be in the form of a dedication of land on the plat or as a public access easement. The area of the dedication or easement shall count towards the minimum lot areas of the adjacent lots as determined by the subdivider. F. Cul-De-Sacs: Cul-de-sacs are prohibited in new subdivisions or when new streets are proposed as part of a subdivision amendment except as provided in this section. 1. Physical conditions are present that prohibits development of a connecting street. A physical condition includes slopes over 30 degrees, the presence of a river, stream, wetland, or other body of water, upland wildlife habitat area, the boundary of an Open Space, Natural Open Space, or Foothill Protection zoning district, or other land identified in Subsection C.1. If this condition is present, the subdivider may be required to provide a public access easement through the cul-de-sac to any public land where one of the physical conditions identified in this section exist; 2. The land adjacent to the subdivision is already developed in a manner that makes it impracticable to connect the proposed subdivision to the existing streets; or 3. When required by the applicable fire code. G. Turnaround: If allowed cul-de-sacs in residential zoning districts should be no longer than 400’ (measured from centerline of intersecting street to radius point of turnaround) and shall have a minimum of 45’ curb radius. Cul-de-sacs in all other zoning districts should be no longer than 650’ and should have a minimum of 60’ curb radius. Other cul- de-sac lengths or turnaround configurations may be approved by the fire department and the transportation director. 20.26.060: STANDARDS FOR STREET DESIGN: The following minimum standards apply to all public streets and design criteria shall apply unless deemed unwarranted by written recommendation of the city engineer and transportation division director. Said standards and criteria shall be supplemented by other applicable existing engineering and construction requirements and standards as specified by the city engineering and transportation divisions. A. General: 1. Where higher standards have not been established as specified in Subsection A.1 of this section, all streets shall be platted, designed, and constructed according to the principles outlined in the transportation division’s Street and Intersection Typologies Design Guide and the design and constructions for public streets adopted by the city. Exceptions to the Street and Intersection Typologies Design Guide may be granted through a planned development subject to Chapter 21A.55 or by the transportation director based on the following standards: 41 a. The subdivision serves 10 lots or fewer and justifies a narrower cross section than what is identified in the Street and Intersection Typologies Design Guide; b. A different street design is warranted due to the slope, waterways, existing infrastructure, or other similar unique circumstance that doesn’t generally exist on other properties within the same zoning district; c. The adopted general plan establishes a different guide or standard for streets in the geographic area where the proposed subdivision is located; and d. The subdivider provides an alternative cross section for a street that provides all of the required components identified in the guide but in a different arrangement that is consistent with the intent of the specific street type. B. Street Grades: Curves and sight distances shall be subject to approval by the city engineering division, to ensure proper drainage and safety for vehicles and pedestrians. The following principles and standards shall be observed: 1. Grades of streets shall be not less than 0.5% and not greater than 7%; 2. The maximum grade applies at the street centerline; and 3. Short runs of steeper grades may be permitted if there are no objections from the fire department, transportation division, and city engineer. C. Vertical Alignment of Nonintersecting Streets: Transition curves over crests of hills shall be designed to provide both a smooth transition from upward movement to minimize potential roller coaster effect and to provide safe stopping sight distance at all times. The stopping sight distance is the distance required to safely stop a vehicle after viewing an object calculated on a formula set forth in standards adopted by the transportation division. D. Vertical Alignment at Street Intersections: Transition curves shall be required to provide a smooth transition from road grade to intersections. For an approach distance (“A”) from each edge of the intersecting street line, the grade may not exceed 2%. The minimum length of the approaches (“A”) and transition curves (“L”) shall be calculated upon the formulas below: A = The minimum approach distance required where grade may not exceed 2% from the curb line of the intersecting street. Said distance of “A” shall be not less than 35’ for intersections with local streets and not less than 100’ for intersections with major or arterial streets. L = The minimum transition curve length required between points of tangency, “X”, where L = 10(a), “a” being the difference between the grade of the road less the grade of “A”. 42 E. Intersection Site Distance: Intersections shall be planned and located to provide as much sight distance as possible. In achieving a safe road design, as a minimum, there shall be sufficient corner sight distance for the driver on the approach roadway to cross the intersecting street without requiring approaching traffic to reduce speed. Such corner sight distance is a field of vision which shall be measured from a point on the approach roadway at least 15’ from the edge of the intersecting roadway pavement at a height of 3.5’ on the approach roadway. The minimum corner sight distance for local streets (30 miles per hour design speed) shall be 350’. For collector streets (40 miles per hour design speed) the minimum corner sight distance shall be 450’. F. Horizontal Alignment of Streets: In addition to the specific street design standards set forth above, horizontal alignment shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. Consistent with topography, alignments shall be as straight as possible; 2. Maximum curvatures shall be avoided whenever possible; 3. Consistent patterns of alignment shall be sought. Sharp curves at the end of long tangents or at the end of long flat curves shall be avoided; 4. Short lengths of curves shall be avoided even for very small deflection angles; 5. Flat curvatures shall be provided on long fills; 6. Compound circular curves with large differences in radii shall be avoided; 7. Direct reverse curves shall be avoided; a tangent shall be used between them; 8. “Broken back curves” (two curves in the same direction on either side of a short tangent or large radius curve) shall be avoided; and 43 9. To effectuate the above general criteria, the minimum curve centerline radii for local streets and collector streets shall be 100’ and 150’, respectively. The maximum allowable degree of curvature shall be 23° for local streets and 12.5° for collector streets. G. Street Lighting: Lighting shall comply with the policies and standards outlined in the Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan. H. Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalks: The following principles and standards shall apply to the design and installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and pedestrianways. Low impact development standards may be substituted at the discretion of the engineering and transportation divisions, according to best practices as determined by the public utilities department: 1. Vertical curbs and gutters as shown on the city’s standard detail drawings shall be required in all subdivisions unless otherwise approved by the city engineer and transportation director. The minimum gutter slope at a street intersection and at the crest and sag of vertical curves is 0.5%; 2. Sidewalks shall be designed to comply with ADA Guidelines. Sidewalks are required on both sides of a street except when the transportation director authorizes an exception when a subdivision includes land that is in a manufacturing zone located west of I-215, BP Business Park District located west of I-215, or EI Extractive Industries District. 3. Sidewalks shall normally be located within the street right of way and shall be required to be a minimum width as indicated in this subsection: a. Four feet wide in any FR, R-1, R-2, or SR zoning districts when adjacent to a park strip; b. Five feet wide in any FR, R-1, R-2, or SR zoning districts zoning districts when the sidewalk is directly adjacent to the back of curb; c. Six feet wide in all other zoning districts unless specified otherwise in those districts; d. Eight feet wide in the central business district; or e. Ten feet wide along Main Street in the central business district. The transportation director may require the subdivider to provide a pedestrian impact study to determine if additional width for a sidewalk is necessary based on the proportional impact the subdivision may have on the sidewalks within the subdivision; I. Protection Strips: Protection Strips: Where subdivision streets create frontage for contiguous property owned by others, the subdivider may, upon approval by the city engineer create a protection strip not less than one foot in width between said street and adjacent property, to be deeded into joint ownership between the city and subdivider. Such a lot requires an agreement from the subdivider contracting to deed to the owners of the contiguous property the one foot or larger protection strip lot for a consideration 44 named in the agreement, such consideration to be not more than the cost of street improvements properly charged to the contiguous property as determined by the city engineering division in their estimate of cost of improvements for the subdivision. Jointly owned protection strip lots shall not be permitted at the end of or within the boundaries of a public street, or proposed street, or within an area, or abutting an area, intended for future public use. J. Traffic Report: New subdivisions have traffic impacts on existing street systems that may or may not be adverse in nature. The transportation director may require the subdivider to provide a detailed traffic report of the effects and impacts of the proposed development. This report shall detail the expected number of trips to be generated, the type of vehicles expected, and the times of day that the most severe impact can be expected. It shall also detail the effect on street capacity by the development, as well as nearby intersections that will be impacted by the development’s traffic as may be designated by the transportation division director. Based on a review of the traffic impact study, the transportation division may require additional mitigations including street improvements and other multi-modal transportation enhancements. 20.26.070: STANDARDS FOR NATURAL FEATURES: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section shall be administered by the planning director. A. Preservation of Natural Features: all subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall be designed to preserve the natural features of a site as follows: 1. Rivers, streams and creeks shall not be piped or placed in any culvert or man-made channel; 2. Wetlands shall be protected and buffered as required within the underlying zoning district, overlay district, or as identified in the general plan; 3. Wooded areas within a subdivision shall be preserved. Lots that include wooded areas are allowed to exceed the maximum lot size of the underlying zoning district and may count towards any required landscaping, regardless of location of the wooded area or the required landscaped area; 4. Wildlife habitat shall be preserved when the general plan identifies areas to be protected or Title 21A specifically requires protection of habitat or buffers from wildlife habitat. Area preserved as wildlife habitat may count towards the landscaping requirements of the underlying zoning district, regardless of the location of the wildlife habitat or the required landscaped area; and 5. Natural features identified in this section shall be identified as undevelopable areas on the final plat. The size of the undevelopable area shall be determined by the general plan if the general plan provides an objective metric to determine the area to be protected or as required by Title 21A Zoning. If both the general plan and Title 21A include conflicting regulations regarding this provision, the smaller requirement shall take precedent. If the general plan or Title 21A does not provide a minimum 45 requirement, the document that does indicate a minimum requirement shall take precedent. B. Environmental Conditions of Land to Be Dedicated: Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and remediation must be conducted on any land that is to be dedicated to the public, as follows: 1. ESAs shall be performed in accordance with the most recent version of ASTM Standard E1527. 2. The city reserves the right to conduct ESAs using a city-contracted environmental consultant if needed to avoid legal liability, if there are concerns with the environmental work conducted to date, or other reasons as determined by the director of sustainability, other department directors as applicable, or their designees. 3. If remediation is required to clean up the land to the appropriate land use standards, the remediation shall be completed prior to dedicating the land. 4. All ESAs and remediation reports shall be reviewed and approved by the director of sustainability, other department directors as applicable, or their designees. 20.26.080: STANDARDS FOR BLOCKS: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section shall be administered by the planning director. A. Public Streets Required: All subdivisions shall include public streets as required by the adopted general plan of the city. The subdivision may include additional streets not identified in the general plan. Streets shall be used to create blocks that comply with this section. Local streets within a subdivision shall be public unless private streets are approved through a planned development in accordance with Chapter 21A.55. B. Blocks shall be created by streets as required in the adopted general plan. For the purpose of this section, a midblock walkway identified in the general plan shall be considered a street for determining block size. Blocks shall be created by local streets as follows: 1. In zoning districts that allow residential uses, proposed streets that comply with the applicable street cross section in the Street and Intersection Typologies Design Guide are required when the proposed subdivision is over five acres in size unless the subdivision is approved as part of a planned development. For the purpose of this section, a residential use does not include a dwelling for a caretaker when allowed in zoning districts that do not allow other residential land uses. This section shall also apply to any lot/parcel line adjustment or lot/parcel consolidation; and 2. In all other zoning districts, there is no maximum block size. 46 20.26.090: STANDARDS FOR LOTS AND PARCELS: All subdivisions and subdivision amendments shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section shall be administered by the planning director. A. Frontage on Public Streets: All lots or parcels shall have frontage on a public street and the frontage shall comply with the minimum lot width requirements of the underlying zoning district. This standard is not applicable if Title 21A allows lots or parcels without street frontage. This provision may be modified as part of a planned development in accordance with Chapter 21A.55. Access that crosses multiple lots shall include appropriate cross access easements. B. Buildable Areas: All subdivisions shall result in lots or parcels that provide a practically sized buildable area except for lots or parcels that are: 1. Identified as undevelopable on a subdivision plat; 2. Identified as a public park or open space; 3. Identified as a protection strip intended to prevent access across property provided the protection strip complies with the standards of this title; or 4. Intended to be used for public infrastructure. C. Minimum Lot or Parcel Size: All lots or parcels shall comply with the minimum lot size and lot width required within the applicable zoning district or overlay district in Title 21A. D. Lot or Parcel Shape: all lots and parcels shall generally be rectangular in shape except when one of the following conditions exist: 1. The lot or parcel shares a property line with a lot or parcel that is not part of the subject subdivision and that property line is curved, angled, or has multiple angles along the length of the property line; 2. The lot or parcel has frontage on a public right of way or private street and the boundary of the public right of way or private street is curved, angled, or has multiple angles along the length of the boundary. Side property lines shall be approximately at right angles or radial to the street line; 3. The property line follows a natural feature that includes a water way, slope over 30 degrees, rockfall area, wetland, ridge line, or other natural area that necessitates a different shape lot; 4. This standard does not apply when: a. The shape is approved as part of a planned development; b. The lot or parcel is a flag lot; or c. The lot or parcel is in a special purpose zoning district other than MU Mixed Use District. 47 E. Double Frontage Lots: Double frontage lots are prohibited in subdivisions located in residential zoning districts. F. Developable Area Limitation on Steep Slopes: The applicant shall provide a slope classification map with any subdivision application when the subdivision is in any foothill zoning district or open space zoning district. The slope classification map shall use a “ten-foot averaging” to determine the locations of any slope that exceeds 30%. All slopes that are 30% or greater shall be considered significant steep slopes and are undevelopable. This section shall also apply to zoning map amendments that propose changing the zoning from a foothill zoning district to any other zoning district. 1. All areas of significant steep slope shall be identified as “undevelopable area” on the plat. A legal description of the undevelopable area shall also be included on the plat; 2. The boundary line of the undevelopable area shall be identified as a “transition area” on the plat. The transition area shall be a minimum of 10 feet; 3. Undevelopable areas shall be protected from subsequent alteration or encroachment by an open space preservation easement granted to Salt Lake City on the subdivision plat; 4. Grading, landscaping, construction activities, streets (public or private) and other disturbances of the land are prohibited within the portions of the plat designated as an undevelopable area except as follows: a. Any construction activity necessary to provide utility access to the lot when the undevelopable area is located between the street and the developable area on a lot and there is no other legally existing location to construct the necessary public utilities. Any excavation and grading work necessary to construct necessary utilities shall be the minimum necessary and any disturbance shall be returned to its natural condition; b. Any driveway or walkway and associated retaining walls necessary to provide access to the building area when the undevelopable area is located between the street and the developable area and there is no other legally existing location to construct the driveway, walkway, and associated retaining walls. No driveway that qualifies for this exception may exceed 15 feet in width and no walkway may exceed six feet in width. All retaining walls shall comply with the applicable provisions for retaining walls found in Title 21A; c. Exceptions listed in Subsections a. and b. shall occupy the same space unless the engineering specifications for either requires a different location. The preference of the subdivider or property owner is not a valid reason to allow separate locations; or d. Modifications to landscaping when necessary to comply with requirements or guidelines for vegetation in wildfire interface zones as recommended by a government agency. 5. A lot that has undevelopable area within its boundaries is allowed to exceed the maximum lot size in the underlying zone without a planned development and without 48 needing to comply with the provisions in Title 21A for exceeding maximum lot size provided: a. The parcel has a minimum of 1,500 square feet of net buildable area. The net buildable area shall not include any areas of thirty percent (30%) or greater slope or the required zoning setbacks or the portion of the transitional area that is required that lies within the required ten foot (10’) minimum setback or twenty foot (20’) average setback from the proposed development limit line, as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; b. The parcel has city sewer and water services that are located or can be extended to access the lot directly from the street; or c. The applicant must present a construction plan, acceptable to the city, which demonstrates the ability to manage staging for construction in a manner that will not impact transitional or steep slope areas; and 6. The plat shall include the following language to indicate that the developable area limitation on steep slopes shall be shown on all building permits for new buildings or structures and additions to existing buildings or structures: “The developable area limitations and all undevelopable areas shall be shown on all building permits when the building permit includes the construction of any new building or structure and additions to any existing building or structure. The undevelopable area shall not be used for any construction activity, staging, or storage during the construction process.” G. Solar Oriented Lots: For subdivisions with 25 or more single-family residential lots at least 50% of lots less than 15,000 square feet, upon which detached single-family dwelling units are planned for construction, shall be oriented with the longest dimension lot line oriented towards the south to accommodate future solar panel installations on the property. Exceptions to this provision may be made by the planning director when: 1. The land that is proposed to be subdivided is along an existing street that is oriented in a manner that does not make it practical for the lots to comply with this requirement; 2. Where unusual topographic, environmental, soil, and similar conditions exist that, as determined by the planning director, make compliance with these provisions physically infeasible; 3. The property is within an existing subdivision and the proposal is a subdivision amendment; or 4. The existing lot or parcel is proposed to be modified through a lot line adjustment, parcel boundary adjustment, or consolidation. 49 CHAPTER 20.30 APPEALS 20.30.010: Appeal Authority 20.30.020: Appeal Procedures 20.30.010: APPEAL AUTHORITY: A. Appeals of any final decision made under this Title shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. B. Appeal of Final Decision: The applicant, a board or officer of the municipality, or an adversely affected party may, within 10 days of a final decision regarding a preliminary subdivision application, appeal that decision to the appeal hearing officer by alleging that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the land use authority who made the final decision. All appeals shall be based on the record and subject to the appeal process established in Chapter 21A.16. An appeal filed under this section does not require a public hearing with the appeals hearing officer. A final decision that involves approving the recordable instrument cannot be appealed. C. Appeal of decision regarding subdivision improvement plans. Any dispute between the city and the subdivider shall be conducted in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-9a- 508(5) or its successor. Appeals under this section are limited in accordance to Utah Code Section 10-9a-508(5). D. Appeal of a residential roadway standard. Any appeal related to Utah Code Section 10- 9a-508(5) or its successor is subject to the specific appeal requirements of that section. Any appeal filed under this section shall comply with the appeal application and fee process required by this chapter. 20.30.020: APPEAL PROCEDURES: A. All appeals shall be filed within 10 days of the final decision on an application provided by the city and following the submittal process required by the city for filing an application. B. Any appeal of a subdivision approval shall be based on the record of approval. A public hearing is not required for an appeal and no additional information may be presented by the appellant that was not made available to the land use authority prior to the final decision. C. The process for filing an appeal, except as indicated in this chapter, shall be the same as the process outlined in Chapter 21A.16. If Utah Code provides an appeal process that differs from this chapter, Utah Code shall be followed. 50 CHAPTER 20.40 ENFORCEMENT 20.40.010: Unlawful Acts Involving Sale or Lease of Property 20.40.020: City Engineer to Enforce Subdivision Design Standards 20.40.030: Violation and Penalty 20.40.040: Issuing a Certificate of Occupancy 20.40.050: Illegal Subdivisions, Consolidations, and Adjustments 20.40.060: Civil Penalties 20.40.010: UNLAWFUL ACTS INVOLVING SALE OR LEASE OF PROPERTY: A. No person shall offer to sell, contract to sell, sell, deed, or convey any property contrary to the provisions of this title. B. The city, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, may seek to prevent any remedy or violation of this title that has occurred or is about to occur by instituting a proceeding for an injunction, mandamus, abatement or any other appropriate action. C. The city may enforce the provisions of this title by refusing to issue building permits. 20.40.020: CITY ENGINEER TO ENFORCE SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS: The city engineering division will have responsibility for inspection and enforcement of subdivision design standards and requirements of this title. When it is found by inspection that conditions are not substantial as stated or shown in the approved subdivision plans, the city engineering division shall stop further work until approval is obtained for an amended subdivision plan. 20.40.030: VIOLATION AND PENALTY: It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of this title, and failure to comply with the provisions of this title shall constitute a class C misdemeanor. 20.40.040: ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The building official may withhold the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building within a subdivision if the subdivider or designee violates any provision of this title and fails to correct the violation to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 51 20.40.050: ILLEGAL SUBDIVISIONS, CONSOLIDATIONS, AND ADJUSTMENTS: Any subdivision, consolidation, or adjustment to land that is not authorized and approved under this title or Utah Code shall not be recognized by the city and no future land use approval or building permit shall be issued until the subdivision, consolidation, or adjustment complies with the requirements of this title and is approved by the city. 20.40.060: CIVIL PENALTIES: Any violations of the provisions of this title shall subject the violator to a civil penalty in the following amounts: A. $200.00 per day if the violation occurs in FR-1, FR-2, or FR-3 districts as listed in Title 21A. B. $100.00 per day for any other violation. CHAPTER 20.50 DEFINITIONS 20.50.010: Definitions Generally 20.50.020: Definition of Terms 20.50.010: DEFINITIONS GENERALLY: Terms used within this title shall be defined as indicated. Terms defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a-103 shall take precedence. Terms not defined in Utah Code shall be as defined in this section. Terms not defined in Utah Code Chapter 10-9a or in this section shall be as defined in Title 21A. Any words that remain undefined shall be defined as stated in Miriam- Webster Online Dictionary. 20.50.020: DEFINITION OF TERMS: ALLEY: A public or private right of way within a block primarily intended for service and access to abutting property by vehicles and not designated for general travel. ADA: Americans With Disabilities Act. APPLICATION: A form provided by the zoning administrator that is required to initiate a process identified by this chapter. 52 ARTERIAL STREET: A street that facilitates through traffic movement over relatively long distances such as from one end of the city to the other. Arterials are generally multilane streets carrying high traffic volumes at relatively high-speed limits. These are commuter streets and sometimes offer controlled access to abutting property, and curbside parking may be restricted or prohibited. Arterial streets are designated as such on the major street plan map of the transportation master plan. BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE: Public facilities intended to support the use of a bicycle or similar vehicles which may include, but is not limited to, paved ramps, paths, bridges, bicycle storage facilities, trails, and the accessory structures necessary to support the facilities. BLOCK: An area of land within a subdivision entirely bounded by streets (other than alleys), freeways, and other types of rights of way identified by this chapter. BUILDABLE AREA: That portion of the lot remaining after required yards have been provided and after the limitations of any pertinent environmental regulations have been applied. Buildings may be placed in any part of the buildable area subject to complying with other applicable standards. CITY ATTORNEY: The Salt Lake City Attorney or designee. CITY COUNCIL: The legislative body of Salt Lake City. CITY ENGINEER: The Salt Lake City Engineer or designee. CITY RECORDER: The Salt Lake City Recorder or designee. COLLECTOR STREET: A street that provides the connection between arterial and local streets. Collector streets can be multilane, but they are meant to carry less traffic at lower speeds and for shorter distances than arterial streets. They provide direct access to abutting property and carry a mix of local and commuter traffic headed for nearby destinations. Collector streets are identified as such on the major street plan map of the transportation master plan. CONDOMINIUM: A property or portions thereof conforming to the definition set forth in Utah Code Section 57-8-3 or its successor. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION: The process of converting an existing building(s) into a condominium. CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION: As defined in Utah Code Section 57-8-3, or its successor. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: An encumbrance against real property that restricts uses of the land to protect the land for conservation purposes. 53 CONSOLIDATION: The act of combining two or more lot or parcels into one lot or parcel. CONTOUR LINE: A line on a map joining points of equal elevation as measured from sea level. COUNTY RECORDER: The Salt Lake County Recorder or designee. CUL-DE-SAC: A local street open at only one end which has a turnaround for vehicles at the closed end. DEDICATION: The act of converting private land to public land. DEED: A legal document that transfers an ownership interest in real property to another person or entity. DEED RESTRICTION: A signed document recorded against the title of a property that limits the use of the property. DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE: A line on a plat which defines the boundary between developable and undevelopable areas. This line may be identified with different terms, such as nonbuildable area line, on existing recorded plats. DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT: A lot that has frontages on two different streets where the streets do not intersect adjacent to the property. This term shall also apply to double frontage parcels. DRIVEWAY: A way or route for use by a vehicle leading from a parking area or from a house, garage, or other structure to a road or street. EASEMENT: An interest in land owned by another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION: The cleanup of pollution or contaminants from the environment to the standards appropriate for the proposed land use, including the soil, groundwater, surface water, or air. EXCAVATION: Any act by which vegetation, earth, sand, gravel, rock, or any other similar material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated, or bulldozed, and shall include the conditions resulting therefrom. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT: A map of real property in the form of lands and/or building units being laid out and prepared in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 10-9a or Title 57, Utah Code or its successor, and of this title, designed to be placed on record in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. 54 FOOTHILL SUBDIVISION: A subdivision of property located within the FP Foothills Protection District or the FR-1/43,560, FR-2/21,780, or FR-3/12,000 Districts. FREEWAY: Routes, typically divided arterial highways, provide for rapid movement of large volumes of vehicles between urban areas. No local access to individual sites is provided. GENERAL PLAN: Land use planning policy document(s) adopted by the Salt Lake City Council in accordance with the provisions of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a, Part 4 and defined in Title 19 General Plan. GRADING: Excavation or fill or any combination thereof that alters the elevation of the terrain and shall include the conditions resulting from any excavation or fill. GRADING PLAN: A plan that shows the extent of all grading activity that is proposed to occur within the boundaries of a subdivision or on a lot or parcel. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The written description of a lot or parcel. The legal description may be metes and bounds, a lot number or combination of lot numbers when located within a subdivision recorded by plat, or other lawful description of land that is recorded with the county recorder’s office. LOCAL STREET: A street which provides direct access to and from abutting properties they serve. Local streets are usually relatively narrow and meant to carry traffic over short distances and at low speeds. LOT: A tract of land, regardless of any label, that is created by and shown on a subdivision plat that has been recorded in the office of the county recorder. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: The relocation of the property boundary lines, with the consent of the owners of record as required by this title, between adjoining lots or parcels that are described by either a metes and bounds description or a recorded plat. MIDBLOCK WALKWAY: A pedestrian walkway that provides access through a block. NONCOMPLIANCE: The result of an action that does not comply with a requirement of this title. NOTICE OF APPLICATION: A public notice sent to property owners or tenants within a specified distance of a property that is subject of a land use application that is intended to provide information about a proposed application authorized by this title. NOTICE OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 10 LOTS OR LESS: A document that is recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office that indicates the approval of a subdivision of 10 lots or fewer as authorized by this title. 55 PARCEL: Any unit of real property that is not a lot. PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE: Public facilities intended to support the movement of people in a safe, inclusive, and protected space separated from automobiles. This may include, but is not limited to, paved ramps, sidewalks, paths, bridges, trails, street crossings, and the accessory structures necessary to support the facilities. PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT: A report that identifies potential or existing environmental contamination that impacts or may impact land. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Salt Lake City Planning Commission. PLANNING DIRECTOR: The director of the Salt Lake City Planning Division or designee. PREAPPLICATION MEETING: A meeting between a subdivider and various city representatives where initial subdivision applications, process, and regulations are discussed. PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP: A plat showing the design of a proposed subdivision and the existing conditions in and around the subdivision. It need not be based upon a detailed final survey of the property, except as provided in Chapter 20.16 of this title. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: A report that describes the general topography and geology of land which includes subsurface conditions and that is intended to provide information about the structural needs of future development based on the soil characteristics. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION: The first phase of the subdivision approval process that precedes final subdivision. PROPERTY REPORT: A report that analyzes all structures, building systems, and infrastructure on a property that is proposed to be converted to a condominium. The report includes information about the status, age, anticipated future maintenance needs, and other issues associated with the property and is intended to be disclosed to future purchasers of units within a condominium. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: Street work, utilities, public landscaping improvements, public infrastructure improvements, and other facilities proposed or required to serve a subdivision and be installed within the public way. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT: An infrastructure improvement as defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a-103 required by this title that is intended to be dedicated or granted for public use. PUBLIC LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT: Landscaping described in Utah Code Section 10-9a-604.5 or its successor. 56 PRIVATE STREET: A street that is not dedicated for public use by a legally binding document. RECORDABLE INSTRUMENT: The documents that are used to document the approval of any application required by this title and recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office. RECORDED PLAT: A subdivision plat that has been recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE: A principal use of the land for primarily residential purposes. RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY: As defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a-103. RETAINING WALL: A structure that is used to hold earth in place. REVIEW CYCLE: A subdivision review process defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a.604.2 SECURITY DEVICE: Any of the following, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, that secures the performance of the subdivider’s obligations under the subdivision improvement construction agreement: 1. A separate payment bond and a separate performance bond provided by a corporate surety company; 2. A cash bond or escrow agreement; or 3. A letter of credit. SIGNIFICANT STEEP SLOPE: An area of 30% or greater slope, as determined using 10’ averaging, which is intended to be protected from development or other disturbance. SITE: A lot or parcel of land, or a contiguous combination thereof, where grading work is performed as a single unified operation. SITE PREPARATION: Grading and underground utility installation in preparation for an approved, pending development. SLOPE: The slant of the earth within a lot or parcel or other defined area of land. SLOPE CLASSIFICATION MAP: A map prepared as a colored exhibit by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor based upon a contour map of the specified scale and contour interval, upon which the measured and calculated percent of slope (measured between every contour interval on the map) is classified or grouped into percentage of slope data in 10% slope groupings as follows: 57 Slope Classification Percent Of Slope Mapped Color Level 0 - 9.9% Uncolored Slight 10 - 19.9% Yellow Moderate 20 - 29.9% Orange Severe 30% and greater Red SOILS ENGINEER: A registered civil engineer of the state of Utah, specializing in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, familiar with the application of principles of soil mechanics in the investigation and analysis of the engineering properties of earth materials. SOLAR ORIENTED LOT: A. A lot with a front line oriented to within 30° of a true east-west line. When the lot line abutting a street is curved, the “front lot line” shall mean, for the purposes of this definition, the straight-line connecting ends of the curve. For a flag lot, the “front lot line” shall mean the lot line that is most parallel to the closest street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot; or B. A lot that, when a straight line is drawn from a point midway between the side lot lines at the required front yard setback to a point midway between the side lot lines at the required rear yard setback, is oriented to within 30° of true north along such line; or C. A corner lot with a south lot line oriented to within 30° of a true east-west line, where the south lot line adjoins a public street or open space and the abutting street right of way or open space has a minimum north-south dimension of at least 50’. For purposes of this definition, “open space” shall include, without limitation, parks, cemeteries, golf courses and similar outdoor recreation areas, drainage ditches and ponds, irrigation ditches and reservoirs, lakes, ponds, wetlands, open spaces reserved for use of residents of the development, and other similar open space. SPECIAL NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURE: A naturally occurring feature which is determined to be unique among similar features of its kind (i.e., rock formation, water feature) or has historical associations (e.g., Ensign Peak). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: All the specific requirements and standard detailed drawings adopted, utilized, and administered by the responsible city departments. STREET: A public or private vehicular way, between property or boundary lines and including parking, sidewalks, and gutters, that may also serve for all or part of its width as a way for pedestrian traffic, whether called street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, throughway, road, avenue, boulevard, lane, place, alley, mall or otherwise designated. STREET DEDICATION PLAT: A plat that is used to dedicate streets for public use but does not create any additional lots. A street dedication plat cannot be used when the land to be dedicated is part of an existing subdivision. 58 SUBDIVIDER: Any person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association who causes land to be divided into a subdivision. SUBDIVISION: Any land that is divided, resubdivided or proposed to be divided into two (2) or more lots, parcels, sites, units, plots, or other division of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, for offer, sale, lease, or development. For purposes of this chapter, “subdivision” includes: A. The division or development of land whether by deed, metes and bounds description, devise and testacy, lease, map, plat, or other recorded instruments, for all residential and nonresidential uses; and B. Any condominium project which involves dedication of real property to the ownership and use of the public. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT INVOLVING STREETS: An application that includes a proposed change to any subdivision for which a subdivision plat has been previously approved and recorded and which proposes to vacate all or a portion of any of the dedicated public streets, rights of way, or easements of the original subdivision plat. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT NOT INVOLVING STREETS: An application that includes a proposed change to any subdivision, for which a subdivision or plat has been previously approved and recorded and which does not propose to vacate all or a portion of any of the dedicated public streets, rights of way, or easements of the original subdivision plat. SUBDIVISION DESIGN: The overall layout of the proposed subdivision, including, but not limited to, the arrangement of streets and intersections, the layout and size of lots, the widths and locations of easements and rights of way for utilities, drainage structures, sewers and the nature and location of public or semipublic facilities, programs for the preservation of natural features, and the installation of public improvements. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: An agreement between the city and subdivider regarding constructing subdivision improvements required by this title. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS: As defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a-604.2. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVIEW: As defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a-604.2. SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW: As defined in Utah Code Section 10-9a.604.2 SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW: The review of a subdivision application and all submittal requirements to determine if the documents comply with the requirements of this title. TEN FOOT AVERAGING: Calculating the percent of slope between 10’ elevation intervals on an accurate slope classification map. The first interval can start at any elevation line, and 59 subsequent intervals shall be set at 10-foot increments. For example, if the first interval starts at 4721, the next interval line must be 4731, followed by 4741 and so forth. This technique is used to determine areas of significant steep slope. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: A study performed by a transportation engineer that analyzes the impact future development has on public streets to determine how the impacts can be mitigated or if the development is appropriate. TRAILHEAD: The point of public access to a public trail. UNDEVELOPABLE AREA: The portion of a lot that is unusable for or not adaptable to the normal uses made of the property, which may include areas covered by water, areas that are excessively steep, included in certain types of easements, or otherwise not suitable for development, including areas designated on a plat as undevelopable. WATERCOURSE: A path where water flows in a natural, altered, or artificial manner. WATER SOURCE: A source for drinking water. WETLAND, FUNCTIONAL: Areas inundated, permanently or intermittently, with water that contain wetland plant species. Functional wetlands do not include jurisdictional wetlands. WETLAND, JURISDICTIONAL: Areas that are inundated by water and declared as wetlands by the United States Army Corp of Engineers. WILDLIFE HABITAT: Land in a natural state with minimum human disturbances that is used by wildlife. WOODED AREAS: Areas of land that are naturally and primarily covered by trees and are a minimum of ¼ acre in size. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 60 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 repeal and replace Title 20 subdivisions (final) 10-12-23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney October 12, 2023 Item B2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) General Community Development Needs Annual Public Hearing Motion Sheet Staff note: HUD requires two public hearings annually: one to hear from the community about "general needs" early in the process and another when the Council is considering specific funding awards in the spring. This is the first of the two annual public hearings. There is nothing for the Council to adopt at this stage. MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATEDPLAN GOALS S L C H O U S I N G & N E I G H B O R H O O D D E V E L O P M E N T HOUSING Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options 1. 2. Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations 3. Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. 1.Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods 2.Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents 3.Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing 4.Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness 5.Expand housing support for aging resident that ensure access to continued stable housing Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 1. Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness 2. Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations. 3. Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life. 4. Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services To provide support for low-income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non recurring. 1. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 2. Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation BUILD COMMUNITY RESILIENCY TRANSPORTATION HOMELESS SERVICES Behavioral Health Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: 116 East Edith Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01160/01161 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 116 East Edith Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01160/01161 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Three people spoke at the November 7, 2023 public hearing. Two shared concerns with unsheltered individuals at the site as well as noise and U-Haul truck parking issues related to the property. The owner’s representative spoke in support of the proposed amendments. He noted that the property has been used for commercial purposes and no home has been on the site for many years. If the zoning remains residential, nothing will be built there. The owner asked for the trucks to be removed and it is his understanding they have been. The owner wants to bring the property into compliance. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 3, 2023 briefing the Council confirmed there is not a home on the subject property and no housing loss mitigation is required. The petitioner stated that although the City recognizes the property is zoned residential, Salt Lake County records indicate that it is commercial and is charging taxes as such. Staff note: taxes are assessed based on the use of the property and not the underlying zoning. The petitioner would like to consolidate the parcel with his abutting parcel at 1207 South State Street. The Council asked Planning staff about use of the property for rental truck parking. That is happening on the 1207 South State Street property and would be allowed on the subject property if the rezone request is Item Schedule: Briefing: October 3, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 approved by the Council. In response to nearby resident concerns about increased truck traffic on Edith Avenue, the petitioner committed to keeping an existing blocked driveway onto Edith Avenue closed so vehicles would be required to enter or exit on State Street. The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property at 116 East Edith Avenue (approximately 1200 South) in City Council District Five from its current R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning designation to CC (Corridor Commercial). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from the current “Low-Density Residential” designation to “Community Commercial.” Current R-1/5,000 and CC zoning allow buildings up to 28 feet and 30 feet respectively. (An additional 15 feet of height (45 feet total) can be approved in the CC zoning district through the design review process.) The 0.12-acre parcel is used as parking for the adjacent parcel at 1207 South State Street where a magazine and smoke shop is located. The property reportedly has also been used as U-Haul storage. Both parcels are under the same ownership. Planning staff referenced a 1950 Sanborn map that indicates a single-family residence was located at 116 East Edith Avenue. There is no record of a building permit since 1979, so Planning estimates the home was demolished sometime between 1950 and 1979. Planning staff believes the current commercial use has existed since at least 1979. Edith Avenue properties between the subject property and 200 East are zoned R-1/5,000 and properties fronting State Street and 1300 South are zoned CC as shown in the zoning map below. Amending the zoning map and master plan future land use map would allow the current use to be a conforming use, and potentially combine 1207 South State Street and 116 East Edith Avenue into one parcel, giving potential to redevelop the site. It is worth noting that to date no concept plans have been submitted to the City. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. As outlined in Key Consideration 1 below, Planning staff’s opinion was that the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments are consistent with adopted City plans and recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. However, at its May 24, 2023 meeting the Commission voted unanimously to forward negative recommendations to the Council on both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. Commissioners felt expanding auto centric use into a residential neighborhood is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether aligning the zoning with current use of the property, and redevelopment potential outweighs impacts to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. 2. The Corridor Commercial zone is designed to be adjacent and compatible with residential neighborhoods, however, the Council may wish to consider whether another zone could be considered to resolve the non-conforming use, open opportunities for future plans, and be supportive of the residential neighborhood. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review such plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 4 KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Relevant Adopted Master Plan Documents Central Community Master Plan (2005) The subject property is within the Central Community Master Plan area, and the future land use map designates the property as low density residential. The adjacent property at 1207 South State Street is designated Corridor Commercial. Planning staff pointed to a section of the master plan that addresses “preventing zoning changes for commercial land use encroachment into residential neighborhoods.” Commercial land use encroachment occurs when new businesses are established on formerly residential properties and when existing neighborhood businesses appropriate contiguous residential properties. Both types of expanding commercial development often cause the demolition of residential structures for commercial land use. This has a severe impact on the character, livability, and stability of the existing residential neighborhood. Planning noted that demolition of an existing building would be discouraged but reiterated that the building on the subject property was demolished prior to 1980. Use of the property is believed to have been commercial since then, and Planning staff stated the proposal would allow commercial use on the property without demolishing a building. It would also allow continued use of the site which is already impacting the community as a commercial use. Planning staff included the following from the master plan: The location of neighborhood businesses within residential areas shortens travel times and makes it possible to walk, cycle, or take the bus rather than using the automobile, thus benefiting the community through improved air quality and reduced congestion on the City’s streets. and …non-conforming land uses, such as a commercial business on residentially zoned property, can serve the local community. In some cases, these businesses may be 20 to 50 years old and have provided convenient service to the neighborhood. These types of businesses also add character and opportunities for social exchanges in the neighborhood. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Planning staff felt the proposal aligns with the Neighborhoods, and Growth guiding principles. They outlined that the proposal supports the Neighborhoods principle because it does not change the expectation of commercial use for the property, and provides neighborhood services and amenities. Regarding support of the Growth guiding principle, Planning referenced that the proposal includes a mix of land uses in the neighborhood, includes potential to redevelop the property, and any new development would be in an area with existing infrastructure. As noted above, the Planning Commission felt the proposal is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake and forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. Consideration 2 – Comparison of R-1/5,000 and Corridor Commercial Zones Page | 5 Planning staff found the current R-1/5,000 single-family zoning is appropriate for residential uses along Edith Avenue, and the proposed Corridor Commercial zone is congruent with existing properties on State Street north and south of the subject property. R-1/5,000 zoning limits development on the 116 East Edith Avenue property to a single-family dwelling, while CC zoning would allow for more intense uses such as a bar/tavern/brewpub, veterinary office, convenience store/gas station, check cashing payday loan business, medical clinic, multi-family dwelling, and mixed-use development, among others. (For a more comprehensive list of permitted and conditional uses, please see Attachment D (pages 18-20) of the Planning Commission staff report.) Planning also noted the current use of 116 East Edith Avenue as off-site U-Haul parking was created through City processes, and is considered a legal, non-conforming use. Corridor Commercial zoning would allow this as a permitted use. If rezoned to CC zoning the subject parcel would not conform to lot width standards for the zone. However, if the parcel and adjacent parcel at 1207 South State Street were combined the larger lot would conform to lot width standards. Rezoning the subject parcel to Corridor Commercial would allow more intense uses than the existing R- 1/5,000 zoning. If the property is redeveloped or the current building at 1207 South State Street were to be expanded under the proposed zoning, greater height would be allowed and there would be fewer setbacks. However, a landscaped buffer would be required on the east property line adjacent to the single-family residential. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares current and proposed zoning districts. R-1/5,000 (current)CC (proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet to the ridge of the roof or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 20 feet to the top of a flat roof 30 feet (An additional 15 feet of building height can be approved through the design review process.) Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Average of block face or 20 feet. Corner side yard: 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard Setback 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other. None required Rear Setback 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. 10 feet Upper-Level Step Back None None Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 75 feet Minimum Lot Size Single-family detached: 5,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Open Space 60% (40% maximum building coverage) None other than required yard areas. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 21-24) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page | 6 Factor Planning’s Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Proposal is consistent with Plan Salt Lake and the Central Community Master Plan and is accordance with their goals, standards, and policies. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed CC zone will impose different development regulations that the R-1/5,000 district but as the property has been historically utilized as a commercial use the impacts would be negligible. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Does not conflict with any overlays that affect the property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is redeveloped. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 10, 2023 – Petition submitted. • March 7, 2023 – o Petition assigned to staff. o Early notification sent to Central City Community Council and residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site. o Beginning of 45-day comment period. • April 21, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • May 10, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • May 12, 2023 - Public hearing notice mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Newspaper notice published. • May 24, 2023 - Planning Commission public hearing and negative recommendation. • June 23, 2023-Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • July 7, 2023-Planning received draft ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-01160 & PLNPCM2022-01161 116 E Edith Ave. - R-1-5000 to CC Zoning Map & Master Plan Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Grant Amann, Associate Planner grant.amann@slcgov.com, 801-535-6171 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Deny the ordinance amending the zoning map for the property at 116 E Edith Ave as recommended by Planning Commission BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the property located at 116 E Edith Ave which is approximately 5,100 square feet in size. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning district. The property has acted as ancillary parking for the commercial business located at 1207 S State Street for several decades. The rezone to CC would make the property consistent with the adjacent property that shares the same owner. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:34 MDT)08/08/2023 08/08/2023 The applicant is requesting the rezone as they are considering alternative options for the business on the property. PUBLIC PROCESS: •Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the Central City Community Council on March 7th, 2023. •Also on March 7th, 2023, early notification of the project was mailed to property owners/residents within 300 feet of the proposal informing them of the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments. o No letters or emails were received in opposition to the proposal. •The Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 24th, 2023. Several neighbors spoke during the public hearing in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about the site regarding safety, and an increase of intensity of use. •The Planning Commission motion recommended denial for the reason that it is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake. •The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposal as requested by the applicant. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1.Project Chronology 2.Notice of City Council Hearing 3.Original Petition 4.Mailing List 5.Ordinance 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PLNPCM2022-01160/PLNPCM2022-01161 – 116 E. Edith Ave. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment February 10, 2023 Petition for the amendments were received by the Salt Lake City March 7, 2023 March 7, 2023 April 21, 2023 May 10, 2023 May 12, 2023 May 24, 2023 Planning Division. Petition PLNPCM2022-01160, -01161 assigned to Grant Amann, Associate Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Early notification announcement of the project to Central City Community Council, and 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. Beginning of 45-day input and comment period. End of 45-day Recognized Community Organization notice period. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on the site. Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a negative recommendation to deny the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022-01160 and PLNPCM2022- 01161- A request by Ian Kaplan of ADDVirtue, representing the owner of the properties, to rezone the parcels located at approximately 116 E Edith from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Corridor Commercial). The site currently is a vacant lot but serves as ancillary parking to the existing commercial use located at 1207 S State Street. Although the applicant has no current intentions of redeveloping the site, the proposed CC zone would allow for further commercial and multi-family development of the site that is not currently allowed under its current designation. The properties are located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315, 451 South State Street 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 Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or via e-mail at grant.amann@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01160 and PLNPCM2022-01161. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. 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. 3.PETITION Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (excess of one acre), plus additional public notice fee. Text Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus additional public notice fee. Public noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G UPDATED 6/28/22 Ian Kaplan ian@addvirtue.com miqbalsial48@gmail.com 10.29.2022 4 4 1207 S State Street 9897 S 2700 E 4 4 Ikbal Sial 116 E Edith Avenue DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C Updated 9/14/22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1.If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2.If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3.If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4.If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that i s the subject of this application. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: Application Type: Mailing Address: Email: Phone: Signature: Date: FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE Legal Description of Subject Property: Name of Owner: Mailing Address Street Address: Signature: Date: Ian Kaplan Zoning & Masterplan Amendment ian@addvirtue.com 10.29.2022 9897 S 2700 E, Sandy, UT 84092 9897 S 2700 E, Sandy, UT 84092 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. UPDATED 6/28/22 4 4 4 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C Advocacy | Design | Development RE: Application for Zoning Amendment Supplemental Information Prepared By: Date: Ian Kaplan (Owner Representative) October 31st, 2022 ADDvirtue LLC Ian@ADDvirtue.com Owner Information: Iqbal Sial Nazar Enterprises miqbalsial48@gmail.com Project Addresses Parcel Number: Site Area: 116 E Edith Ave 357-047 .12 Acres Existing Zone: R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Zone: CC (Corridor Commercial) Master Plan: Central Community Subject Property: Advocacy | Design | Development Purpose For Amendment: The property located at 1207 S State Street is composed of two contiguous parcels each with separate zoning designations. The smaller of the two parcels, zoned R-1-5000, is a vacant lot and has historically been accessory to the commercial use of the State Street parcel. Due to the adjacency of a commercial structure on two of its four property lines and it’s proximity to State Street, the vacant residential parcel has a low likelihood of being used for new residential construction in the future. The land would be better utilized as Corridor Commercial space that can serve the adjacent neighborhood. Proposed Use: Corridor Commercial Present Zoning Conflicts: 1. The location of the residential parcel with its adjacency to two commercially zoned properties and its historic use as accessory to a commercial property presents a low likelihood of being utilized as single family residential. Central Community Master Plan Findings: The future land use is designated as R-1-5000 on PG.2 of the Central Community Master plan (CCMP). The Community Commercial zone is intended to provide the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods (See PG. 10, CCMP). Additionally, the community input received during the Master Planning phase of this neighborhood notes that residents do not want commercial activities in low density neighborhoods and prefer to keep them in areas already plagued with noise, trash and traffic (See PG 9, CCMP). Due to the adjacency of existing Commercially zoned property on State street, a Zoning Amendment of this parcel would keep in line with the intent of the CC zone, as established in the CCMP, in maintaining larger scale community commercial in zones along arterial roadways. Furthermore, by amending the zoning of the vacant residential lot, any future commercial business development on the property would be required to meet the buffer requirements as established in 21.A.48.080 of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code, which would increase privacy and protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Advocacy | Design | Development Plan Salt Lake Findings: The zoning amendment of this residential property adjacent to larger scale commercial property would positively contribute to the goals set forth in Plan Salt Lake by contributing to the following: ● Locating new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. ● Promoting infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR Own _unit OWN_CITY OWN_ STATE OWN_ZIP 1700 INVESTMENTS, LLC 1207 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 1200 STATE PROPERTY LLC 1418 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BING KONG TONG, INC PO BOX 735 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 GARY L PETERSON; KATHRYN A PETERSON (JT) 1220 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LANDEN PROPERTIES, LLC 13 E WANDERWOOD WY SANDY UT 84092 BING KONG TONG, INC PO BOX 735 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 RESCUE MISSION OF SALT LAKE INC PO BOX 1431 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 AXIS T PROPERTIES, LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARGARET H CLAYTON 116 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RACHEL E SANDERS 122 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PETER GOODWIN 126 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LAURA KRAMER; MATTHEW PETTIT (JT) 132 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JUDITH M BEESLEY TRUST 04/20/1989 169 N STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KATHERINE J YOUNG 6908 S HOLLOW MILL DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 CONSUELO R HARRIS; TERESA M HARRIS; BRENNA HARRIS (JT) 146 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AXIS T PROPERTIES LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SERGIO GOMEZ 115 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TIA P MARTINEZ 119 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICOLE A JOHNSTON; RYAN K JOHNSTON (JT) 125 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID SHEARER; STACEY SHEARER (JT) 131 E EDITH AVE # SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONRAD NAGEL 135 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LANCE B SAUNDERS 983 N POINSETTIA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRIAN J FIEDLER; JESSICA ROESTENBURG (JT) 145 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JESSICA M REECE 149 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DREW HANSEN 120 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID A SALTSMAN 142 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ADEQUATE INVESTMENTS, LLC 40 S SAMARA ST VINEYARD UT 84059 LYNN LOSELI KATOA 156 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AUTONOMY INC 6036 S LINDEN ST HOLLADAY UT 84121 AUTONOMY INC 6036 S LINDEN ST HOLLADAY UT 84121 ADEQUATE INVESTMENTS, LLC 40 S SAMARA ST VINEYARD UT 84059 DOE MAYERS TRUST 09/27/2019 1057 E BELLE MEADOWS WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 TERRY GORSETH; STACY GORSETH (JT) 136 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PAUL H WHITE; JEANNENE WHITE (JT) 152 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 WILLISTON SLOULIN FIELD PAD LLC; UFPRP LLC 5670 WILSHIRE BLVD #1250 LOS ANGELES CA 90036 FIRST UTAH BANK 3826 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 RICK ROSS 126 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JEFFREY KATZ 130 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NAZAR, ENTERPRISES, LLC 1207 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NAZAR ENTERPRISES, LLC 1207 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 1190 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1200 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1216 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 85 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1212 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1165 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1169 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 136 E KELSEY AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 140 E KELSEY AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1185 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 131 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 139 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 144 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 146 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 120 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 142 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 146 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 156 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1297 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 145 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 115 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 116 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 116 East Edith Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single- Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 116 East Edith Avenue (the “Property”) as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 01160 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Property to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01161. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023 on an application submitted by Ian Kaplan of ADDvirtue, LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone the Property from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01160 and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Property to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01161; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) deny said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. 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 zoning and MP 116 E Edith Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 23, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Affects property located at: 116 East Edith Avenue Tax ID No. 16-07-357-047-0000 LOT 14, BLOCK 1, WALKER PLACE PLAT A. ALSO BEG SW COR OF SD LOT 14, BLOCK 1, WALKER PLACE PLAT A; N 89^56'40" E 42.36 FT; S 0^01'52" W 9.54 FT; N 89^50'11" W 42.36 FT; N 0^01'52"E 9.38 FT TO BEG. Item C2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: 1720 and 1734 South West Temple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00106/00380 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: 1720 and 1734 South West Temple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00106/00380 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Seven people spoke at the November 7, 2023 public hearing. Three were opposed expressing concern about adding to existing parking issues, and citing the 2016 downzone intended to preserve single-family homes in the area. Three people including the petitioner spoke in support of the proposed amendments. It was noted that most downzoned properties are north of 1700 South and on smaller lots. Other remarked this area is a good location moderate density. The Ballpark Community Council Chair expressed concern with the heat island effect in this neighborhood and said the area is underserved by an urban forest in the public right-of-way and on private land. She would like additional trees in the neighborhood. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 10, 2023 briefing a question was raised about proposed area zoning called for in the upcoming South Ballpark area plan. Council staff checked with Planning and learned it is too early to know what specific recommendations will be. Draft scenarios provided by the consultant on this plan suggest two to four story buildings may be proposed for public input. Planning staff noted that West Temple has historically been used as a dividing line for density. Density increases moving west toward the Trax line, and properties to the east are generally lower density. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 10, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 Planning also reminded the Council of the variety of zoning designations in this area. The map below showing the properties downzoned in 2016 was also discussed. Of the 155 properties downzoned, eight are south of 1700 South. The petitioner noted that downzoned properties north of 1700 South are generally smaller than the subject parcels. The following information was provided for the October 10, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1720 and 1734 South West Temple (0.24 acres each) from their current R-1/5,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning, to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. The proposed amendments would allow the property owner to potentially construct a medium-density residential development on the properties like a development immediately adjacent to the north, though no development plans have been submitted. A single-family home constructed in 1931 is on the 1720 South property. A duplex built in 1906 and remodeled in the early 2000s is at 1734 South. Both properties are market rate rental units. The parcels have frontage on West Temple and are near 1700 South, both of which are collector streets. Single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and multi-family buildings are in the vicinity, with bars, restaurants, a church and commercial uses within a few blocks. Jefferson Circle Park is adjacent to the west of the subject parcels. Planning staff noted that given the subject properties’ combined size of approximately ½ acre, and a minimum of 20% open space, limited buildable area will keep a potential building’s scale compatible with adjacent development. Residential use parking and height will be restricted due to fire codes and zoning ordinance requirements. Commercial uses involving alcohol would be prohibited because of the abutting park to the west. Area zoning is a mix of R-1/5,000, R-MU-45, CG (General Commercial), CB (Community Business), RMF- 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential/Office) and R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) as shown in the zoning map below. Page | 3 Area zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red. It is important to note that an ordinance was adopted in 2016 that downzoned 155 properties in an area bordered by 1300 South, Main Street, 2100 South, and 200 West from RMF-35 to R-1/5,000. The properties impacted by the rezone are not all adjacent to each other. The properties being considered by the Council are two of eight located on West Temple south of 1700 South that were rezoned in 2016 as shown below. Page | 4 Image showing properties downzoned in 2016. Courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its July 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people spoke, six of whom were opposed to the proposal. Concerns cited include no development proposal, parking issues, the 2016 downzone was intended to maintain the core of neighborhood homes. The person who spoke in support noted the properties are on and near collector streets, are close to transit, and a need for moderate density in the area. During their discussion, Commissioners clarified that the subject parcels are not included in the Ballpark Station Area Plan. (Staff note: The parcels are within the draft 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Plan Page | 5 area currently being drafted. That plan is not far enough along to provide specific recommendations for the subject parcels.) Some Commissioners expressed a desire to preserve the character of the street, felt the development and use potential are not appropriate for the parcels, and the small setbacks are an issue. Planning staff’s opinion was that the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments met factors to consider in City Code and recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that the petitioner enter a development agreement with the City for replacement of the three dwelling units. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to discuss how the forthcoming Affordable Housing incentives overlay proposal could be utilized to guarantee affordability is included in future projects on this property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Adopted City Plan Considerations Planning reviewed how the proposal aligns with the Central Community Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Housing SLC 2023-2027. Central Community Master Plan The subject parcels are within the Central Community Master Plan area and is shown on the published future land use map for this plan as Medium-Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre). The map is inaccurate as the 2016 downzone discussed above designates the properties as Low-Density Residential (1- 15 dwelling units/acre). The map was published in 2005, well before the parcels were downzoned. In the Planning Commission staff report Planning staff stated: The subject properties are no longer compatible with the surrounding uses by remaining labeled “low-density residential” among “medium-residential/mixed-use” and “residential/office mixed- use” on the future land use map. Most of the development and the zoning has been designated for higher densities. Therefore, the master plan should be amended to show these two properties as “medium-density residential” to allow for future multi-family and/or mixed-use development Page | 6 potential and to make the subject properties more compatible with the uses around them. Plan Salt Lake Planning staff cited the city’s need for housing in Plan Salt Lake which calls for “access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Two key components in the initiative are: •Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income, and •Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. Housing SLC 2023-2027 It is Planning staff’s option that amending the master plan to designate the subject properties as medium- density residential aligns with the main objective in Housing SLC to “make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.” Consideration 2 – Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted the low-density residential neighborhood that was part of the larger area. They also acknowledged changes over the past decade including townhomes, multi-family developments, and commercial uses. The tallest buildings in the immediate area include the townhome development adjacent to the subject parcels to the north, and a senior resident apartment building. Consideration 3 – R-MU-45 Zoning vs R-1/5,000 Zoning Development Potential R-MU-45 development potential is very different than the current R-1/5,000 zoning. Building setbacks in R-MU-45 are much less than R-1/5,000, and there would be more dwelling units allowed if the proposal is adopted. R-MU-45 zoning allows for buildings up to 45 feet tall, but as noted above the maximum building height on the subject parcels would likely be lower. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the parcels’ size along with landscaping and on-site parking requirements would allow a building similar in height to the adjacent townhome development. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment C (pages 15-16) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a comparison of existing R- 1/5,000 and proposed R-MU-45 zoning. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-1/5,000)Proposed Zoning (R-MU-45) Lot Area/Width 5,000 square feet- lot size 50 feet -lot width 5,000 square feet for new lots. No minimum for existing lots. 50 feet -lot width Setbacks 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded 3. Nonresidential, Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Developments: a. Front Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). b. Corner Side Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). Page | 7 subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot depth, or twenty feet (20'), whichever is less. c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required unless an interior side yard abuts a Single- or Two-Family Residential District. When a setback is required, a minimum ten-foot (10') setback must be provided, and the minimum side yard setback shall be increased one foot (1') for every one foot (1') increase in height above thirty feet (30'). Buildings may be stepped so taller portions of a building are farther away from the side property line. The horizontal measurement of the step shall be equal to the vertical measurement of the taller portion of the building. d. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of lot depth but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). Parking Two parking spaces per dwelling unit Min: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Max: All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Building Height 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section. Buildings taller than forty-five feet (45'), up to a maximum of fifty-five feet (55'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided that the proposed height is supported by the applicable master plan. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20'). Coverage/Open space The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot. Minimum Open Space Area: For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential uses, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. This open space area may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 31-33) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map Page | 8 amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies if multi-family development is constructed. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Some public facilities and services may need to be upgraded if a more intense use is permitted in the R-MU-45 zone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • March 3, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • March 17, 2023 – Information about the proposal sent to the Ballpark Community Council Chair. • March 20, 2023 – Early notification announcement sent to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site. • May 10, 2023 – It was determined that a petition for a master plan amendment would be required to amend the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from low-density residential to medium-density residential. • May 17, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition received by Planning Division. • May 19, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • July 17, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on property. • July 21, 2023 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. • July 26, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission votes 5-2 to forward negative recommendations to the City Council for the Page | 9 zoning map and future land use map amendments. • July 31, 2023 – Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office. • August 3, 2023 – Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division. • September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2023-00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380 Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment 1720 S. & 1734 S. West Temple St. STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the petitions for a zoning map amendment and a master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15- 13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low-Density Residential” to “Medium- Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The applicant, who is the current owner of the subject properties, is requesting that the zoning be changed to R-MU-45, a medium-density residential zone. For this zone change to be considered, rachel otto (Sep 8, 2023 09:13 MDT)09/08/2023 09/08/2023 a Master Plan Amendment application must also be considered to change the future land use designation from low- to medium-density residential. The subject properties front along West Temple Street just south of 1700 South. Both 1700 South and West Temple are collector roads. This area is a mixed-use area, with many townhomes, duplexes, multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity, and also nearby commercial and residential/office buildings. On August 26th, 2016, an ordinance was adopted (Ordinance 14 of 2016) that changed the zoning for 155 individual properties located in an area bounded by 1300 South and 2100 South Streets and Main and 200 West Streets. These properties were not all adjacent properties. The zoning for these properties was changed from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-1-5,000 (Single-Family Residential). The ordinance also amended the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map by identifying these 155 properties from “Medium Density Residential” to “Low-Density Residential”. The applicant does not have an intended use proposal for the property. However, in discussions with the applicant, he may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance as well as the goals of the adopted master plans or request to amend the master plan, as the applicant did make an application for. Planning Staff believed that those standards and goals were met and had recommended approval of these petitions to the Planning Commission. 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 March 20, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Ballpark Community Council on March 17, 2023. No comment was received from the Ballpark Community Council prior to the meeting. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan amendment. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for decision. The findings for recommending denial were: 1. It’s inappropriate without a development plan. 2. It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. 3. It is not compatible with the neighboring uses. In addition, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment petition. The finding for recommending denial was: • It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of July 26, 2023 (Click here) b) PC Minutes of July 26, 2023 (Click here) c) PC Staff Report of July 26, 2023 (Click here) d) PC Meeting of July 26, 2023 Time 1:56:05 to 2:31:04 (Click here) 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: PLNPCM2023-00106 – Zoning Map Amendment Request PLNPCM2023-00380- Master Plan Amendment Request approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. February 13, 2023 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 3, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. March 17, 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. March 20, 203 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. May 4, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. May 10, 2023 It was determined that a petition for a Master Plan Amendment would be required to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Central City Master Plan from “low-density residential” to “medium-density residential”. May 17, 2023 Petition for the master plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. May 19, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 17, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. July 21, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. July 21, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing July 26, 2023. By a vote of 5 - 2 , the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and the Master Plan Amendment. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00106 – Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15-13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low- Density Residential” to “Medium-Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The following two petitions are associated with this request: A. Master Plan Amendment – The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as “Low-Density Residential”. The request is to amend the designation to “Medium-Density Residential”. Case Number PLNPCM2023-00380 B. Zoning Map Amendment- The subject properties are currently zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The request is to amend the zone to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). Case Number PLNPCM2023-00106 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00106 or PLNPCM2023-00380. 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 OWN FULL NAME OWN ADDR own unit OWN CITY OWN STATE OWN ZIP SUSANNE GUSTIN FURGIS; GEORGE E FURGIS (JT)1181 E CHANDLER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LESLEY ULIBARRI 124 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 129 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT SYDNEE SCARBOROUGH; MAUREEN O'DONNELL (JT)134-136 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 NATOSHA WASHINGTON 1628 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GEORGE S RUSTER 1629 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JEREMY JOHN NEFF 163 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MAXINE POTTER 1631 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES M WILLARD 1634 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOEL G ARMENDARIZ 1637 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CINDY KHA 1638 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1639 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1640 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1689 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1709 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 21 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 17 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 15 Salt Lake City 84115 UT ANNE KENDALL GOTTWALT 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARGARET SCHAUFLER 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GREGORY M HARRIS; MIGUEL E GARCIA 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CATHERINE MARY CHRISTOPHER; CHIBUEZE DEREK UCHENDU (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA MARKS; MARIE MARKS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1710 SOUTH, A SERIES OF ILLAHEE, LLC 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXA NORLIN; KEVIN BOLGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES B CURRAN; ROBERT E TOWNE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST #9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID BENJAMIN DICKSHINSKI; JESSICA BAZZELLE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ROBERT WILLIAM NAYLOR 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BRYCE NELSON; ERIC ADAMS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 23 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SHANE M STEPHENSON; HANNAH M STEPHENSON (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ANDREW E MARR; CHLOE A RUEBECK MARR (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 20 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JENNIFER MCCALLUM 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 19 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FRANK FELDMAN; DAVID S RABIGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 18 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 OLIVIA J AKERLEY 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TYSON HATCH 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID JOSEPH JANGRO 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 13 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOHN MCKENZIE-CARTER; MARINA QUEVEDO (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 14 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SEAN HOUSEHOLDER; TRACI RESTON-HOUSEHOLDER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1712 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1715 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1717 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1719 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JESSICA ARMSTRONG 1720 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAVIER H ALEGRE-ALCAYAGA 1722 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1723 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JUDITH WILLIAMS; ANDREW KITER 1723 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1726 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT ALLISON K COFFELT; BRITT HULTGREN (JT)1728 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1729 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1733 S JEFFERSON ST NFF1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1734 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1735 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT MEGAN RADVANSKY 1738 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CHRISTIAN L CASE 1741 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HUGH VANN 1742 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARY L COX 1746 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1748 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1750 S JEFFERSON CIR NORTH Salt Lake City 84115 UT FRANCISCO AVILA-CRUZ; PAULA B AVILA (JT)1751 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA H GIBSON 1754 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CODY C CARVER 1755 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1758 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY L T CARR (JT)1759 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DIANE VAN ROOSENDAAL; STEPHANIE VAN ROOSENDAAL (JT)1760 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1760 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY T CARR (JT)1767 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1790 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT YING-TING LIN 336 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 AXIST PROPERTIES LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROY SISTO ALIRES & ARLENE W ALIRES TRUST 09/16/2020 3899 S BURNINGHAM DR WEST VALLEY UT 84119 Current Occupant 58 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 59 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT JACK H KOLKMAN 64 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GRANT J NORTON; COLLEEN C NORTON (JT)657 WINDSOR CT ALPINE UT 84004 Current Occupant 67 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT 17TH TOWNHOMES, LLC 70 NORTH MAIN STREET #106 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 KENNETH OWEN NAIL 736 S 300 E UNIT 5E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ROBERT J RILEY; GARY AYTON (JT)74 W QUAYLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1709 SOUTH, A SERIES OF UNSTOPPABLE REAL ESTATE, LLC 7901 S 3200 W # 443 WEST JORDAN UT 84088 FAMILY PROMISE-SALT LAKE 814 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COLE SQUARED L.L.C.851 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 1734 S WEST TEMPLE L.L.C.909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Diana Martinez, Principal Planner 451 S. State St. / P.O. Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 Larsen Sequist 909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00106 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00380. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 26, 2023, on a petition submitted by Larsen Sequist (“Petitioner”) to rezone two parcels located at 1720 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-006-0000) and 1734 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-007-0000) (collectively, the “Properties”) from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and a petition to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; WHEREAS, at its July 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the petitions; 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: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map within the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of ___________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned: 1720 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-006-0000 COM 4.35 RDS N FR SE COR LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 8923-0487 9283-9367 09283-9369 11181-1070 and 1734 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-007-0000 COM AT SE COR OF LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A B F SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 5820-2802 6497-0799 6548-1936 6606-0482,0489,0491 6781-0714 7597- 0552 8353-6519 8387-2544 8409-4333 8413-4101 8422-2142 8648-4144 8743-4086 8743-4107 9535-711 10377-4386 10753-9793 10754-8050 Item C3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Text Amendment Related to Historic Preservation Overlay District PLNPCM2023-00123 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Text Amendment Related to Historic Preservation Overlay District PLNPCM2023-00123 BRIEFING UPDATE One person spoke during the November 7, 2023 public hearing noting the robust public process for identifying building status in historic districts during building surveys. The proposal does not include an opportunity for public input if a building’s status is changed from contributory to non-contributory. The commenter requested that the City require some notification of proposals to change a building’s status. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for the Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 17, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposed text amendment and removing unnecessary barriers to the public for minor modifications. Under the proposal certificates of appropriateness could be denied at the staff level. Planning staff noted that a property owner who did not agree with the denial could appeal the decision to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer. When asked about protections for non-contributing structures that still add character to a neighborhood, Planning explained that if alterations which rendered the building non-contributing can be removed, there Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 is potential to change the building’s status to contributing. However, there are some alterations such as adding stucco to brick that cannot be removed, so the status would not be changed. A question was raised about the process for obtaining a demolition permit for non-contributing vs. contributing structures. Planning staff explained that the process for a non-contributing structure demolition permit is more streamlined and could be approved administratively following a notice mailed to neighbors which includes more information than is currently required. Demolition of contributing buildings is much more robust and requires Historic Landmark Commission approval following a notice mailed to a larger area. During a discussion about the process for claiming financial hardship, Planning staff clarified that the financial hardship is for the building being economically unfeasible to maintain, and not economic hardship for the building owners. There was mention of a penalty for property owners who allow a contributing building to fall into disrepair through willful neglect, though it was acknowledged this is outside the scope of this text amendment. Planning staff stated they will discuss the concept with the Attorney’s Office. The following information was provided for the October 17, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. 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.) 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). Page | 3 •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 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. Page | 4 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) 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 Complies Page | 5 the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. 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). 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. 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. Item C4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: 1518 South 300 West Alley Vacation PLNPCM2023-000408 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance vacating alleys) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance vacating the subject alleys with the conditions that the petitioner shall: 1. Within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance, execute an easement for a publicly accessible mid- block walkway that meets requirements in City ordinance through the block between Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue, where buildings constructed by petitioner are located on each side of the walkway. The walkway shall be open to the public at all times. 2. Within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance, execute an easement for a publicly accessible private drive connecting Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue midblock through a parking garage or other similar location on the petitioner’s property. This drive shall be open to the public seven days a week at least between the hours of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm and shall include signage noting such hours of public use. The drive shall remain open to the public until a future public road connecting Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue between 300 West and I-15 is constructed. 3. Refrain from conveying the property adjacent to the alleys until the aforementioned easements are recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. It is also the Council’s understanding that the plans for 60% or more of street level activation be memorialized in the planned development and design review process that petitioner is currently undergoing before the Planning Commission. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: 1518 South 300 West Alley Vacation PLNPCM2023-000408 FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION/PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE During the November 7, 2023 follow-up discussion, Council staff presented the petitioner’s proposal to construct a road through the parking garage as shown in the image below. It would provide access between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. This road would be publicly accessible from 7 am to 8 pm seven days a week and restricted to resident use at other times. The road would remain open to the public until a potential future road is constructed west of the petitioner’s property. The petitioner also committed to 60% street-level retail activation on the 300 West building façade. 60% of the other buildings’ façades would be activated with non-parking uses. Council Members were supportive of the proposal and thanked the petitioner for an innovative solution to allow vehicle access through the block. There were no comments during the public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 17, 2023 briefing, Council Members discussed the proposed walkway through a future development on the site. Adding vehicular access to the walkway was mentioned to help alleviate Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 difficulties driving in this area due to 400 West being closed, and a nearby abandoned rail line. A Council Member stated their preference for keeping the walkway as proposed for pedestrians and bicycles only and remarked that not allowing vehicles to access the walkway would make the area quieter for residents. The petitioner felt strongly that pedestrian access better meets the City’s midblock walkway goals than adding vehicular access to the walkway. Council Members also discussed street activation. A desire was expressed for the majority of the 300 West façade’s ground floor to be retail and restaurant space with no parking access on that street. Apartment and parking access, lobbies, and amenities would be provided on Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. After the briefing, the petitioner followed up with staff indicating that including additional width to allow vehicular access would make it unfeasible to develop the project. Their preference is to keep the proposal as is with an approximately 20-foot-wide walkway through the development. A second option would provide vehicle access for the public through the western building’s parking garage between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues from 7 am to 8 pm seven days a week. This would result in the loss of some amenity space and parking. The proposal would maintain this access until a potential future development connects Andrew and Van Buren Avenues via a road. The image below shows the proposed vehicle access through the parking garage. The following information was provided for the October 17, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Page | 3 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. 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 Page | 4 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? 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 Page | 5 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. 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. Page | 6 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 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. Page | 7 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. 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) Page | 8 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 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 Page | 9 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. 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. 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. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.58 of the Salt Lake City Code, the City Council hereby authorizes an exchange of real property pursuant to the terms identified herein. 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 of Exchange. The alley vacation set forth herein is conditioned upon: a) Within 60 days of the effective date of this ordinance the owner of the Property shall execute an easement for a publicly accessible mid-block walkway that meets the requirements in City ordinance through the block between Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue, where buildings constructed by the owner are located on each side of the walkway. The walkway shall be open to the public at all times and the easement shall run with the land. b) Within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance the owner of the Property shall execute an easement for a publicly accessible private drive connecting Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue mid-block through a parking garage or other similar location on the Property. This drive shall be open to the public seven days a week at least between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and shall include signage noting such hours of public use. The drive shall remain open to the public until a future public road connecting Andrew Avenue and Van Buren Avenue between 300 West and I-15 is constructed. c) The owner of the Property refraining from conveying the Property, including the alleys, until the aforementioned easements are recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. 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(a) and (b) are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the condition set forth in Section 3(c) is violated then this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions in Section 3(a) and (b) 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 Pasker, Senior City Attorney November 13, 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. 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.   Item C5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE:Northpoint Small Area Master Plan PLNPCM2022-00687 MOTION 1 – adopt I move the council adopt the ordinance approving the Northpoint Small Area Plan. I further move the Council initiate a Legislative Action requesting the administration draft new zoning regulations that will implement the vision, goals and policies outlined in the Northpoint Small Area plan. I further move the Council initiate a Legislative Action requesting the administration continue the city led effort to complete the annexation process for unincorporated properties in the area generally identified by the Northpoint Small Area Plan. MOTION 2 – postpone action I move the council postpone action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 3 – reject I move the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 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:November 14, 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: Nov 14, 2023 NEW INFORMATION During the October 17 work session briefing, the Council expressed support to move forward with the draft 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. 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. 4. Amend the draft plan to call for a 300 ft buffer along the Jordan River, north of I-215. 5. Move forward with the city led annexation for the area. If complications arise during the process, it could be ok to separate out the properties owned by the airport in order to move them along as quickly as possible. 6. Supported the changes Planning staff incorporated per Council direction. Page | 2 The following changes to the draft plan were included by Planning staff. 1. Changed Jordan River buffer to 300 feet, north of I-15 a. Page 16 – Future Land Use Map b. Page 18 – Design Standards 2. Included language to the Annexation Policy / Development Agreement Statements. a. Page 14 - Annexation and Zoning Amendment Policy & Page 35 Implementation •“… any unincorporated land located within the Transitional area, upon annexation into the city, will be subject to the AG-2 zoning designation until such time as the City Council adopts a new zoning district or overlay that aligns with the envisioned plan. Additionally, any proposed zoning map amendment in the Transitional area will also be subject to a development agreement aimed at realizing the plan’s vision and design standards, until the area’s zoning regulations are adopted.” Legislative Actions 1. Zoning Amendments The following motion pertaining to the creation of a new zoning amendments is included on the potential adoption motion sheet for the Council to consider: I move the Council initiate a Legislative Action requesting the administration draft new zoning regulations that will implement the vision, goals and policies outlined in the Northpoint Small Area plan. 2. Annexation The following motion pertaining to annexations in this area of the city will be included on the potential adoption motion sheet for the Council to consider: I move the Council initiate a Legislative Action requesting the administration continue the city led effort to complete the annexation process for unincorporated properties in the area generally identified by the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The following information was provided for the October 17 work session briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. October 17 work session Summary 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. Page | 3 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. Council Member Petro is asking the Council to consider moving forward with the Northpoint Small Area Plan in the following manner: 7. Keep the future land use map as currently proposed in the draft Northpoint plan 8. Initiate a zoning amendment that would create a new zone or zoning overlay that will implement the Northpoint Plan vision and goals. 9. 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. 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. 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. The questions are outlined here for quick access, please see the memo below for full background on the questions. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. 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. 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? Page | 4 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? 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: Page | 5 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 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 Page | 6 Section 3 - Proposed City-Led Annexation Section 4 - Related Planning Documents Section 5 - Public Comments / Requested Changes Section 6 - Public Hearing Summary 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. Page | 7 Does the Council wish to initiate a legislative action requesting the Administration draft a zoning amendment to implement the small area plan vision? •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). Page | 8 ▪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. 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 Page | 9 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. 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 | 10 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 | 11 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. Page | 12 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. 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. Page | 13 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. 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 Page | 14 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. •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. Page | 15 1.Implementation a. Are there specific implementation steps outlined in the small area plan the Council would like to initiate? See Implementation section below (page 5) for outline of key items and pages 2-3 of the draft plan for details. b. Does the Council wish to take steps to ensure future development will abide by development recommendations outlined in the plan, if any petitions come to the city before the zoning changes are adopted? i. Consider using development agreements for zoning petitions in the process Does the council wish to support initiating any of the key implementation actions recommended in the master plan? 2.Development Standards The Plan identifies design standards that could help reduce the negative impacts development may have (Pages 20-29). a. Some CMs have mentioned conditions included in the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District (21A.34.140) may be a good template to consider for development in this area of the city. b. Some of those standards include: i. Lighting – all lighting shall be shielded to direct light down and away from edges of the property. ii. Roof color – light reflective roofing with minim solar reflective index iii. Landscape – shall consist of native plants, remove noxious weeds, iv. Glass Requirements – use glass design elements to reduce bird collisions. v. Fencing – see through fence that is 50% open. c. Some have asked about the possibility for the city to require solar panels be included in a future development. d. Additionally, in the NWQ overlay, certain permitted uses are limited. Do the development standards outlined in the plan successfully address the council’s concerns about mitigating the impact of development in this area of the city? 3. The mayor 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 Page | 16 •Transitional •Business Park / Industrial •Airport 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 Page | 17 • Standards for new development o Grading limitation, Fencing / Walls, Dark Sky Lighting, • Water Conscious Development 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 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 NORTHPOINT Small Area Plan Salt Lake City Adoption Draft, November 2023 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 Appendix A Existing Conditions Appendix B Public Input Appendix C Constraints Analysis Appendix D Full Financial Analysis Appendix E Major Street Plan Amendment 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 SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 7 Esri,H ERE, Garmin,( c) OpenStreetMapc ontributors, andt he GISu serc ommunity Jurisdiction Plan Context and Purpose In 2000, a Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted with goals to eliminate potential land use conflicts between the Salt Lake International Airport, future development, and the existing agricultural lifestyle. Other notable planning efforts for this region include the 1992 Northwest and the Jordan River/Airport Plan which address the Northpoint Plan Area, the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Jordan River, the Salt Lake Airport, and surrounding land; the 2020 Blueprint Jordan River Plan which illustrates a cohesive vision for the River as it stretches through multiple jurisdictions; the 2021 Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan; and the 2021 Salt Lake County West General Plan. The northwest portion of Salt Lake City is limited by multiple layers of constraints, mostly environmental, but also due to airport activity, connectivity, and social equity issues. It is one of the largest growth areas for the City, but quite possibly, the most difficult to develop. This Plan addresses the natural environment, built environment, and community attributes. Many factors contribute to constraints facing the area, however many attributes act as opportunities. The Northpoint Small Area Plan Update is a response to the rapid pace of growth and change in the northwest portion of Salt Lake City and the anticipated new business park and light industrial uses in the area. The key goals of this Plan are to: »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the plan area. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Graphic 1.2 | Northpoint Jurisdictions Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Plan Effectiveness The Northpoint Small Area Plan, including the Design Standards in chapter 2, is intended to be a binding document and any zoning map amendments or redevelopment shall follow the standards established within the Plan. 8 Guide to This Plan Plan Salt Lake Northpoint Small Area Plan Land Use Code and Zoning Ordinances Design Standards Incentives Tools and Actions Introduction This document is intended to support Salt Lake City’s overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake while also providing tailored tools to help the Plan Area grow appropriately. Once the Northpoint Small Area Plan is adopted, its supplemental recommendations will guide applicants to develop within the scope of the Community’s Vision. This plan should be referenced when discretionary land use decisions are being made. These recommendations include, design standards, land acquisition tools, regulatory tools, and incentive based tools. Master plans detail the vision, policy, and framework of the community that will guide growth and development over time. As the plan area transitions from greenfield and rural residential to light industrial, this plan outlines specific design standards and action steps the City can implement to mitigate the impact of new development on the surrounding natural habitat and existing residential properties. 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 County 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 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 SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 11 Goals of this Plan »Identify appropriate future land use and development characteristics for the area that can coexist with the wildlife habitat and natural environment of the Great Salt Lake, and the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport. »Update future annexation potential for unincorporated land within Salt Lake County. »Identify appropriate infrastructure requirements, including utilities and roadways, to support the future land use in the area. »Identify appropriate buffering, building design, and development characteristics to reduce the impacts to residential and agricultural uses, important wildlife habitat, and other uses within the corridor. »Recommend methods to reduce the negative impacts that future land uses may have on air quality, water quality, noise, and light. Vision Map Categories See more on page 16 Key Design Standards See more on page 20 Critical Implementation See more on page 32 NATURAL OPEN SPACE Areas where development is limited to passive recreational amenities TRANSITIONAL Areas that are currently residential. New development will be subject to impact mitigation measures LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Areas anticipated to develop as Light Industrial AIRPORT Areas owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport Limit maximum building frontage along 2200 W Maintain buffers between new development and existing wetlands, canals, drains, and the Jordan River Maintain a 65-foot buffer between new development and existing residential Allow clustering of buildings to maximize buffers Emphasize appropriate building materials and encourage native landscaping Services and Infrastructure Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 W and construct 2900 W Built Environment and Design Create a Northpoint specific development code and codify the Design Standards Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring sensitive lands as city-owned open space How Will We Get There? 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, 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 design standards be incorporated into Salt Lake City Zoning and Development Code to apply to new development in the Plan Area. Annexation and Zoning Amendment Policy The Vision Map illustrates the anticipated future land uses within the Northpoint Area. However, any unincorporated land located within the Transitional area, upon annexation into the city, will be subject to the AG-2 zoning designation until such time as the City Council adopts a new zoning district or overlay that aligns with the envisioned plan. Additionally, any proposed zoning map amendment in the Transitional area will also be subject to a development agreement aimed at realizing the plan’s vision and design standards, until the area’s zoning regulations are adopted. 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 SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 15 Natural Open Space Purpose: Natural Open Space areas are those that should be preserved as natural open space and prohibit development. The Natural Open Space district aims to connect critical habitats in the least fragmented way possible considering development trends in the Plan Area. Applicability: These areas include designated wetlands, uplands, existing recreational amenities, and areas connecting them. All designated wetlands, uplands, and other sensitive lands fall under the Natural Open Space district. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be limited to passive recreational opportunities, trailheads, and small parking areas to serve recreational uses. Adjacent land uses will be subject to mitigation. Transitional Purpose: The purpose of this zone is to mitigate the impacts of light industrial development on residential and agricultural properties. Applicability: New development is anticipated to be primarily light industrial with a focus on manufacturing land uses. There are no properties in the Plan Area that are identified for new residential development. Use Standards: Residential properties shall be subject to natural habitat impact mitigation standards such as buffering critical areas from all development. Should any residential properties transition to Industrial, all Industrial standards will apply. Light Industrial Purpose: Business and light industrial development is anticipated in the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area will convert to light industrial, manufacturing, or business properties. Applicability: The industrial district applies to properties that do not contain significant constraints such as wetlands, uplands, existing residential, or other major limitations. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be reviewed closely for impact to existing residents and sensitive lands and may require additional mitigation designs focused on protecting the natural environment and quality of life of existing residents. Airport Purpose: These areas are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport, though there are no plans currently to develop these areas. Applicability: The Airport district applies to properties that are owned by the Salt Lake International Airport. Use Standards: Development in these areas will be limited to passive recreational opportunities, natural open space, and utility and infrastructure needed for the Salt Lake International Airport. Land Use Categories 16 Protected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Graphic 2.2 | Northpoint Vision Map NORTHPOINT VISION MAP Water Designated Wetland* Natural Open Space Light Industrial Transitional Land UsesProtected Open Space 22 0 0 W 29 0 0 W W Center St 32 0 0 W ( u n p a v e d ) 3200N 2670N 2100N 1700N 3130N J o r d a n R i v e r R u d y C a n a l Recla i m a t i o n D i t c h Ci t y D r a i n W e s t B r a n c h Le g a c y P k w y Rocky M o u n t a i n Power E a s e m e n t Roc k y M o u n t a i n Pow e r E a s e m e n t 215 215 Airport *Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Vision Map is intended as a general guide for wetland areas, but specific wetland delineation should be done when land is developed. Identification of wetlands primarily involves the determination of three factors: the predominance of wetland vegetation, hydric (wetland) soils, and signs of hydrology. 75 ft Canal/Drain Buffer 300 ft Jordan River Buffer 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 18 Design Standards Land Use Light Industrial Transitional Minimum Setback of New Development Designated Wetlands 300 ft1, 2 300 ft1, 2 Canals and Drains 75 ft 75 ft Jordan River 300 ft1, 2 300 ft1, 2 Existing Residential 65 ft 65 ft Maximum Continuous Building Frontage on 2200 W 400 ft 250 ft 1 | Should preserve uninterrupted connection between wetlands and uplands. 2 | Should include and maintain a planted stormwater mitigation element such as a bioswale. Setbacks and Buffers Buffers and setbacks are intended to reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and provide important habitats for wildlife that utilize buffer areas. While setbacks shown in this document are intended to extend from the natural feature (i.e., designated wetland or canal) to any impervious built surface of new development (i.e., sidewalks, parking lots), specific details will be determined when the setback is adopted into code. Setbacks from natural features may include landscaping and stormwater management. Required setbacks for new development adjacent to existing residential are intended to extend from new structure to existing residential structure(s). Setbacks from residential structures may include sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A maximum building length along 2200 West is recommended to reduce the impact of large-scale industrial development on longstanding agricultural and residential uses, as well as maintain habitat connections. Smaller setbacks in the transition area are intended to allow flexibility for residential development under the existing zoning. As development intensity increases with the development of light industrial land uses, the greater setbacks apply. 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. 20 Design Standards 1 | Habitat Mitigation Standards 1.1 | Grading Limitations Considering limitations to grading can help minimize impacts to native vegetation. It is important for only areas planned for development to be cleared and graded as it can allow for natural drainage courses to be maintained and reduces the need to manage stormwater flows. ◊ Soil cover or ramps shall be included to allow for movement of wildlife through the drainages. ◊ Excavation methods such as installation of underdrains shall be required. ◊ Vertical drop structures and concrete lined channels are prohibited. ◊ Use of large angular rip-rap for erosion control shall be limited. ◊ Non-structural features that also provide riparian habitat shall be considered. ◊ Development shall relate the building to the natural site by stepping buildings and avoiding mass leveling of the site. 1.2 | Fencing and Walls Fences and walls can be barriers to wildlife and impede the movement of wildlife between habitat areas. Although fencing can be used to exclude wildlife, it should be applied in very specific areas that do not restrict larger wildlife movement and migration patterns or access to food, water, shelter, or potential mates. ◊ Fencing shall be permeable to allow for the safe passage of animals and facilitate wildlife movement through existing or constructed wildlife corridors. ◊ Natural barriers for privacy purposes shall consist of natural materials where possible, such as boulders, densely-planted vegetation, or rip-rap. ◊ Decorative fencing features that could be hazardous to wildlife shall be prohibited including: »Pointed or narrow extensions at the top of fences. »Wires that may entangle animals. »Hollow fence posts that are open at the top when birds or other small animals may become entrapped in an open cavity. Standards for All New Development Graphic 2.3 | Native Landscaping 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. 22 Design Standards 2 | Water Conscious Development 2.1 | Landscaping Regulating native species in landscape design can lead to low-maintenance and water-wise environments that reflect the natural environment in the built environment. Additionally, habitat value can be increased when landscaping isn’t overly manicured. However, weeds and invasive species should be controlled so that they do not compete with native species for necessary water and nutrients. ◊ Landscaped areas shall follow Low Impact Develpoment (LID) principles. ◊ Landscaping shall consist of native, adaptive, and drought-tolerant plantings. ◊ New construction shall follow the Salt Lake City Tree Protection and Preservation Policy. ◊ Landscaping shall not require modifications to the native soil. ◊ Minimize irrigated landscape areas and utilize naturalized swales. ◊ Fertilizers and herbicides shall be prohibited. ◊ Development adjacent to wetlands and uplands shall adhere to the buffer requirements herein and include on-site stormwater management. Graphic 2.5 | Stormwater Runoff Design 2.2 | Stormwater Management As undeveloped land becomes developed with hard surface materials, loss of permeable surfaces will have a direct affect on stormwater runoff. It is essential to avoid stormwater contact with industrial materials and activities and to avoid point-source pollution and degradation of the wetlands, uplands, and other natural habitat. There are comprehensive best management practice guides that can help applicant navigate the best solution for the specific use. ◊ Significant new development resulting in a change of land use shall include environmental impact mitigation measures and align them with current executive orders and master plans. ◊ Embankments and spillways shall be designed and approved by engineers that specialize in stormwater management and ecologically friendly design. ◊ Stormwater systems shall not diminish water flow to wetlands. ◊ Sedimentation systems shall be used. »Sediment systems are more efficient with pollutants associated with metals, organic compounds, and other oxygen-demanding substances. There are limitations with sediment systems as small particles do not always settle therefore the substances in the industrial stormwater discharge should be evaluated prior to implementation. ◊ Detention ponds shall be utilized with an underdrain to outlet to allow water to slowly release into proper stormwater systems. ◊ Retention ponds shall be utilized to regularly contain water on site and via infiltration. ◊ Infiltration systems shall be utilized to capture and infiltrate runoff in order to reduce runoff volume. »i.e. Infiltration Trenches, basins, bio-retention systems and underground infiltration tanks. SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 23 Graphic 2.9 | Porous Surface Street Edge Graphic 2.8 | Native Landscaping Graphic 2.7 | Bioswale Graphic 2.6 | Bioswale 3 | Airport Conflict Mitigation Aviation adjacent to the Plan Area has been around for many years. Similarly to the rest of Salt Lake Valley, the Airport, too, has grown and anticipates further growth into the future. It is important to account for current and future impacts. 3.1 | Noise Regulation programs like Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise, should be implemented on airport owned properties as to mitigate the impacts of noise. This program was established by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and sets forth the measure that a specific airport operator has taken to reduce the impacts of noise. 3.2 | Land Use Compatibility Local land use planning such as this plan can better prepare for the implications of planning around airports, and other airport- related development. Land use decisions around the airport properties shall account for the impacts and determine whether the proposed use is appropriate. This can be hindered when multiple jurisdictions regulate the surrounding lands, however, there are tools such as annexation to consolidate regulatory authority and ensure that only appropriate land use decisions are made. 24 Graphic 2.10 | Natural Design Elements Graphic 2.11| Natural Building Materials Graphic 2.12 | Interior Courtyard 4 | Visual Design Conscious design can help enhance compatibility between various uses and ensure that development fits in with the surrounding natural environment as best as possible. ◊ Units (and open space required by code) shall be organized or “clustered” in an efficient manner on properties where doing so will allow for larger habitat buffers. ◊ Building frontages along 2200 W shall not exceed 400 ft in length. ◊ Uninterrupted horizontal expanses of 100 ft in length of any opaque material, including opaque glass, shall be prohibited on building frontages visible from public streets. ◊ Natural building materials, colors, and other contrast mitigation building and landscape features shall be included in the exterior of buildings to mitigate the contrast of the built and natural environment. ◊ Follow bird-friendly window and building design by mitigating reflective and transparent conditions. New construction and major renovation projects shall incorporate bird-friendly building materials and design features, including those recommended by the American Bird Conservancy publication Bird- Friendly Building Design. ◊ Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited. ◊ Mechanical systems/equipment shall be shielded with barriers such as foliage and fences. ◊ Buiding designs should have a variety of unit sizes to accommodate different uses and the structural layout should also allow for flexibility. SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 25 Standards for Transitional Areas Development within Transitional Areas will be held to the standards previously mentioned with the following additional standards. 1 | Industrial Land Use Mitigation As industrial developments increase in the Plan Area, it is essential to recognize the compatibility issues associated with industrial land uses and be able to mitigate issues through building and site design. Industrial developments intrinsically contain issues with noise, odor, dust, traffic, light, air quality, and visual/design elements, therefore mitigation is necessary. 1.1 | Noise Industrial uses can have implications on noise that can affect adjacent land uses and also the natural environment. Noise can be classified into two different types: airborne and structure borne. Airborne is from the source to the receiver and can travel in all directions whereas structure-borne is vibrations through materials. Regardless of noise type, mitigation efforts should be in place prior, during, and after development. The following strategies are ways to mitigate the unwanted and unnecessary noise impacts due to industrial development. ◊ Noise impacts shall be mitigated by absorption, barriers, and/or damping. »Absorption works towards dissipating airborne acoustic sound waves. The best sound-absorbing materials are acoustic foam, fabric panels, or underlayment. Common building materials do not absorb most sound whereas softer materials, such as carpet, foam padding, and fiberglass insulation are more efficient in dissipating noise. »Physical barriers such as a berm or spatial separation that account for height, distance, thickness, and material type can contribute to the extent of mitigation. »Damping reduces acoustic vibration within a structure or wall. ◊ Building masses such as U or L shaped forms are preferred as they can contribute to noise mitigation through spatial separation. ◊ Interior courtyards or garden spaces may be incorporated as they can be an effective noise mitigation strategy by providing quiet and light-filled spaces. ◊ Vegetation shall be high and dense when used for noise mitigation for significant effectiveness. ◊ Air-conditioning units shall be substituted for pressurized plenum space where possible. A plenum is a separate interior space provided for air circulation for heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning. Graphic 2.13 | Existing Residential in the Plan Area 26 Design Standards 1.2 | Odor Unlike other externalities of industrial uses, odor can be difficult to measure due to its subjective nature. However, there are some measures that can be taken to address the duration, frequency, intensity, and location of noxious odors. ◊ Mitigating odor shall start at the source of the emitter, such as food operations, traffic emissions, chemical facilities, mechanical equipment pollution, and material handling. Operational and engineering best practices can mitigate odors prior to being released in the environment. ◊ If emissions cannot be prevented, various solutions shall be requierd such as: »Plantings and trees to absorb and mask unpleasant smells as well as act as visual screening. Additionally, plantings can act as ozone generator which eliminates odorous substances through oxidation and are low maintenance. Odor mitigation foliage include field maples, peace lily, serviceberry, sansevieria. »Dispersion to reduce consolidated emissions. Dispersion can look like increased separation between odor source and receivers to allow for dilution or contain the dispersion in an enclosure to prevent odors dispersing. »Location of open tanks and storage piles. Limit the presence of smells such as locating open tanks and storage piles away from residential and high-occupancy areas. »Structure design elements. The operability and placement of windows and doors can also prevent intrusion of odors. 1.3 | Air Quality Permitting land uses and occupants that engage in sustainable processes and produce minimal emissions is the most effective way to mitigate air quality issues. In circumstances where this is unavoidable, exhausting air with ventilation can be effective and dilution can be used to mitigate the impacts ventilation can have on the surroundings. ◊ Apply in-room air cleaners and vegetation barriers to help mitigate localized air pollution. ◊ Use air filters and electronic air cleaners such as ionizers in duct-mounted and portable cleaners. »i.e. activated carbon is an adsorbent media air filter. ◊ To address on-site and off-site disturbances, green roofs shall be required on any new building over 25,000 square feet and at least 50% of the roof area shall be devoted to green roof area. ◊ Extensive venting should be used when possible. ◊ Operable windows shall be used to provide direct ventilation where they do not conflict with noise mitigation strategies. 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 28 Design Standards Standards for Natural Open Space Natural open space consists of critical habitat, regionally significant agriculture, and connecting open spaces. Development in these areas is restricted to passive recreational amenities. 1 | Wetland Design Standards 1.1 | Planting Wetlands are home to very beneficial habitats that can support carbon sequestration and improve water quality. As development increases, mitigating the impacts on wetlands is essential for the area. Plant species is an example of a simple design standard that can be incorporated into properties in a close proximity to this critical habitat. ◊ Require native plant species to promote a healthy wetland habitat in the face of increasing development. ◊ Non-native/invasive species mitigation: Upkeep of vegetated areas shall be a continuous effort of property owners. This includes proper management of invasive and non-native plant species that may have a negative impact on the natural wetland habitat. »Utilizing natural mitigation techniques will be required as to avoid run-off from herbicide and pesticide product. Graphic 2.15 | Outdoor Pavilion Graphic 2.16 | Natural Landscaping Graphic 2.17 | Nature-Inspired Design Graphic 2.18 | Birds at the Great Salt Lake Graphic 2.19 | Education Center 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 CHAPTER 3 IMPLEMENTATION 32 Implementing the Vision Implementation refers to the actions Salt Lake City should take to ensure the Plan Area develops in a way that is consistent with the community’s vision. The most time-sensitive implementation actions are included as critical path items. Following the critical path items is a list of additional action items recommended to achieve the vision of this Plan. A critical element in planning for any area is considering water sources and needs. Any development in this area must adhere to Salt Lake City water-related plans and policies. Critical Path Items Critical path items are actions that will be abided by the City prior to and as development occurs. Each critical path item will fall into at least one of the following categories: built environment/design, services and infrastructure, and natural environment/preservation. These categories were identified throughout the planning process and are integrated into the various sections of the Plan. The following items are classified as an immediate need, as development pressures area already present in the Plan Area. Services and Infrastructure Evaluate Funding Solutions to Redesign 2200 W and Construct 2900 W Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Various City Departments 2900 W is intended to be developed with the Scannell-Swaner Subdivision and will serve as an additional major arterial road in this Plan Area. The redevelopment of 2200 W and the construction of 2900 W should consider increased vehicle volumes and incorporate pedestrian and biking infrastructure. Below is a list of potential funding opportunities for this action. For a detailed analysis of these tools and their applicability in the Plan Area, see the Financial Implementation Analysis in Appendix D. »Tax Increment Areas »Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) »Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) »Impact Fees »Municipal Energy Tax Natural Environment/Preservation Evaluate the Feasibility of Acquiring Sensitive Lands as City-Owned Open Space Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There has been a large amount of support for the preservation of open space in the Plan Area, as it serves as a cultural and historical landmark for the region and critical habitat for wildlife. Acquiring and preserving available open space in this area for passive recreation is a high priority. Land adjacent to the Jordan River and open land and wetlands adjacent to 3200 West were identified as a high priority for preservation. For a list of recommended land acquisition tools, see Chapter 4. Implementation Overview SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 33 Built Environment/Design Adopt Development Code Updates Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Council There are several zoning designations within the Plan Area including Light Manufacturing (M- 1), Business Park (BP), and Agricultural/Rural Residential (AG-2, AG-5, and Salt Lake County A-2). Although some properties will likely remain agricultural or rural residential, it is anticipated that this area will slowly redevelop into primarily light manufacturing with preserved open space areas. General Development Code Updates The simplest way to encourage development consistent with the City’s vision for the Plan Area is to adopt minor edits to these zoning categories. While the City Council may eventually adopt an overlay for the Plan Area, the following Zoning Code updates are “low-hanging fruit” the City can quickly implement. »Review landscape requirements to prohibit turf lawns and encourage native plantings in keeping with wetland preservation, particularly in interface areas. »Consider a reduction in minimum lot size if clustering for preservation areas. »Reconsider setbacks in the zoning code if preserving native habitat to allow more flexibility of the building envelope. »For existing Business Park properties, eliminate the requirement of an agricultural buffer in favor of an environmental buffer (keep residential proximity protections when agriculture is a residential use). »Amend the Riparian Corridor Overlay zone to include wetland protection buffers. »Amend the Lowland Conservancy Overlay zone to include canals and drains in the Plan Area. Northpoint Specific Development Code The preferred approach to implement the vision for the Plan Area is a Northpoint-specific development code. A Northpoint-specific code should include: »Adopting the Design Standards from Chapter 2 of this document, which includes the recommended setbacks and buffer areas, landscape requirements, building materials and design standards, etc. »Incentive-based tools for preserving open and sensitive lands, such as allowing an increase in the maximum building façade length if preserving a larger amount of open space or buffer area than required. 34 Create a local area utility plan Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Require a local area utility plan to determine future Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) service availability and to ensure utility services can be provided based on the anticipated future land use associated with new development. City policy is that upon the development of a property, the developer will be required to identify and provide all utilities necessary to serve their development, including water, sewer, and stormwater. A local area utility plan shall be provided to SLCDPU for review to support any development application, to ensure adequate service availability, and to identify impacts on existing systems. Amend the Major Street Plan and 3200 West Development Restrictions Timeframe: Immediate Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Transportation Division Amend the Major Street Plan to reflect the proposed roadway alignment of 2900 W and the realignment of 2100 North to access the airport. Additionally, remove 3200 W as a collector street on the Major Street Plan. 3200 W will remain an unimproved dirt road and barrier for adjacent wetlands to the west. To limit impacts of new development on wetland habitat, new development is prohibited from fronting 3200 West and is prohibited from being accessed from 3200 West. Development features, such as signage or lighting, may not be located in the yard area abutting 3200 West. See Appendix E for the recommended Major Street Plan amended map. Develop environmental impact standards and align them with current executive orders and master plans. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department and Department of Public Utilities Create standards for new development that mitigate the impact of said development on nearby habitat and sensitive areas. These standards may include elements such as water saving best practices, dark sky ordinances, landscaping requirements, etc. Additional Implementation Items The following list includes recommended key action items to achieve the vision for the Northpoint Plan Area. SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 35 Require a buffer of 300 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem and impact to this habitat area by new development must be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring there is an adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies a 300 foot buffer from wetland areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay Zone or a new Northpoint specific development code. Coordinate with Salt Lake County to provide efficient police and fire services in the Plan Area. Timeframe: Short Term Responsibility: City Council To provide adequate emergency services to this area, the development of a joint Police/Fire station may be required in the Plan Area. Coordinate with the Police and Fire Department to acquire funding and land in the Plan Area for a new shared facility. Support the annexation of contiguous parcels within the Plan Area. Timeframe: Ongoing Responsibility: Salt Lake City Planning Department The City supports the annexation of contiguous parcels in this Plan Area for future development and redevelopment. Any unincorporated land located within the Transitional area, upon annexation into the city, will be subject to the AG-2 zoning designation until such time as the City Council adopts a new zoning district or overlay that aligns with the envisioned plan. The Vision Map illustrates the anticipated future land uses within the Northpoint Area. Additionally, any proposed zoning map amendment in the Transitional area will also be subject to a development agreement aimed at realizing the plan’s vision and design standards, until the area’s zoning regulations are adopted. 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 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. 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 developers 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 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. 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% 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. 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% 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 52 Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. Benefits Limitations »Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond »Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment »No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created »Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator »Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance »The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA »Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge »Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued 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 deficiencies 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 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. 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 SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 59 Hazards The greater Salt Lake City area faces natural hazards that impact rate and location of development. As climate change continues to exacerbate extreme weather events, planning with these common hazards in mind can help maintain the safety and comfort of the community. Clean air and water supply are among the top concerns of Salt Lake residents. In August of 2021, Salt Lake City was ranked the worst air quality of any major city in the world by IQAir.com, prompting residents to take extra precautions. The Salt Lake County Health Department released tips to stay safe during extreme air conditions such as staying indoors with windows shut, avoiding exercise, and wearing masks outdoors. The area, along with many other parts of the state, is currently under exceptional drought conditions, with fire restrictions and irrigation allotment reductions in place. Salt Lake City also experiences threats of extreme heat, wildfire, debris flows, flooding and earthquakes. Graphic 1.7 | Utah Drought Conditions | Source: National Drought Mitigation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2021. Summer 2021 Drought Conditions The Salt Lake City has proposed land use amendments to prevent large water users from being located within The City that may have a significant impact on The City’s water resources. The new limit for industrial and commercial land uses is 300,000 GPD (based on an annual average) of potable/culinary water. 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 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 62 Built Environment Airport The Salt Lake International Airport, located just south of the Plan Area, is one of the busiest airports in North America. The airport is also a major hub for Delta airlines and provides approximately 370 flights per day from its location. As the airport inherently produces high noise volumes and air quality issues, it has a significant impact on the surrounding areas and determining appropriate land uses in Northpoint. The Salt Lake Airport recently adopted a new Master Planning process, the first since 1998, to provide guidelines for future airport development and to optimize existing facilities for future aviation demand and increase airport capacity. The resulting strategic vision illustrates locations for a third parallel runway and Concourse C which are not anticipated to be built within the next twenty years. The City has formally regulated the land uses surrounding the airport to protect the greater community and reduce negative impact. In 1971, zoning ordinances were adopted allowed within Northpoint and in 1983, the zoning ordinances were supplemented with regulations that prohibited incompatible uses like residential housing. Development Constraints Existing development within Northpoint experience consequences from their proximity to the airport and overhead flights. Some existing residences face increased risk for airplane crashes and high noise levels from the consistent flights. The Department of Airports recommends limiting the number of new residences allowed in Northpoint to reduce harm for the community in the future. The Federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) does not provide any assistance, subsidy or insurance for projects located in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. As a result, this Plan considers alternative uses within those zones. The Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City own several parcels surrounding the airport that were purchased to preserve as undeveloped. This, along with noise contours and influence zones limits development potential in the Plan Area. Northpoint lies within Influence Zone A/B meaning, the aircraft noise from overhead flights can interfere with daily living activities including sleep, conversations and listening to media. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that each airport study the noise impacts and create a Noise Compatibility Program associated with alleviating noise issues. The Salt Lake City Noise Compatibility Program has implemented measures to increase compatibility with surrounding land uses Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NORTHPOINT BOUNDARY SLC Airport-Owned Parcels Graphic 1.11 | Parcels Owned by the Salt Lake City International Airport | Source: Assessors Parcel Data 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 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 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 66 Utilities Broadband The Plan Area is serviced by a mix of fixed wireless and wireline (cable, dsl and fiber)broadband internet. Within the census tract that Northpoint occupies, 10.60% of households are without internet access. The companies serving the area are Centurylink for local exchange, Rocky Mountain Power for electric utility territory and Dominion Energy for natural gas. The Utah Broadband Plan adopted in January 2020 set a goal to “Utilize best practices to encourage continued expansion of broadband deployment and increase speeds for everyone to 25 Mbps or better in communities throughout Utah”. The Plan Area currently has network speeds of 90.47/28.05 Mbps and its max advertised consumer download speeds are 10,000.00 Mbps. Active Building Permits and Recent Development There are currently a few active building permits within Northpoint that congregate along the 2200 W roadway and fall under the M-1 and BP zoning designations. A new development called Moonlake Farms has an active engineering permit and is among one of ten active permits for growing cannabis in Utah. Along the 2100N roadway, two new multi-tenant warehouse building have active permits as well. A key development proposal currently is the Swaner Subdivision, a 434-acre master planned development with about 5 million square feet of industrial on the C shaped parcel shown to the right currently zoned BP. This development would likely be cause for improvements on 2200 West to account for new increase in traffic. A new 2900 S bypass road is also proposed as part of the development. Another development conversation in this area is a proposed annexation petition for the land in the northeast section of the plan area. This proposed annexation was initiated by the landowners who wish to annex their land into Salt Lake City for the purpose of light industrial. A prior annexation conversation contemplated residential, however, that annexation was not pursued since Salt Lake City has determined that new residential would not be supported in the Plan Area. Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Ut a h I n l a n d Po r t A u t h o r i t y Proposed Swaner Subdivision Proposed North Salt Lake Annexation 22 0 0 W 2100 N 3200 N Graphic 1.16 | Active Applications 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 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 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 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 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 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 R IV ER 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 SALT LAKE CITY NORTHPOINT SMALL AREA PLAN 73 Graphic 1.24 | Trailhead map of the Jordan River 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) Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 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? Pe r c e n t 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 14. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) 22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg22% amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails49% Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 59% Fishing Access Along the River 59% Fishing Access Along the River 37% Wildlife Viewing Areas37% Wildlife Viewing Areas 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 49% Trails Along Natural Resources 22% Interpretive/Education Center22% Interpretive/Education Center 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 27% Interpretive/Educational Signage 29% Boardwalks29% Boardwalks Value Percent Responses amenitizedtrailheads2.jpg 22.0%9 Multi-Purpose Natural Trails 48.8%20 Fishing Access Along the River 58.5%24 Wildlife Viewing Areas 36.6%15 Trails Along Natural Resources 48.8%20 Interpretive/Education Center 22.0%9 Interpretive/Educational Signage 26.8%11 Boardwalks 29.3%12 ResponseID Response My emphasis on maintaining open-space natural area rather than developing a park-like area. None Great ideas for the community. This is such a treasure that is Salt Lake City. The land needs to be preserved for future generations, plus people are not having children there may not be the need for more development such as empty commercial buildings. Once you destroy land for development, you cant reverse the damage. All of the above amenities are wonderful. However, who maintains them and fronts the development costs? The land being discussed does not naturally produce any of the above items pictured. We are old salt flats that grow things with a lot of encouragement. We have been trying to improve the ground for 50 years and have done a lot of good. However, one year of not planting and working hard takes away 50 years of work. The farms out here would not be successful if all of the farmers did not have other larger farms somewhere else or other businesses that help support the farm. I support whatever developments come to this area that give the land owners the best benefits of their property. I know everyone wants what improves their community but don't forget the land owners and the work they have done for lifetimes and they need their rights reserved as well. This ground work for homes and businesses family like the Rudy's .Drechsel's.Swaner's Hinkley's family farmed this ground but it's no longer feasible for making a living and the ground is there retirement you want to take it from them shame on you None - not appropriate in industrial areas. none - not appropriate in industrial areas None. Not applicable for an industrial area. Restrooms. Solar panels on roof. Art. Shade none, not appropriate for industrial area none, not appropriate for industrial area none not appropriate on my land no water or for industrial area Most of these are not appropriate for an industrial area. 15. What open space interaction elements would you like to see in the Northpoint Area? (select all that apply) - comments None, not appropriate for industrial area none-not appropriate for industrial area ResponseID Response 16. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) 15% Painted Bike Lane15% Painted Bike Lane 12% Buffered Bike Lane12% Buffered Bike Lane 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17% Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22% Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 49% Street with Porous Surface Edge 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29% Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 5% Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street 20% Typical Curb and Gutter Street Value Percent Responses Painted Bike Lane 14.6%6 Buffered Bike Lane 12.2%5 Roundabout with Integrated Trail Alignments 17.1%7 Street with Flat Drain Pan Edge 22.0%9 Street with Porous Surface Edge 48.8%20 Parkways Planted with Native and Low-Water Species 29.3%12 Crosswalks with Striping and Planters 4.9%2 Typical Curb and Gutter Street 19.5%8 ResponseID Response Most of these options do not seem appropriate for 2200 West. What ever the design needs to implemented consistently rather than in piecemeal blocks. Such approach expensive and dangerous. We really don't need curb and gutter or sidewalks unless this area gets over developments by commercial buildings then we will need more for the residents. I do not think traditional curb and gutter are needed for the area, but some sort of drainage is needed. It is a popular biking path that needs more safety for cyclists. 17. When imagining the future of the Northpoint area, how do you want to see 2200 WEST improved or enhanced? Which do you think may be most appropriate to the Northpoint area? (select all that apply) - comments 18. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22% Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 24% LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs) 51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting51% Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 27% Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29% Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 76% Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing34% Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 29% Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls) 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22% Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 24% Natural Building Materials24% Natural Building Materials Value Percent Responses Integration of Community Solar or Solar Gardens 22.0%9 LID/LEED Elements (i.e. Green Roofs)24.4%10 Wildlife-Friendly Lighting 51.2%21 Two-Story Live/Work Industrial Residential 26.8%11 Increased habitat/Wildlife Buffers 29.3%12 Integrated Xeriscape and Native Landscaping 75.6%31 Wildlife-Friendly Fencing 34.1%14 Noise Mitigation Design Elements (e.g. textured noise walls)29.3%12 Thematic Sitting Areas Blended with Landscape 22.0%9 Natural Building Materials 24.4%10 ResponseID Response Empyhasis on keeping natural habitat and implementing "green" approaches Wildlife and nature are friendly. dense and limited cars/roads One of the major safety issues would be for the migratory birds, because this area is wetlands that is being destroyed. You would have to put the lights and windows in consideration. Again, all very nice, all of the ideas that have been presented over the last several years get voted down. It seems impossible to present something that people will get on board with. I want the land owners to be able to develop their properties with the highest value and regular farming is just not a viable option economically. Walkable design. Sustainable design. No grass. 19. What design elements are appropriate for new business and industrial development in the Northpoint area? - comments ResponseID Response 5 Place a moratorium on development until the plan is in place. 6 The construction of 2800W to pull traffic off of 2200W 7 3200 West should remain unpaved. There should be a buffer/natural area along the eastern side of 3200 West. 10 Affordable Housing. Salt Lake City is missing a big opportunity to fill the gap in affordable housing by using the acreage in this area. We are in a housing crisis, there is almost no land left to build in Salt Lake, this is a HUGE opportunity that Salt Lake could miss to build more units that are desperately needed. This is not the time for us to complain about open space. Look at the Governor's initiatives and play your part. The mayor and city council of Salt Lake are all about helping the homeless, but if we don't build more housing units the homeless population will only rise. I think the direction that it appears we are heading with this questionnaire needs to be reconsidered to include more, dense residential units for Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County 12 Need to address annexation issues and multi-jurisdictional service coordination issues NEED TO SAVE CROSS E RANCH possibly by having SL County purchase property with funding from a variety of institutional entities including USU, LDS Church, SLCity, Davis County, NSLCity, and Open Lands foundationsl Need 6 mo. moratorium on new development until Northpoint Small Area Plan is completed. 13 Plan is a waste of tax payer dollars. The market will decide the highest and best use of land in the area. 16 Ive researched what has been going on out here over the last few years, with some property owners exploring being annexed into North Salt Lake because of the regulation barriers that Salt Lake City has shown. Find compromise with the landowners or SLC may lose some of this unincorporated land and development opportunity in this area. 19 This is an industrial area and business park zoning already exists and makes sense for this project. There are already protections in place of wetlands and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 2200W is already master planned with a 90' ROW road section. Developers who develop with frontage along 2200W are already required to improve and widen the sections of 2200 W that abut their property. Many of the single family home-owners in this area are already under contract to sell their property to business park developers. There is no reason to plan this area with the preservation of existing single family homes as a goal. 20. What else should the Northpoint Small Area Plan address? 22 The valley and particularly the westside is already saturated with air quality issues. Any commercial development should exclude air pollution inputs. Additionally, water supply and quality are major issues for the state and communities which callks for restrictions on water use and waste. 24 Update the community. 26 density and walkability is best for wildlife 28 Wetlands and the fact that they are endangered. There is becoming less space for wildlife. USDA has programs for Urban Agriculture. 31 Please don't forget about the residents! This survey was focused on business development and none of the questions focused on also preserving the residential zoning in the area. We are already being bullied by developers to sell our land so they can rezone for business. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW REZONING FOR BUSINESSES IN THE VERY SMALL REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREAS. There are plenty of open spaces for developers to build that don't require forcing us out of our homes. 33 Setbacks and landscape areas along major roads. 34 Three points: 1. Leave 3200 West unimproved. 2. Restrictions on zoning changes until master plan is complete 3. Set aside buffer/open space lands clustered east of 3200 West. 37 The small area plan needs to think about both sides. There are a lot of neighbors talking about conservation of their lifestyle but I'm pretty sure none of them is making their living from farming. I love this area more than the average person but, I also know the realities of farming and maintaining a farm and or open space. The county could maintain or develop some trails and require certain landscaping. I know that those kinds of requirements exist in all developments. I prefer they allow the land owners the right to sell/develop their properties. There are many options for good development in this area. Residents (37ish houses) along 2200 west have been against a business park development, industrial, and residential. They want it to remain the same as always. However, that cannot happen nor should it. 39 The homeowner and people that own businesses out there 48 Zoning of specific areas to BP or M1 52 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. 54 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map. ResponseID Response 58 This area should be light manufacturing/industrial. With the 435 acres of BP, this whole area should follow suit. More tax basis for city, great area for business, less water usage than farmers, etc. 59 Water use. 60 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 61 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 63 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use map 64 Designate this land as Business Park and/or Light Industrial 67 With the business park areas that have been approved, it makes the most sense for SLC to default to Business Park zoning for this North Point area. 70 Designate this land as light industrial in the future land use nap 71 Designate this land as light 75 Do we have the water to build more? How will building in this area further impact the Great Salt Lake? Very concerned about maintaining open space and not further taxing our diminishing water systems. ResponseID Response APPENDIX C CONSTRAINTS Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend NorthPoint_Boundary -9 to -8 -7 to -6 -5 -4 to -3 -2 -1 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 7 ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Constraint Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Wetlands (-3)Airport Owned (-3)Easements (-2) Airport Influence Zones (-2, -1)Prime Ag Soil (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Noise Contours (-1) Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Legend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NorthPoint_Boundary ¯ Northpoint Opportunity Areas Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user community Proximity to Services (+3)Underutilized (+2)Vacant (+1) Large Parcels (+1)Access to Transportation (+1) APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 1 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING OPTIONS Northpoint represents an opportunity for Salt Lake City to encourage economic development that is compatible with the unique natural and built environment of the area, including proximity to the Salt Lake City International Airport. This area is best suited for business park and industrial development yet is hampered by the lack of significant infrastructure including transportation options and high-quality fiber broadband to the area. To realize its potential, the area requires substantial infrastructure improvements. Funding options for these improvements are discussed in this section of the report. It is a challenging time to fund infrastructure as construction costs are rising rapidly, along with interest rates. Infrastructure is generally needed before development can occur, which means that revenues generated by the project are not available for funding at the time they are most needed. Rather, other funding means must be identified, with revenue streams generated from development used later as a payback mechanism. Economic development is a key component of generating new revenue streams and is addressed in this report, along with the potential funding mechanisms that such development could enable. MARKET ANALYSIS Northpoint is suitable for industrial and agricultural use, with limited residential. The area is proximate to the Salt Lake City International Airport and, as such, experiences high noise levels that make residential development difficult. The industrial market is strong in Salt Lake County, with a vacancy rate of only 2.2 percent and rising lease rates which have increased from an average (NNN) rate of $0.53 in 4th quarter 2020 to $0.63 in 4th quarter 2021. Total Salt Lake County inventory approximates 135 million square feet, with 9 million square feet of space under construction. In the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake County, the vacancy rate is 2.65 percent, with year-to-date (YTD) absorption of 7.5 million square feet and an average asking rate of $0.60 (NNN).1 Based on vacant acreage in the Northpoint area that the Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office currently classifies as industrial, the area could absorb an additional 650,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of industrial space. This appears reasonable given current absorption patterns and the shortage of industrial space in the market. The biggest obstacles to industrial development appear to be supply chain shortages, rising construction costs and rapidly escalating interest rates. 1 Source: Colliers, Salt Lake County Industrial Market Report 4Q 2021. 2 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 COMBINED COMPONENTS FOR FUNDING OPTIONS The available tools and issuing entities discussed in this report may be combined in a variety of viable options to arrive at the desired funding level for the Northpoint area. Possible funding mechanisms include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in following sections. Tax Increment Areas o Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) o Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) o Tax Increment Bonds Public Infrastructure Districts (PIDs) Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) Impact Fees Municipal Energy Tax TAX INCREMENT AREAS Through the creation of a tax increment area, tax revenues generated within the designated project area are split into two components: (i)Base Revenues – The amount available before the tax increment area is established. Base revenues are shared among a mix of local governments that have the power to assess taxes such as schools, cities, counties, and special districts; and (ii)Incremental Revenues – These are tax revenues in excess of the base revenues that are generated by new growth in the project area. If a project area is created, the incremental tax revenues can flow to the project area for a period of time to encourage economic development. Some states, including Utah, allow incremental local sales tax revenues, as well as property taxes, to flow to a project area for a period of time. By giving exclusive use of incremental revenues to the project area, the creation of a successful tax increment area generates a new revenue stream that can be used to pay for projects, provide incentives to developers, or collateralize tax increment bonds. The most common uses of tax increment have been for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, telecommunications, electrical upgrades and burying power lines, and parking structures. Tax increment has also been used for demolition, tenant improvements, land acquisitions, environmental cleanup, trails, lighting, signage, playgrounds, incentives to developers, economic development activities and housing. Utah currently allows for the enactment of three types of tax increment areas: Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) Housing & Transit Reinvestment Zones (HTRZs) 3 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Of these three types of tax increment areas, CRAs and TRZs could be used as financing tools for the Northpoint area. HTRZs rely on density of housing and this type of development is not suitable for Northpoint. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS (CRAS) In Utah, tax increment areas have been known by a wide variety of names over time – RDAs, URAs, EDAs, CDAs, and now as CRAs or Community Reinvestment Areas. As of 2016, the Legislature combined all types of project areas—urban renewal, economic development, and community development into a new single “Community Reinvestment Project Area” (CRA). Existing project areas will be allowed to continue, but all new project areas will be known as CRAs. The CRA Budget may either be approved by a Taxing Entity Committee (TEC) or through Interlocal Agreement with taxing entities, except where the Agency chooses to conduct a blight study to determine the existence of blight and to utilize limited eminent domain powers, which requires the approval of the TEC of both blight and the budget. If there is a finding of blight, 20 percent of the tax increment must be set aside for affordable housing. For all other projects, 10 percent of the tax increment is required to be set aside for affordable housing, if the annual increment is over $100,000. However, housing funds may be spent for affordable housing statewide and are not limited to being spent within a project area. Noticing and hearing requirements apply with the CRA designation. After the tax increment collection period has expired, the tax increment dollars that previously flowed to the CRA will flow to the taxing entities that levy the property taxes within the project area. In most cases, taxing entities receive more property tax revenues annually following expiration of the tax increment collection period than before, as property values are likely to have increased significantly through the redevelopment process. TABLE 1: COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREAS – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Advantages Community Reinvestment Areas Disadvantages Community Reinvestment Areas Creates a new revenue stream.Requires cooperation of other taxing entities. Relatively easy to create.10% of revenues must be directed to affordable housing. Flexible uses of funds.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. The Northpoint area contains roughly 1,323 acres and five tax districts. All of the tax districts are within Salt Lake City, with the exception of Tax District ACT that is found within unincorporated Salt Lake County. 4 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 2: NORTH POINT EXISTING MARKET VALUES AND ACREAGE Property Values # of Parcels Total Market Value Residential Market Value Acres Tax District 13 63 $74,752,600 $30,700,900 666.83 Tax District 13 Q 3 $7,927,300 17.37 Tax District 13 I 3 $51,954,200 27.26 Tax District 13 R 14 $21,076,200 $1,529,600 27.01 Tax District ACT 47 $27,957,700 $12,251,900 584.37 TOTAL 130 $183,668,000 $44,482,400 1,322.84 Although there are five separate tax districts, districts 13 and 13Q include the same taxing entities; districts 13I and 13R also have the same taxing entities. The taxing entities and their tax rates are as follows: TABLE 3: TAX DISTRICTS AND TAXING ENTITIES Tax Rate Tax District 13 and 13Q Figure 1: Northpoint Tax Districts 5 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Tax Rate Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Salt Lake City School District 0.004809 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.011638 Tax District 13I and 13R Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Salt Lake City 0.003424 Salt Lake City Library 0.000652 Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake 0.000253 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 0.000115 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 TOTAL 0.013934 Tax District - Unincorporated Salt Lake County 0.001777 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 Granite School District 0.007105 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 TOTAL 0.013582 The market value of the property is much higher than the taxable value in the area for several reasons. First, primary residential development is taxed at 55 percent of market value. Agricultural property is in greenbelt status and taxed at extremely low rates, and public properties are tax exempt. Therefore, while the market value is nearly $184 million, taxable value is estimated at roughly $67.9 million. 6 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NORTHPOINT TAXABLE VALUE Estimated Taxable Value Tax Districts 13 and 13Q $37,500,000 Tax Districts 13 I and 13 R $20,400,000 Tax District ACT $10,000,000 Total Taxable Value $67,900,000 Taxable value will increase as development occurs in Northpoint. Of the 1,323 acres in Northpoint, approximately 437 acres are either vacant or held in agricultural use. TABLE 5: VACANT ACRES Vacant Acres Tax Districts 13 and 13Q Tax Districts 13I and 13R Tax District ACT Total Residential 8.34 19.81 28.15 Industrial 17.40 14.19 42.56 74.15 Agricultural 111.68 223.04 334.72 TOTAL Acres 137.42 14.19 285.41 437.01 For purposes of estimating future tax revenues, this study assumes that the residential and industrial vacant acres are developed as residential and industrial respectively and makes no assumptions about future development of the agricultural property. TABLE 6: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Amount Residential Development Undeveloped acres 28.15 Units per Acre 2 Units developed 56 Average market value per unit $600,000 Average taxable value per unit $330,000 Total residential taxable value $18,480,000 Industrial Development Undeveloped acres 74.15 Floor area ratio 0.2* Taxable value per sf $200 Estimated taxable value $129,193,733 *If the floor area ratio (FAR) can be increased to 0.3, then the estimated total taxable value would increase to nearly $194 million For purposes of analysis, this report assumes that the majority of the development takes place in the unincorporated County, as it has the largest amount of vacant acres. The table below shows projections of roughly $2 million per year in additional property tax revenues from this area. 7 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 TABLE 7: PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Tax Rates - ACT Incremental Revenues Generated Salt Lake County 0.001777 $262,416 Multi-County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000012 $1,772 County Assessing & Collecting Levy 0.000196 $28,944 Granite School District 0.007105 $1,049,222 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 0.0004 $59,069 Salt Lake County Municipal-Type Services 0.000051 $7,531 Unified Fire Service Area 0.001594 $235,392 Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area 0.001973 $291,360 Salt Lake County Library 0.000474 $69,997 TOTAL 0.013582 $2,005,705* *If the industrial development assumptions are increased to a FAR of 0.3, rather than 0.2, then annual incremental property tax revenues generated increase to nearly $2.9 million annually. A portion of these revenues could be allocated to a CRA for a period of time in order to pay for needed improvements and infrastructure in the area. TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONE (TRZ) A TRZ is one type of area that can be formed where tax increment can be used to accelerate development within the defined project area. According to Utah Code §11-13-103(22), “Transportation Reinvestment Zone” means an area created by two or more public agencies by interlocal agreement to capture increased property or sales tax revenue generated by a transportation infrastructure project. TRZs are ideal for projects such as Frontrunner, light rail, or major arterials that span multiple jurisdictions. Any two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement to create a transportation reinvestment zone but one of these entities must have land use authority over the TRZ area – in other words, Salt Lake City must be a partner in this endeavor. 8 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 A TRZ is much like a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) in that a portion of tax increment is pledged to the project for a specified period of time. The agreement between the two or more public entities must include the following, as specified in Utah Code §11-13-227(2): Define the transportation need and proposed improvement Define the boundaries of the zone Establish terms for sharing sales tax revenue among the members of the agreement, if sales tax is to be included Establish a base year to calculate the increase of property tax revenue within the zone Establish terms for sharing any increase in property tax revenue within the zone Hold a public hearing regarding the details of the TRZ Property tax revenues that are shared between members of the agreement are required to be incremental (Utah Code §11-13-227(2)(e). In order to identify incremental revenues, a “base year” needs to be established. The law clearly allows for the sharing of both sales tax and property tax revenue among the members of the agreement. There are advantages to governance with TRZs, as compared to CRAs, for projects that span multiple jurisdictions. In fact, there are only a few redevelopment areas in Utah that currently overlap multiple communities. While such are allowed by law, governance can be tricky. For example, in a CRA spanning two cities, each city would have its own redevelopment agency. Who then governs the project area? Joint RDA board meetings can be held, each agency board can meet separately, or there can be a MOU designating one of the RDA boards as the lead agency. Experience dictates that concerns often arise when more tax increment is generated in one jurisdiction of the project area than in another. There are often concerns about equity in spending funds in the same jurisdiction from which they come. Each redevelopment agency involved has to submit its annual report detailing the increment generated and how funds were spent, further exacerbating this concern. The TRZ overcomes many of these problems. First, with a TRZ, there is no requirement for RDA involvement, and therefore no need for RDA meetings. The TRZ is simply governed by an interlocal agreement signed by the parties. TRZs have proven effective in other states when projects cross multiple jurisdictions. With a TRZ there is no requirement to measure in which community increment is generated and where funds are spent. The purpose is simply to achieve an overall project. And only one annual report has to be filed for the TRZ – not separate reports for each participating entity. Another advantage to TRZs is the ability to obtain the commitment of transportation agencies, such as UDOT or UTA, for specific projects. Interlocal agreements between the public entity with the land-use authority and a transportation agency will identify the specific projects associated with the TRZ. This will add another level of certainty to local planning efforts and will give these public entities some additional leverage in prioritizing needed transportation projects. 9 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding transportation projects with tax increment generated in Transportation Reinvestment Zones: TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES AS A FUNDING SOURCE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Advantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Disadvantages Transportation Reinvestment Zones Creates a new revenue stream.Revenue directed to transportation projects will not be available to provide other services. Relatively easy to create.Requires cooperation between at least two entities. Projected to produce substantial revenue stream over time. Must find a nexus with transportation projects to justify use of the increment. No affordable housing requirement.Revenues may take years to build up as development occurs over time. TAX INCREMENT BONDS Tax increment Bonds were developed in California in 1952 as an innovative way of raising local matching funds for federal grants. They became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, when there were declines in subsidies for local economic development from federal grants, state grants, and federal tax subsidies (especially industrial development bonds). Tax Increment Bonds are collateralized by the incremental growth in property taxes within a given project area. They capture the future tax benefits of real estate improvements to pay the present cost of those improvements. It is a financing strategy designed to make improvements to a targeted project area or district without drawing on general fund revenue or creating a new tax. Ratings on tax increment bonds are tied to the performance of the area or district, not to the creating government’s general fund. As a result, the ratings differ from those of the creating entity’s general obligation rating. The rating of tax increment bonds hinges on local economics, trends, and taxpayer diversity, with taxpayer diversity being the most highly correlated statistic. Rating agencies evaluate whether the tax increment revenues could survive the loss of one or more top taxpaying property owners, how debt service could be managed in the case of broad-based decline of assessed value, real estate trends and historical assessed values in the designated area, and the types of properties located or being developed in the tax increment area. The assessed value of hotels is the most volatile, followed by warehouses, commercial, condos, and last residential. Many issuers opt to offer tax increment bonds on a non-rated basis. It is virtually impossible to secure a rating for or sell a tax increment bond before the increment is actually flowing, unless there is recourse to the local government’s credit or some other enhancement. 10 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Typically, tax increment bonds carry longer terms (anywhere from 10 to 30 years) and are purchased at a fixed rate using larger denominations of $100,000. There is usually no recourse to either the issuer or the developers who may benefit from the bonds. Pledged revenues vary, but a typical pledge is a senior security interest in the tax increment revenues as well as any debt service reserve funds. The bonds are often offered via a limited public offering and most often sold to institutional buyers (primarily mutual funds and occasionally property/casualty insurers) using a limited offering memorandum. It is typical to see interest capitalized for at least two to three years to allow increment to begin flowing before debt service payments are required from that increment. Unspent proceeds, capitalized interest and reserve funds are held by a Trustee. Debt service coverage covenants vary based on type of tax increment revenue and other security features associated with the bonds, but minimum coverage requirements are almost always at least 1.25 times annual debt service. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding with tax increment bonds: TABLE 9: TAX INCREMENT BONDS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Creating entity does not have to bear financial burden alone but can share it with other taxing entities within a project area. Often require the cooperation and agreement of multiple taxing entities to generate sufficient incremental revenues to finance the desired infrastructure. Tax increment revenues can be used to pay for administrative expenses. Bonds can’t be sold unless the tax increment is already flowing or is imminent and nearly certain to flow or is enhanced by a government’s credit or other mechanism. Financial and legal liability is limited by having a redevelopment agency.2 Typically take longer from start to finish than other financing types.3 Creating entity may gift tax revenues or property to provide incentives for development. Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that tax increment is just a reallocation of tax revenues by which some municipalities win, and others lose.4 2 An RDA is a separate political subdivision which can enter into agreements with developers and issue the bonds. 3 It is difficult to estimate the time required for the “political” side of the process, which often requires significant information sharing between local government and developers, including a public hearing for approval of the Project Area Plan and Budget. Setting aside the political requirements, the bond issuance process usually takes three to five months. 4 Critics of Tax Increment Bonds sometimes assert that some or all the increment is not attributable to the creation of the tax increment area and that the new property value growth would have occurred anyway. 11 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Tax Increment Bonds Disadvantages Tax Increment Bonds Creating entity may be able to encourage or accelerate the timeframe of desired development types through offering tax increment incentives to the developer. Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS (PIDs) PIDs are generally most successful in larger, undeveloped areas where there are significant infrastructure needs. Because the unanimous consent of all property owners is required for the creation of a PID, it is difficult to establish PIDs in areas with numerous property owners. However, portions of the study area could be included – especially those areas with larger parcels, fewer property owners, and significant infrastructure needs. If created, a PID can be combined with other revenue sources such as tax increment and those revenues could be used to pay the PID bonds. These funding tools may further facilitate development and increase property values, which may in turn provide for more opportunities to fund basic infrastructure (through tax increment financing or general tax collection). The PID tool allows for creation of a separate taxing entity in order to fund public infrastructure. Ultimate users of the property pay for the improvements via the taxing entity through property assessments. These assessments permit for bonding, allowing for covering upfront infrastructure expenses that are repaid over periods typically near 30 years. This tool results in higher property taxes for property owners/users in the defined district. Consequently, benefits beyond the improved infrastructure can be included in the area. This can be in the form of better landscaping, street lighting, public spaces, parks, trails, finishes, etc. These benefits aid in creating property appeal, property value increases and in attracting top quality businesses. The PID tool also represents a valuable option for cities who are reticent to bond with property tax revenues in a standard tax increment collection area. Bonding permits for upfront infrastructure costs to be covered, oftentimes expediting development that may not have otherwise occurred. A city may create a PID with no increase in the tax rate and use the PID as a conduit to issue bonds. In this approach, the city is not financially responsible for the bond payments, and the bonding does not affect the city’s credit rating. The process for starting a Public Infrastructure District begins with a citywide policy. This represents a “30,000-foot” view of the tool for the municipality and merely outlines the guidelines as to how a developer should submit for a PID. The PID policy may incorporate specific goals and vision statements of the city. Once a policy is adopted, a developer may submit a letter of intent to create a PID. This is reviewed by the city, and if approved, governing documents are required to be submitted and approved 12 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 by the City Council. The simple passing of a general PID policy does not require the City Council to approve governing documents or letters of intent. Consequently, the PID policy represents another tool that can be used when appropriate. As of 2022, several cities throughout Utah have adopted PID policies and multiple public infrastructure districts have been formed. TABLE 10: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages PIDs Disadvantages PIDs Create a new revenue stream that can fund capital improvements and economic development.Tend to carry higher interest and costs of issuance. Any debt issued is not on the books of the local government entity. Cities may feel it limits public support for future tax rate increases or bond elections due to the perception of already-high rates. Can raise a significant amount of revenue with legally- allowed tax rates of up to 15 mils. Requires unanimous support of all taxing entities to put in place. Accelerates development timeframe through upfront funding for capital costs.Ongoing PID governance Can reduce the need for impact fees.Competitiveness of site with other sites given higher tax rates Mortgage on the property can also be given as bond security under Utah law in addition to incremental revenue. Cost is much lower than other development financing. The current taxable value of North Point is approximately $68,000,000. The maximum mill rate allowed by Utah law is 0.015; however, districts are choosing to enact much lower rates. Politically, it would be nearly impossible to obtain the consent of the entire Northpoint area to create a PID. However, smaller sections that are wanting to encourage economic development could be developed as PIDs. The table below shows the amount of annual property tax revenues that could be generated for such a district given varying taxable values and varying tax rates up to the maximum of 0.015. TABLE 11: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ANNUAL REVENUES BASED ON VARYING MILL RATES AND TAXABLE VALUES Property Taxable Values 0.015 Mill Rate .0075 Mill Rate .004 Mill Rate $10,000,000 $150,000 $75,000 $40,000 $20,000,000 $300,000 $150,000 $80,000 $30,000,000 $450,000 $225,000 $120,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS (SAAs) Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of 13 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within a specified area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. While more information about SAAs is included below, it could be difficult politically for the City to obtain support from a large number of property owners. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment5 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if even 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, taxable value, market value, by linear foot frontage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. TABLE 12: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator 5 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e., acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. 14 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages SAAs Disadvantages SAAs Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance The City cannot assess government-owned property within the SAA Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued IMPACT FEES Impact fees are one-time fees paid by new development to offset the capital costs associated with new development for basic utilities such as water, sewer, storm water, public safety, roads and parks/trails. In order to collect impact fees, cities must carefully follow the requirements of Utah Code 11-36a which includes the following major steps. Prepare and pass a resolution authorizing study of an impact fee Conduct an impact fee study to determine the appropriate amount of such a fee Provide public notice of the possible fee 14 days prior to the public hearing Hold a public hearing to take comment regarding the proposed fee Salt Lake City has already established impact fees that could be used to generate revenues on projects developed within its City boundaries. However, Salt Lake County would need to charge impact fees on the unincorporated areas of North Point. Impact fees collected would need to be spent on capital projects listed in each respective entity’s Impact Fee Facilities Plans (IFFPs). Therefore, careful coordination would need to take place between Salt Lake City and the County to ensure that the costs of needed projects are fairly allocated between the two entities. Advantages and Disadvantages The following table lists the advantages and disadvantages of funding projects with impact fees: TABLE 13: IMPACT FEES AS A FUNDING SOURCE Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees New development pays for its fair share of the costs incurred by new development Adds additional costs to development Impact fees are generally paid when building permits are issued; therefore, funds are often not available upfront when infrastructure needs are greatest 15 Northpoint Small Area Master Plan | DRAFT Economic Development and Funding Options Zions Public Finance, Inc. | May 2022 Advantages Impact Fees Disadvantages Impact Fees Impact fees cannot be used to cure existing deficiencies MUNICIPAL ENERGY TAX Salt Lake City has enacted the municipal energy tax to the full 6 percent allowed by law on all taxable portions of electric and gas bills. Therefore, any development that takes place in Salt Lake City would generate this additional revenue that could be used to assist with economic development and infrastructure costs in Northpoint. The municipal energy tax applies only to development that occurs in Salt Lake City and not in Salt Lake County. APPENDIX E MAJOR STREETS PLAN AMENDMENT 2100 N ~2 9 0 0 W 32 0 0 W * 22 0 0 W 3300 N 3500 N 2950 N Salt Lake City Major Street Plan Amendment for Northpoint Area ¯ Legend Designation Arterials Local Streets Proposed Arterial Streets 0 640 1,280 1,920320 Feet *3200 W to remain unimproved 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 Item F1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Certification of the Downtown Plan MOTION 1 – ADOPT RESOLUTION I move that the Council adopt a resolution certifying the Downtown Plan’s compliance with Utah Code to have station area plans for each transit station. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. 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 30.2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Certification of Downtown Plan STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is an updated transmittal. The document that was attached to the resolution was updated at the request of Wasatch Front Regional Council to add more details about actions that the city has taken to implement the Downtown Plan and more info about development activities that have occurred. In addition, some corrections were made to directions that were wrong. After discussing this with council staff and the Attorney’s Office, it was mutually decided to send an updated transmittal with the corrected document. The following information is unchanged from the original transmittal: In 2022 the Utah Legislature adopted a bill that requires cities with a fixed rail transit station to adopt station area plans for each fixed rail transit station that is located within the city and for any fixed rail transit station that is within ½ mile of the city boundary when the station is not located in the city. The bill resulted in Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1. The bill recognized that some cities may have already taken action to achieve the same objectives outlined in the bill and provided a process for cities to certify existing plans. The bill requires the city’s legislative body rachel otto (Oct 30, 2023 16:48 MDT)10/30/2023 10/30/2023 to adopt a resolution acknowledging the objectives in 10-9a-403.1 that the existing plan(s) address the objectives. There are 34 Trax or Frontrunner stations that Salt Lake City is responsible for certifying station area plans. Twenty-eight of these stations are within the city, while six stations are outside the city but there is land that is within ½ mile radius of the station that is in Salt Lake City. To date, the Ballpark Station Area Plan has been certified. This transmittal includes a resolution to certify the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for the 13 stations that are located within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The station area plan area defined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 includes all the area within a ½ mile radius of the station. Due to the location of the stations and the geography of the Downtown Plan, the ½ mile radius around each station in the Downtown Plan extends beyond the boundaries of the plan. As a result, this resolution includes information about the surrounding community plans that support the objectives of the station area plan outlined in the Utah Code. The attached document includes an analysis of how each of the surrounding plans aligns with the objectives. This information was included to ensure that the full ½ mile radius was addressed in the certification process. PUBLIC PROCESS: None. The purpose of this resolution is to certify plans that have already been adopted by the city and does not include the creation of any new policies. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution Certifying the Downtown Plan Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION _____ OF 2023 CERTIFYING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN’S COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATION AREA PLANS FOR EACH TRANSIT STATION WHEREAS, Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 requires cities to adopt station area plans for each transit station that is located within the city or within ½ mile radius of the city; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 10.9a.403.1(2)(b)(1) provides a process for cities to certify that plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022 comply with the requirements of Section 10-9a- 403.1; and WHEREAS, the 900 South, 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, City Center, Temple Square, Arena, Planetarium, Old Greek Town, Salt Lake Central Trax, Salt Lake Central Frontrunner, North Temple Trax, and North Temple Frontrunner stations are located within or on the boundary of the area covered by the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan was recommended, after multiple public hearings, for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on August 26, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Plan on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(2) allows a municipal legislative body to adopt a resolution that certifies that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a) have been promoted for plans the city adopted prior to June 1, 2022 instead of requiring the city to adopt new station area plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection10-9a- 403.1(7)(a) have been and are promoted by the Downtown Plan for all of the transit stations identified in this resolution and that the city has taken appropriate actions that demonstrate that the Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan as indicated in Attachment A are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives in said section of Utah Code. WHEREAS, the requirement for a station area plan under Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1 requires a station area plan to include all of the land within ½ mile radius of the transit station; and WHEREAS, the city has evaluated the station area plans adjacent to the Downtown Plan where the ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, that all of the adjacent plans were adopted prior to June 1, 2022, or are other station area plans that have already been certified by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, and has found that these plans and subsequent actions to implement these plans promote the objectives of Utah Code Subsection 10- 9a-403.1(7)(a). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that the City Council hereby certifies that the Downtown Plan and surrounding station area plans have substantially promoted and continue to substantially promote the objectives set forth in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of _____________, 2023. ______________________________________ DARIN MANO, CHAIR ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 18, 2023 Attachment A 1 OCTOBER 17 Salt Lake City Planning Division Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com Downtown Station Area Plan Certification Salt Lake City Corporation Dept. of Community and Neighborhoods 2 Introduction Salt Lake City is seeking certification of the Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans to satisfy the Station Area Plan requirements outlined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(i) for plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022. This proposal would essentially use these plans to satisfy the station area plan requirement for 13 different stations: • 900 South • 600 South • Courthouse • Gallivan Plaza • City Center • Temple Square • Arena • Planetarium • Old Greek Town • Salt Lake Central o Trax o Frontrunner • North Temple o Trax o Frontrunner The City respectfully asks you to accept this document as the required submission for certifying the plans for these stations. To address the entire ½ mile radius that a station area plan is required to consider under state code, the city must provide information from seven different community plans. The community plans collectively establish the City’s land use element of our general plan. Submitting the required information using the provided submission sheet is cumbersome and challenging due to the number of plans that are included, and the city has produced this document to demonstrate that the requirements have been fulfilled. 3 Background The Downtown Plan was adopted prior to Utah Code 10-9a-403.1. There are 13 transit stations within the Downtown Plan area. A ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundary of the Downtown Plan. Seven additional plans have been adopted by the city, including policies supporting the objectives in 10-9a-403.1. This document provides land use policies from those other adopted plans to satisfy the intent and purpose of the station area plan requirements in the Utah Code. For certification, Salt Lake City views the downtown area as one large station area that includes each of the stations. The Downtown Plan and Surrounding Plans map provides a visual reference for context. The map shows the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map in shades of red and includes five future land use designations: • High-Rise Core • Mid-Rise Transit Oriented • Mid-Rise Corridor • Mid-Rise Streetcar • Low-Rise Transit Oriented Each of these designations allows mixed-use development. Residential density is regulated by building height and setbacks and not by lot area. The primary difference between the designations is building height. On the low end, the Low-Rise Transit Oriented designation allows buildings up to 50 feet in height. This is primarily oriented around the 900 South Station. Form-based zoning has been adopted that is capable of producing densities of up to 45 dwelling units per acre. Buildings are currently under construction in the High-Rise Core, which will have densities that exceed 500 dwelling units per acre. The map shows the adjacent plans in shades of blue. The surrounding plans are shown because the ½ mile radius requirement in Utah Code 10-91-403.1 for a station area plan extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Salt Lake City seeks to certify the entire ½ mile radius area by providing descriptions from the surrounding plans that support the objectives for station area plans identified in Utah Code. This is done rather than seeking an exception of impracticability because these areas do support the objectives and have been planned and zoned to accomplish this. Three of the areas that are outside the downtown plan boundaries but within the ½ mile radius have existing station area plans that will be certified through a separate process. The plans, referred to as periphery plans in this document, include: • The Ballpark Station Area Plan (certified in 2023) to the south of 900 South. • Westside Plan, to the west. • The North Temple Boulevard Plan to the west and north. • Capitol Hill to the north. 4 • Avenues Community Plan to the north and northeast. • Central Community Plan to the east. The Station Area Map above shows the downtown future land use designations in shades of red and the surrounding community plans in shades of blue. 5 The below chart shows which plans apply to each station: Station Down- town Avenues Ballpark SAP Capitol Hill Central Community North Temple Boulevard Westside 900 South    600 South   Courthouse   Gallivan   City Center     Temple Square    Arena    Planetarium    Old Greek Town    SL Central (Trax)    SL Central (Frontrunner)    North Temple (Trax)    North Temple (Frontrunner)    There is not a single station in Downtown that falls completely within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. This document provides information to certify existing, adopted plans that cover 13 of the transit stations within the city. Each of the plans listed in the table is referenced at the end of this document. The reference includes a list of policies related to each of the station area plan objectives listed in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The future land use map for each plan is also provided. 6 Certifying Existing Plans and Actions Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b) outlines the requirements to certify plans that were adopted prior to June 1, 2022. The Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans were adopted prior to 2022 except for the Ballpark Station Area Plan, which was certified in 2023. This section of Utah Code is applicable to cities that have already adopted plans or ordinances, approved land use applications, approved agreements or financing, or investments that have been made prior to June 1, 2022. This section means that the city can use any, but doesn’t need to include all, of these actions listed that are still relevant to achieving the objectives outlined in Utah Code. To certify an existing plan, the city must demonstrate that the plan substantially promotes the objectives of Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The objectives listed in this section include: 1) Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing; 2) Promoting sustainable environmental conditions; 3) Enhancing access to opportunities; and 4) Increasing transportation choices and connections. Each of these objectives is discussed below, with specific references to the location in the Downtown Plan where the objective is discussed, and has associated policies, or action items. The plans on the periphery of each station will also be cited under each objective. In addition to demonstrating that the objectives are promoted, the city shall also demonstrate that the plans, ordinances, approved land use applications, approved agreements or financing, or investments are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives. It should be noted that Downtown Salt Lake City has been the epicenter in the state of Utah for housing, commerce, transportation, and sustainable building practices since it was founded and continues to be a leader in implementing these objectives. This has occurred over generations, dating to the Plat of Zion, the 1919 City Plan, the Second Century Plan, the 1995 Downtown Plan, and the current Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016. It is Salt Lake City’s position that Downtown Salt Lake City is the most significant example of urban planning in Utah and the Intermountain West and has a long track record of plan implementation. No other station area plan (or a plan by any other name) can demonstrate the objectives to the scale, extent, and long-term commitment in the same manner as Downtown Salt Lake City and we appreciate the plans being certified expeditiously. 7 Promotion of Objectives This section describes how the Downtown Plan, periphery plans, ordinances, and actions support and promote the objectives identified in Utah Code 10-9a.403.1(7)(a). Each of the objectives focuses on the Downtown Plan and then follows with a short explanation of the associated policies found in the periphery plans. The policies in the Downtown apply to all 13 stations seeking certification. Policies that relate to a specific station will be identified under each objective. Information about policies found in the periphery plans will identify which stations the policies apply to. Objective 1: Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(i) The Downtown Plan has a specific goal of 10,000 housing units downtown by 2040. This includes increasing the number of all housing types and sizes, with specific mention of dwellings with three or more bedrooms. As used in the plan “housing choice” incorporates housing at all levels of affordability and includes initiatives to incentivize housing needs. The plan includes initiatives related to providing supportive housing for the homeless population as well. Pages 39-41 of the plan are specific housing-related policies. The policies are also anchored into each district within Downtown. To implement this policy, the city has taken the following actions: • Established financing tools to help lower the cost of housing at various levels below the current market rate. The tools are funded through various financing tools available to the city, including tax increment financing through the city’s redevelopment agency, the “Funding our Future” program that allocates a % of property tax to affordable housing, and utilizing state and federal tax dollars allocated to the city and to affordable housing developers. • Adopted zoning amendments that: o Increase building heights to promote more housing in all the downtown zoning districts; o Removed minimum parking requirements in all the downtown zoning districts; o Allowed a variety of housing types throughout the downtown. • Zoning amendment policies that are in process: o Affordable Housing Incentives: increases development potential and reduces approval processes for proposals that include a certain level of affordable housing. It is anticipated that these actions will help achieve the goal of 10,000 housing units Downtown by 2040. As of the end of 2022, there are 9,076 housing units in the area covered by the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan aligned with favorable market conditions to nearly complete a 25-year goal in 6 years. The success of achieving this goal demonstrates that the actions in the plan are still relevant towards achieving this objective because of the approved land use applications and building permits that have included dwelling units. 8 The following is a discussion of the periphery plans that address land use policies for areas that are within ½ mile of each station but fall outside the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. 900 South Station: • Ballpark Station Area Plan: BSAP was certified in 2023 and covers the area that is within ½ mile radius of the 900 South Station. That plan includes land use policies to support increased housing supply and affordable housing in the area. Zoning amendments to implement the plan are underway and expected to be adopted in 2024. • Central Community: Approximately 2 acres of the land on the east side of State Street is located within ½ mile radius of the station but outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The Central Community Plan identifies this land as “Medium Density Mixed Use” with a recommended residential density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre. This policy aligns with the goal of increasing residential densities within the station area. This area is zoned a combination of two different zones, which allows residential without density limitations and building heights between 45 and 125 feet in height. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan Station • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and 100 South is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding housing options within ½ mile of the identified stations. City Center: • Central Community Plan: the same land use designations that apply to the 600 South, Courthouse, and Gallivan Station apply to this station. • Avenues: A small portion of the Avenues neighborhood is located within ½ mile of this station. The Avenues Plan designates the area as “High Density” and defines that as 20 dwellings per acre or more. This area is also a local historic district with very little opportunity for redevelopment. One surface parking lot has been approved for redevelopment with more than 50 dwelling units per acre. This area of the Avenues has an existing density that ranges from 18-70 dwelling units per acre, which promotes this objective. • Capitol Hill: Most of the land within 1/2 mile of the City Center station that is located on Capitol Hill is institutional or open space. North of the institutional land is a historic district with a high concentration of historic buildings. This area is dense, with densities ranging between 18 dwellings per acre on some blocks up to smaller areas with densities over 50 dwellings per acre. Temple Square and Arena Stations: 9 • Capitol Hill: about 30% of the land within ½ mile of the station is in the Capitol Hill Plan. Most of the land north of South Temple is Institutional and owned by the LDS Church and contains ecclesiastical land uses. The future land use designations on the land north of North Temple are Density or High-Density Mixed Use, both of which recommend residential densities that exceed 50 dwelling units per acre. • North Temple Boulevard Plan: this plan was adopted as a series of station area plans prior to the opening of the light rail line to the airport. The area of the plan that is within ½ mile of the Temple Square station calls for dense development. A lot of the land is owned by the Salt Lake City School District or by the LDS church. However, land that is developable for other uses has a recommended density of over 50 dwelling units per acre and nearly 1,700 housing units have been built. Some of these housing units are in the Arena and North Temple station areas as well. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. Planetarium • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple is within ½ mile of the Planetarium Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. The zoning in this area supports high density and approximately 15 residential or mixed-use buildings have been constructed within this station area. Old Greek Town • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Old Greek Town Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Recent construction within this station area has demonstrated that the zoning is still valid and supports this objective. Salt Lake Central (this includes a Trax station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area south of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Salt Lake Central Station. Most of the area north of this station is included in other station areas discussed above. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. • Westside Plan: The Westside Plan is located west of I-15 and south of I-80. Although relatively close to these stations, it is separated from each station by I-15 and the freight rail corridor that runs along 600 West. The only connections to the stations are 400 South over the bridge to 500 West and then back towards the station. Even though the area is within a ½ mile radius of the station, it is nearly a one mile walk to get to the station. However, the area that is within ½ mile of the station is identified as a neighborhood node in the Westside plan, which recommends densities of at least 20 dwelling units per acre with a mix of uses. The 10 zoning to support these policies has been adopted. The city is currently working through a federal grant to study options for improving connectivity in this area. North Temple (this includes a Trax Station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: About half of the land within ½ mile of this station is in the North Temple Boulevard plan. This includes all the land north of North Temple. The plan supports intense development near this station, with densities above 50 dwelling units per acre and taller buildings. This transitions down towards the edge of the ½ mile radius. The blocks within ½ mile of the station contain some of the areas north of North Temple and west of I-15 within ½ mile of the Old Greek Town Station, which have been discussed above. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. There are nearly 2,000 dwellings that have been constructed since this plan was adopted, with hundreds more under construction or entitled. This plan clearly supports this objective. Objective 2: Promoting sustainable environmental conditions. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(ii) The Downtown Plan supports this objective by supporting housing, jobs, daily needs, culture, and entertainment near transit and bike paths to reduce the need to drive. There are multiple policies that relate to this, including an entire section on livability and urban design to facilitate a sustainable living environment downtown (pages 16-21). The Downtown Plan also includes specific sections that are related to this objective. Goal 2 on page 40 lists six different initiatives that promote sustainable living. Uniting City and Nature, found on pages 71-77, includes sustainability-related goals and action items. The development of the Green Loop, a linear park that surrounds downtown, is identified as a catalytic project to increase green space, reduce the heat island effect, and help manage stormwater in the downtown area (pages 86-87). The city has also adopted citywide policies promoting sustainable environmental conditions that apply to all the community and station area plans. The City’s vision plan, Plan Salt Lake, addresses sustainable issues with guiding principles related to water quality and conservation, air quality, sensitive land preservation, and smart growth. These principles include: • Placemaking; • Diverse mix of uses within neighborhoods; • Connectivity and circulation; • Density; • Compatibility; 11 • Maximizing public investments; • Responsive and resilient infrastructure; and • Green Building. Since the adoption of Plan Salt Lake, the city has updated zoning to align with these principles including: • Capping the amount of water any single land use can use per day to conserve water; • Updating landscaping requirements to promote water-wise approaches, including limiting the amount of non-functional turf grass citywide; • Eliminating parking requirements in Downtown and near transit while reducing parking requirements in the rest of the city; • A demolition and construction waste recycling program to reduce the amount of waste from redevelopment going to landfills; • Removing or drastically reducing minimum lot widths and lot sizes in the downtown area; and • Requiring midblock walkways throughout the downtown. These policies and zoning changes include the areas covered by the periphery plans and all the land within ½ mile of the transit stations listed in this report. Salt Lake City is also investing in improvements to outdoor space for the growing population. The city has allocated money to improve Pioneer Park to expand the recreation opportunities. The city is also in the middle of creating an implementation plan for the Green Loop, which will add dozens of acres of park space within the existing rights of way that surround downtown. The City’s RDA is going through a consultant-driven process to develop Station Center which will include public, outdoor space. Objective 3: Enhancing access to opportunity. (Utah Code Section 10-9a- 403.1(7)(iii) This section of the state code lists several ways that this objective can be achieved: • maintaining and improving the connections between housing, transit, employment, education, recreation, and commerce; • encouraging mixed-use development; • enabling employment and educational opportunities within the station area; • encouraging and promoting enhanced broadband connectivity; or • any other similar action that promotes the objective described in Subsection (7)(a)(iii) The entire Downtown Plan includes land use policies related to encouraging mixed-use development and the connections between them. Pages 13-14 of the plan provide the intent of the Downtown Plan as it directs growth and development. The plan defines livability on page 16. The plan establishes 10 values for downtown, all of which relate to enhancing access to opportunity. Pg 37 outlines the values, and each value has a series of goals, initiatives, and metrics. The detailed goals, initiatives, and metrics can be found on pages 38-77. The 12 Downtown is divided into districts, and these values are also reflected in district-specific goals found on pages 90-131. In addition to the policies in the Downtown Plan, Plan Salt Lake lists city-wide goals related to access to opportunity. Both documents have led to numerous implementation actions related to this objective: • requirements for including midblock walkways that connect through the 10-acre blocks downtown; • updating land use regulations for tech-related land uses to ensure these uses, particularly biotech have options to locate throughout the city; • Increasing building heights to support more mixed-use neighborhoods in the downtown area; • Removing zoning barriers to support the reuse of office space for other uses, including eliminating parking requirements. Some of these zoning changes also relate to the other periphery plans that cover some of the lands within ½ mile radius of the stations Downtown. 900 South Station: (Ballpark Station Area Plan) • Certified in 2022 and covers this objective. • The 900 South Station includes land subject to the Ballpark Station Area Plan. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, and City Center Stations: (Central Community Plan) • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and South Temple is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High-Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding access to opportunity by encouraging mixed-use development and enabling access to job opportunities. The City’s Transit Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establish future improvements to this area through enhanced bus access (demonstrated by the improvements under construction on 200 South) and building cycling infrastructure on 900 South with the 9Line, 800 South, 500 South, 300 South, and 200 South as well as Main Street, 200 East, and 300 East. City Center Station: (Avenues Plan) • The primary role that the area within ½ mile of the City Center station that is located within the Avenues Plan is to provide density to link housing close to the central business district. The blocks in the southwest corner of the Avenues are some of the densest in the city. The Avenues also provide connections to Memory Grove Park and City Creek Canyon, which are important recreation opportunities for the northern part of Downtown and one of the few car-free areas in the city. The Avenues plan supports the preservation of the open space in Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon. 13 Temple Square, North Temple Trax, and Frontrunner Stations: (Capitol Hill Plan) • The land use policies of the Capitol Hill plan are like those of the Avenues, but the plan also supports the large institutional uses and cultural facilities that dominate North Temple. Capitol Hill is also home to schools for students who live in the Downtown area. The plan supports improving connections to both schools along 200 West and 400 West as well as an under-construction pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the freight rail lines and Frontrunner rail line. North Temple Trax, North Temple Frontrunner, Arena, Old Greek Town, Planetarium, Central Station Trax, Central Station Frontrunner, and Temple Square Stations: (North Temple Boulevard Plan) • The land use policies in the North Temple Boulevard Plan support a mix of uses. The plan also includes a connectivity map that recommends improved connections through the neighborhood to access transit. These connections also improve mobility throughout the neighborhood, whether it is the mentioned bridge, cycling infrastructure on 600 West, or the improved sidewalks leading from Frontrunner to 400 West and south to 500 West. Additionally, the plan recognizes establishing the Folsom Corridor Trail, which has recently been constructed, linking the stations to the neighborhoods to the west. Central Station Trax and Central Station Frontrunner Stations: (Westside Plan) • There is a small amount of land that is within ½ mile of the Central Station Trax and Front Runner Stations. This land is identified as a community node, which promotes mixed-use development. Objective 4: Increasing transportation choices and connections. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(iv) The Downtown Plan includes specific sections related to transportation choice and connection: • The “Is Connected” section of the plan (pages 59-61) and the “Is Walkable” section of the plan (pages 62-65) establish specific policies related to how people move around through downtown. • The plan includes several key moves related to mobility: Downtown Streetcar, Trax Extension, and Green Loop (pages 79-87) including specific actions related to this objective. • The Mid-Block Walkway map on page 99 shows the location of all future midblock connections. As with the other objectives, connectivity and mobility are mostly guided by citywide plans related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructure. These plans are intended to connect where people live to where they work, shop, recreate, and attend to other daily needs. These plans include specific actions related to improved connections to and through the periphery plans, including: • Expanding the frequency of bus lines; 14 • The improvements to 200 South; • The Green Loop; • the 300 South and 200 West protected bicycle lanes; • The completion of the 9 Line and the Folsom Corridor trails; and • The trails that connect Memory Grove to the foothills. Many of these features connect multiple planning communities and are therefore more appropriately placed in city-wide plans. These plans include the Salt Lake City Transportation Plan, which is currently being updated. The Salt Lake City Transit Plan and the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan include policies that connect all neighborhoods within the city through transit, cycling, and walking infrastructure. As a result, the reference provided herein is to those plans instead of repeating each item associated with each of the periphery plans and within each station area. The city is working on a long-term plan to reallocate space on Main Street to convert it into a pedestrian and bicycling street with limited access to daily deliveries, service, and public safety. In addition, the city is working with a Reconnecting Communities Grant to improve connections from Downtown to the neighborhoods west of I-15. Links and References Downtown Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf Avenues Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Aves.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 7 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Ballpark Station Area Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Master%20Plans/Central%20Community/22-10- 27_Ballpark.pdf • Certified in 2023 • See certification for references for how the plan satisfies objectives. Capitol Hill Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Cap.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Central Community Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. 15 • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan North Temple Boulevard Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NTMP.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Pages 28-29 for North Temple Trax and Frontrunner Station; pages 51-53 for 800 West Station Area (includes density descriptions). • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Westside Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 37 (community node designation); page 48 for description and future density. • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Transit Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/wp- content/uploads/sites/11/2021/07/SLC_TMP_FULL_FINAL.pdf • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans- studies/pbmp/ • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Plan Salt Lake: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf • Objective 1: Guiding Principle 1 and 2 • Objective 2: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: Guiding Principal 1, 2, and 4 Next Steps Salt Lake City has 34 stations that are either within the city boundary or within ½ mile of a station located outside the city boundary. This would be a hard barrier for any city to accomplish and has required decades of commitment, resources, and partnerships to build. Capturing those efforts and justifying the actions is best realized by simply looking at the downtown area. Putting that history into a document for the purpose of complying with a recently adopted state statute should be as easy as possible and require little effort. In putting together this document, the city hopes to demonstrate to others that this work is bigger than what can be captured by state statute. Putting together a plan is the easy part. Building 16 partnerships, committing to goals through actions, dedicating resources, and doing that consistently over time is much more difficult. Fortunately, Salt Lake City has a long history of planning for density, affordable housing, sustainability, transportation, and expanding access to opportunity. As this document demonstrates, the city has been doing this type of work under different names for decades, if not longer. The city will be seeking certification of existing plans for the 400 South corridor east of downtown as well as the North Temple corridor within the next 18 months. This document demonstrates the complexity of reviewing station areas that often include multiple plans and doing so does not align with the one-size-fits-all approach outlined in Utah Code. Similar documents should be expected for certifying those plans and associated actions. The city will be seeking an exception due to the impracticability of development for stations located at the Salt Lake City International Airport, five stations on the campus of the University of Utah, and one station in West Valley City where a small portion of the land is within SLC but separated by SR-201, where it is a limited access highway and creates a major barrier between the station and the land within Salt Lake City boundaries. This is anticipated to be forwarded to the Wasatch Front Regional Council soon. One station is going through the process of developing a station area plan for the Centerpointe station. That is expected to be completed in 2024. In all, the city should have station area plans for 28 of the 34 stations (certified as existing plans or new plans) or an exception granted in the next 18 months. The only remaining stations that would need to be addressed are the stations along the S Line, some of which are outside the city boundary. The city has not yet determined how to approach these stations and is likely to take a break from certifying station area plans so that resources can be directed towards updating other plans that need updates and updating zoning regulations to implement existing plans. 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 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Certification of Downtown Plan STAFF CONTACT: Nick Norris, Planning Director at 801-535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2022 the Utah Legislature adopted a bill that requires cities with a fixed rail transit station to adopt station area plans for each fixed rail transit station that is located within the city and for any fixed rail transit station that is within ½ mile of the city boundary when the station is not located in the city. The bill resulted in Utah Code Section 10- 9a-403.1. The bill recognized that some cities may have already taken action to achieve the same objectives outlined in the bill and provided a process for cities to certify existing plans. The bill requires the city’s legislative body to adopt a resolution acknowledging the objectives in 10-9a-403.1 that the existing plan(s) address the objectives. There are 34 Trax or Frontrunner stations that Salt Lake City is responsible for certifying station area plans. Twenty-eight of these stations are within the city, while six stations are outside the city but there is land that is within ½ mile radius of the station that is in Salt Lake City. To date, the Ballpark Station Area Plan has been certified. This transmittal includes a resolution to certify the Downtown Plan as the station area plan for the 13 stations that are located within the geographic boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Lisa Shaffer (Sep 20, 2023 09:58 MDT) 09/20/2023 09/20/2023 The station area plan area defined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 includes all the area within a ½ mile radius of the station. Due to the location of the stations and the geography of the Downtown Plan, the ½ mile radius around each station in the Downtown Plan extends beyond the boundaries of the plan. As a result, this resolution includes information about the surrounding community plans that support the objectives of the station area plan outlined in the Utah Code. The attached document includes an analysis of how each of the surrounding plans aligns with the objectives. This information was included to ensure that the full ½ mile radius was addressed in the certification process. PUBLIC PROCESS: None. The purpose of this resolution is to certify plans that have already been adopted by the city and does not include the creation of any new policies. EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution Certifying the Downtown Plan Exhibit A RESOLUTION _____ OF 2023 CERTIFYING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN’S COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATION AREA PLANS FOR EACH TRANSIT STATION WHEREAS, Utah Code 10-9a-403.1 requires cities to adopt station area plans for each transit station that is located within the city or within ½ mile radius of the city; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Subsection 10.9a.403.1(2)(b)(1) provides a process for cities to certify that plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022 comply with the requirements of Section 10-9a- 403.1; and WHEREAS, the 900 South, 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, City Center, Temple Square, Arena, Planetarium, Old Greek Town, Salt Lake Central Trax, Salt Lake Central Frontrunner, North Temple Trax, and North Temple Frontrunner stations are located within or on the boundary of the area covered by the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan was recommended, after multiple public hearings, for adoption by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission on August 26, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) adopted the Downtown Plan on May 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(2) allows a municipal legislative body to adopt a resolution that certifies that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a) have been promoted for plans the city adopted prior to June 1, 2022 instead of requiring the city to adopt new station area plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the objectives in Utah Code Subsection10-9a- 403.1(7)(a) have been and are promoted by the Downtown Plan for all of the transit stations identified in this resolution and that the city has taken appropriate actions that demonstrate that the Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan as indicated in Attachment A are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives in said section of Utah Code. WHEREAS, the requirement for a station area plan under Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1 requires a station area plan to include all of the land within ½ mile radius of the transit station; and WHEREAS, the city has evaluated the station area plans adjacent to the Downtown Plan where the ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, that all of the adjacent plans were adopted prior to June 1, 2022, or are other station area plans that have already been certified by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, and has found that these plans and subsequent actions to implement these plans promote the objectives of Utah Code Subsection 10- 9a-403.1(7)(a). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that the City Council hereby certifies that the Downtown Plan and surrounding station area plans have substantially promoted and continue to substantially promote the objectives set forth in Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of _____________, 2023. ______________________________________ DARIN MANO, CHAIR ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 18, 2023 Attachment A 1 SEPTEMBER 18 Salt Lake City Planning Division Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slcgov.com Downtown Station Area Plan Certification Salt Lake City Corporation Dept. of Community and Neighborhoods 2 Introduction Salt Lake City is seeking certification of the Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans to satisfy the Station Area Plan requirements outlined in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b)(i) for plans adopted prior to June 1, 2022. This proposal would essentially use these plans to satisfy the station area plan requirement for 13 different stations: • 900 South • 600 South • Courthouse • Gallivan Plaza • City Center • Temple Square • Arena • Planetarium • Old Greek Town • Salt Lake Central o Trax o Frontrunner • North Temple o Trax o Frontrunner The City respectfully asks to accept this document as the required submission for certifying the plans for these stations. To address the entire ½ mile radius that a station area plan is required under state code to consider, the city must provide information from seven different community plans. The community plans collectively establish the City’s land use element of our general plan. Submitting the required information using the provided submission sheet is cumbersome and challenging due to the number of plans that are included. 3 Background The Downtown Plan was adopted prior to Utah Code 10-9a-403.1. There are 13 transit stations within the Downtown Plan area. A ½ mile radius extends beyond the boundary of the Downtown Plan. Seven additional plans have been adopted by the city, including policies supporting the objectives in 10-9a-403.1. This document provides land use policies from those other adopted plans to satisfy the intent and purpose of the station area plan requirements in the Utah Code. For certification, Salt Lake City views the downtown area as one large station area that includes each of the stations. The Downtown Plan and Surrounding Plans map provides a visual reference for context. The map shows the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map in shades of red and includes five future land use designations: • High-Rise Core • Mid-Rise Transit Oriented • Mid-Rise Corridor • Mid-Rise Streetcar • Low-Rise Transit Oriented Each of these designations allows mixed-use development. Residential density is regulated by building height and setbacks and not by lot area. The primary difference between the designations is building height. On the low end, the Low-Rise Transit Oriented designation allows buildings up to 50 feet in height. This is primarily oriented around the 900 South Station. This area has form-based zoning in place that is capable of producing densities of up to 45 dwelling units per acre. Buildings are currently under construction in the High-Rise Core, which will have densities that exceed 500 dwelling units per acre. The map shows the adjacent plans in shades of blue. The surrounding plans are shown because the ½ mile radius requirement in Utah Code 10-91-403.1 for a station area plan extends beyond the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. Salt Lake City seeks to certify the entire ½ mile radius area by providing descriptions from the surrounding plans that support the objectives for station area plans identified in Utah Code. This is done rather than seeking an exception of impracticability because these areas do support the objectives and have been planned and zoned to accomplish this. Three of the areas that are outside the downtown plan boundaries but within the ½ mile radius have existing station area plans that will be certified through a separate process. The plans, referred to as periphery plans in this document, include: • The Ballpark Station Area Plan (certified in 2023) to the south of 900 South. • Westside Plan, to the west. • The North Temple Boulevard Plan to the west and north. • Capitol Hill to the north. 4 • Avenues Community Plan to the north and northeast. • Central Community Plan to the east. The Station Area Map above shows the downtown future land use designations in shades of red and the surrounding community plans in shades of blue. 5 The below chart shows which plans apply to each station: Station Down- town Avenues Ballpark SAP Capitol Hill Central Community North Temple Boulevard Westside 900 South    600 South   Courthouse   Gallivan   City Center     Temple Square    Arena    Planetarium    Old Greek Town    SL Central (Trax)    SL Central (Frontrunner)    North Temple (Trax)    North Temple (Frontrunner)    There is not a single station in Downtown that falls completely within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. This document provides information to certify existing, adopted plans that cover 13 of the transit stations within the city. Each of the plans listed in the table is referenced at the end of this document. The reference includes a list of policies related to each of the station area plan objectives listed in Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The future land use map for each plan is also provided. 6 Certifying Existing Plans Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(2)(b) outlines the requirements to certify plans that were adopted prior to June 1, 2022. The Downtown Plan and the surrounding plans were adopted prior to 2022 except for the Ballpark Station Area Plan, which was certified in 2023. To certify an existing plan, the city must demonstrate that the plan substantially promotes the objectives of Utah Code 10-9a-403.1(7)(a). The objectives listed in this section include: 1) Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing; 2) Promoting sustainable environmental conditions; 3) Enhancing access to opportunities; and 4) Increasing transportation choices and connections. Each of these objectives is discussed below, with specific references to the location in the Downtown Plan where the objective is discussed, and has associated policies, or action items. The plans on the periphery of each station will also be cited under each objective. In addition to demonstrating that the objectives are promoted, the city shall also demonstrate that the plans, ordinances, approved land use applications, approved agreements or financing, or investments are still relevant to making meaningful progress towards achieving the objectives. It should be noted that Downtown Salt Lake City has been the epicenter in the state of Utah for housing, commerce, transportation, and sustainable building practices since it was founded and continues to be a leader in implementing these objectives. This has occurred over generations, dating to the Plat of Zion, the 1919 City Plan, the Second Century Plan, the 1995 Downtown Plan, and the current Downtown Plan, adopted in 2016. It is Salt Lake City’s position that Downtown Salt Lake City is the most significant example of urban planning in Utah and the Intermountain West and has a long track record of plan implementation. No other station area plan (or a plan by any other name) can demonstrate the objectives to the scale, extent, and long-term commitment in the same manner as Downtown Salt Lake City and we appreciate the plans being certified expeditiously. 7 Promotion of Objectives This section describes how the Downtown Plan and periphery plans support and promote the objectives identified in Utah Code 10-9a.403.1(7)(a). Each of the objectives focuses on the Downtown Plan and then follows with a short explanation of the associated policies found in the periphery plans. The policies in the Downtown apply to all 13 stations seeking certification. Policies that relate to a specific station will be identified under each objective. Information about policies found in the periphery plans will identify which stations the policies apply to. Objective 1: Increasing the availability and affordability of housing, including moderate-income housing. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(i) The Downtown Plan has a specific goal of 10,000 housing units downtown by 2040. This includes increasing the number of all housing types and sizes, with specific mention of dwellings with three or more bedrooms. As used in the plan “housing choice” incorporates housing at all levels of affordability and includes initiatives to incentivize housing needs. The plan includes initiatives related to providing supportive housing for the homeless population as well. Pages 39-41 of the plan are specific housing-related policies. The policies are also anchored into each district within Downtown. To implement this policy, the city has taken the following actions: • Established financing tools to help lower the cost of housing at various levels below the current market rate. The tools are funded through various financing tools available to the city, including tax increment financing through the city’s redevelopment agency, the “Funding our Future” program that allocates a % of property tax to affordable housing, and utilizing state and federal tax dollars allocated to the city and to affordable housing developers. • Adopted zoning amendments that: o Increase building heights to promote more housing in all the downtown zoning districts; o Removed minimum parking requirements in all the downtown zoning districts; o Allowed a variety of housing types throughout the downtown. • Zoning amendment policies that are in process: o Affordable Housing Incentives: increases development potential and reduces approval processes for proposals that include a certain level of affordable housing. It is anticipated that these actions will help achieve the goal of 10,000 housing units Downtown by 2040. As of the end of 2022, there are 9,076 housing units in the area covered by the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan and subsequent actions to implement the plan aligned with favorable market conditions to nearly complete a 25-year goal in 6 years. It is highly likely that the goal of 10,000 housing units has been exceeded at this point. 8 The following is a discussion of the periphery plans that address land use policies for areas that are within ½ mile of each station but fall outside the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. 900 South Station: • Ballpark Station Area Plan: BSAP was certified in 2023 and covers the area that is within ½ mile radius of the 900 South Station. That plan includes land use policies to support increased housing supply and affordable housing in the area. Zoning amendments to implement the plan are underway and expected to be adopted in 2024. • Central Community: Approximately 2 acres of the land on the east side of State Street is located within ½ mile radius of the station but outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Plan. The Central Community Plan identifies this land as “Medium Density Mixed Use” with a recommended residential density up to 50 acres. This policy aligns with the goal to increase residential densities within the station area. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan Station • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and 100 South is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding housing options within ½ mile of the identified stations. City Center: • Central Community Plan: the same land use designations that apply to the 600 South, Courthouse, and Gallivan Station apply to this station. • Avenues: A small portion of the Avenues neighborhood is located within ½ mile of this station. The Avenues Plan designates the area as “High Density” and defines that as 20 dwellings per acre or more. This area is also a local historic district with very little opportunity for redevelopment. One surface parking lot has been approved for redevelopment with more than 50 dwelling units per acre. This area of the Avenues has an existing density that ranges from 18-70 dwelling units per acre, which promotes this objective. • Capitol Hill: Most of the land within 1/2 mile of the City Center station that is located on Capitol Hill is institutional or open space. North of the institutional land is a historic district with a high concentration of historic buildings. This area is dense, with densities ranging between 18 dwellings per acre on some blocks up to smaller areas with densities over 50 dwellings per acre. Temple Square and Arena Stations: • Capitol Hill: about 30% of the land within ½ mile of the station is in the Capitol Hill Plan. Most of the land north of South Temple is Institutional and owned by the LDS Church and contains ecclesiastical land uses. The future land use designations 9 on the land north of North Temple are Density or High-Density Mixed Use, both of which recommend residential densities that exceed 50 dwelling units per acre. • North Temple Boulevard Plan: this plan was adopted as a series of station area plans prior to the opening of the light rail line to the airport. The area of the plan that is within ½ mile of the Temple Square station calls for dense development. A lot of the land is owned by the Salt Lake City School District or by the LDS church. However, land that is developable for other uses has a recommended density of over 50 dwelling units per acre and nearly 1,700 housing units have been built. Some of these housing units are in the Arena and North Temple station areas as well. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. Planetarium • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Planetarium Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. Old Greek Town • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Old Greek Town Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Salt Lake Central (this includes a Trax station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: Some of the area north of North Temple and west of I-15 is within ½ mile of the Planetarium Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. Transit-oriented zoning is in place. • Westside Plan: The Westside Plan is located west of I-215 and north of I-80. Although relatively close to these stations, it is separated from each station by I-15 and the freight rail corridor that runs along 600 West. The only connections to the stations are on 400 South over the bridge to 500 West and then back towards the station. Even though the area is within a ½ mile radius of the station, it is nearly a one mile walk to get to the station. However, the area that is within ½ mile is identified as a neighborhood node in the Westside plan, which recommends densities of at least 20 dwelling units per acre with a mix of uses. The zoning to support these policies has been adopted. North Temple (this includes a Trax Station and a Frontrunner Station) • North Temple Boulevard Plan: About half of the land within ½ mile of this station is in the North Temple Boulevard plan. This includes all the land north of North Temple. The plan supports intense development near this station, with densities above 50 dwelling units per acre and taller buildings. This transitions down towards the edge of the ½ mile radius. The blocks within ½ mile of the station contain Some of the areas north of North Temple and west of I-15 within ½ mile of 10 the Old Greek Town Station. All the area is located within the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That plan has land use policies that support densities over 50 dwelling units per acre. There are nearly 2,000 dwellings that have been constructed since this plan was adopted, with hundreds more under construction or entitled. This plan clearly supports this objective. Objective 2: Promoting sustainable environmental conditions. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(ii) The Downtown Plan supports this objective by supporting housing, jobs, daily needs, culture, and entertainment near transit and bike paths to reduce the need to drive. There are multiple policies that relate to this, including an entire section on livability and urban design to facilitate a sustainable living environment downtown (pages 16-21). The Downtown Plan also includes specific sections that are related to this objective. Goal 2 on page 40 lists six different initiatives that promote sustainable living. Uniting City and Nature, found on pages 71-77, includes sustainability-related goals and action items. The development of the Green Loop, a linear park that surrounds downtown, is identified as a catalytic project to increase green space, reduce the heat island effect, and help manage stormwater in the downtown area (pages 86-87). The city has also adopted citywide policies promoting sustainable environmental conditions that apply to all the community and station area plans. The City’s vision plan, Plan Salt Lake, addresses sustainable issues with guiding principles related to water quality and conservation, air quality, sensitive land preservation, and smart growth. These principles include: • Placemaking; • Diverse mix of uses within neighborhoods; • Connectivity and circulation; • Density; • Compatibility; • Maximizing public investments; • Responsive and resilient infrastructure; and • Green Building. Since the adoption of Plan Salt Lake, the city has updated zoning to align with these principles including: • Capping the amount of water any single land use can use per day to conserve water; • Updating landscaping requirements to promote water-wise approaches, including limiting the amount of non-functional turf grass citywide; • Eliminating parking requirements in Downtown and near transit while reducing parking requirements in the rest of the city; 11 • A demolition and construction waste recycling program to reduce the amount of waste from redevelopment going to landfills; • Removing or drastically reducing minimum lot widths and lot sizes in the downtown area; and • Requiring midblock walkways throughout the downtown. These policies and zoning changes include the areas covered by the periphery plans and all the land within ½ mile of the transit stations listed in this report. Objective 3: Enhancing access to opportunity. (Utah Code Section 10-9a- 403.1(7)(iii) This section of the state code lists several ways that this objective can be achieved: • maintaining and improving the connections between housing, transit, employment, education, recreation, and commerce; • encouraging mixed-use development; • enabling employment and educational opportunities within the station area; • encouraging and promoting enhanced broadband connectivity; or • any other similar action that promotes the objective described in Subsection (7)(a)(iii) The entire Downtown Plan includes land use policies related to encouraging mixed-use development and the connections between them. Pages 13-14 of the plan provide the intent of the Downtown Plan as it directs growth and development. The plan defines livability on page 16. The plan establishes 10 values for downtown, all of which relate to enhancing access to opportunity. Pg 37 outlines the values, and each value has a series of goals, initiatives, and metrics. The detailed goals, initiatives, and metrics can be found on pages 38-77. The Downtown is divided into districts, and these values are also reflected in district-specific goals found on pages 90-131. In addition to the policies in the Downtown Plan, Plan Salt Lake lists city-wide goals related to access to opportunity. Both documents have led to numerous implementation actions related to this objective: • requirements for including midblock walkways that connect through the 10-acre blocks downtown; • updating land use regulations for tech-related land uses to ensure these uses, particularly biotech has options to locate throughout the city; • Increasing building heights to support more mixed-use neighborhoods in the downtown area; • Removing zoning barriers to support the reuse of office space for other uses, including eliminating parking requirements. Some of these zoning changes also relate to the other periphery plans that cover some of the lands within ½ mile radius of the stations Downtown. 900 South Station: (Ballpark Station Area Plan) 12 • Certified in 2022 and covers this objective. • The 900 South Station includes land subject to the Ballpark Station Area Plan. 600 South, Courthouse, Gallivan, and City Center Stations: (Central Community Plan) • The area between 200 East and 300 East and 700 South and South Temple is within the Central Community Plan. This area is identified as “Residential High Mixed Use,” “High-Density Residential,” “Medium Density Mixed Use,” or Institutional uses. The recommended residential density is at least 50 dwelling units per acre in the High Mixed use and High-Density categories. These densities support the objective of expanding access to opportunity by encouraging mixed-use development and enabling access to job opportunities. The City’s Transit Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establish future improvements to this area through enhanced bus access (demonstrated by the improvements under construction on 200 South) and building cycling infrastructure on 900 South with the 9Line, 800 South, 500 South, 300 South, and 200 South as well as Main Street, 200 East, and 300 East. City Center Station: (Avenues Plan) • The primary role that the area within ½ mile of the City Center station that is located within the Avenues Plan is to provide density to link housing close to the central business district. The blocks in the southwest corner of the Avenues are some of the densest in the city. The Avenues also provide connections to Memory Grove Park and City Creek Canyon, which are important recreation opportunities for the northern part of Downtown and one of the few car-free areas in the city. The Avenues plan supports the preservation of the open space in Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon. Temple Square, North Temple Trax, and Frontrunner Stations: (Capitol Hill Plan) • The land use policies of the Capitol Hill plan are like those of the Avenues, but the plan also supports the large institutional uses and cultural facilities that dominate North Temple. Capitol Hill also is home to schools for students who live in the Downtown area. The plan supports improving connections to both schools along 200 West and 400 West as well as an under-construction pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the freight rail lines and Frontrunner rail line. North Temple Trax, North Temple Frontrunner, Arena, Old Greek Town, Planetarium, Central Station Trax, Central Station Frontrunner, and Temple Square Stations: (North Temple Boulevard Plan) • The land use policies in the North Temple Boulevard Plan support a mix of uses. The plan also includes a connectivity map that recommends improved connections through the neighborhood to access transit. These connections also improve mobility throughout the neighborhood, whether it is the mentioned bridge, cycling infrastructure on 600 West, or the improved sidewalks leading from Frontrunner to 400 West and south to 500 West. Additionally, the plan recognizes establishing 13 the Folsom Corridor Trail, which has recently been constructed, linking the stations to the neighborhoods to the west. Central Station Trax and Central Station Frontrunner Stations: (Westside Plan) • There is a small amount of land that is within ½ mile of the Central Station Trax and Front Runner Stations. This land is identified as a community node, which promotes mixed-use development. Objective 4: Increasing transportation choices and connections. (Utah Code Section 10-9a-403.1(7)(iv) The Downtown Plan includes specific sections related to transportation choice and connection: • The “Is Connected” section of the plan (pages 59-61) and the “Is Walkable” section of the plan (pages 62-65) establish specific policies related to how people move around through the downtown. • The plan includes several key moves related to mobility: Downtown Streetcar, Trax Extension, and Green Loop (pages 79-87) including specific actions related to this objective. • The Mid-Block Walkway map on page 99 shows the location of all future midblock connections. As with the other objectives, connectivity, and mobility are mostly guided by citywide plans related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructure. These plans are intended to connect where people live to where they work, shop, recreate, and attend to other daily needs. These plans include specific actions related to improved connections to and through the periphery plans, including: • Expanding the frequency of bus lines • The improvements to 200 South • The Green Loop, • the 300 South and 200 West protected bicycle lanes • The completion of the 9 Line and the Folsom Corridor trails • The trails that connect Memory Grove to the foothills Many of these features connect multiple planning communities and are therefore more appropriately placed in city-wide plans. These plans include the Salt Lake City Transportation Plan, which is currently being updated. The Salt Lake City Transit Plan and the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan include policies that connect all neighborhoods within the city through transit, cycling, and walking infrastructure. As a result, the reference provided herein is to those plans instead of repeating each item associated with each of the periphery plans and within each station area. The city is working on a long-term plan to reallocate space on Main Street to convert it into a pedestrian and bicycling street with limited access to daily deliveries, service, and public safety. 14 Links and References Downtown Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf Avenues Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Aves.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 7 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Ballpark Station Area Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Master%20Plans/Central%20Community/22-10- 27_Ballpark.pdf • Certified in 2023 • See certification for references for how the plan satisfies objectives. Capitol Hill Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Cap.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Central Community Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/cent.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 2 (includes density descriptions) • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan North Temple Boulevard Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NTMP.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Pages 28-29 for North Temple Trax and Frontrunner Station; pages 51-53 for 800 West Station Area (includes density descriptions). • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Westside Plan http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf • Objective 1: Future Land Use Map: Page 37 (community node designation); page 48 for description and future density. • Objective 2: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 15 Transit Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/wp- content/uploads/sites/11/2021/07/SLC_TMP_FULL_FINAL.pdf • Objective 3: See Plan Salt Lake pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/plans- studies/pbmp/ • Objective 3: • Objective 4: See the Transit Master Pan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Plan Salt Lake: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf • Objective 1: Guiding Principle 1 and 2 • Objective 2: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 5, 6, and 7. • Objective 3: pages 9-10 and Guiding Principles 1-4 and 10-13. • Objective 4: Guiding Principal 1, 2, and 4 Next Steps Salt Lake City has 34 stations that are either within the city boundary or within ½ mile of a station located outside the city boundary. Fortunately, the city has a long history of planning for density, affordable housing, sustainability, transportation, and expanding access to opportunity and many of these stations already have supportive land use policies within existing plans. The city will be seeking certification of existing plans for the 400 South corridor east of downtown as well as the North Temple corridor within the next 18 months. The city will be seeking an exception due to the impracticability of development for stations located at the Salt Lake City International Airport, five stations on the campus of the University of Utah, and one station in West Valley City where a small portion of the land is within SLC but separated by SR-201, where it is a limited access highway and creates a major barrier between the station and the land within Salt Lake City boundaries. This is anticipated to be forwarded to the Wasatch Front Regional Council soon. One station is going through the process of developing a station area plan for the Centerpointe station. The only remaining stations that would need to be addressed are the stations along the S Line, some of which are outside the city boundary, and some are within the city. The city has not yet determined how to approach these stations. In all, the city should have station area plans for 28 of the 34 stations (certified as existing plans or new plans) or an exception granted in the next 18 months. At that point the city is likely to take a break from certifying station area plans so that resources can be directed towards updating other plans that need updates and updating zoning regulations to implement existing plans. Item F2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: ORDINANCE: OPEN SPACE AMENDMENTS Staff note: At the Council’s request, the ordinance has been updated by the Attorney’s Office to state that a land exchange involving a parcel of not more than ¼ acre and substantially similar in use or character may be authorized only by the Mayor. MOTION 1 – AUTHORIZE RESOLUTION I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amendments that would change processes for the disposition of certain interests in City open space lands and govern their removal from the official City Open Space Inventory. MOTION 2b – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the resolution, and move on to the next item. 1 1 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 3 No. ______ of 2023 4 5 (Exception to mandatory process for sale of significant parcels of real property 6 and removal of lands from the open space lands inventory) 7 8 An ordinance amending Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale 9 of significant parcels of real property, and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating 10 to the removal of lands from the open space lands inventory. 11 WHEREAS, the City desires to make certain changes relating to an exemption, for 12 certain easements to public utility providers, from the mandatory procedures of those sections; 13 and 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Section 2.58.040 15 and Section 2.90.070 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to such changes. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: 17 SECTION 1. Section 2.58.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the sale of 18 significant parcels of real property, is amended as follows: 19 2.58.040: SALE OF SIGNIFICANT PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY; NOTICE AND 20 HEARING: 21 22 A. A significant parcel of real property owned by the City or any significant legal interest 23 therein shall not be sold, traded, leased or otherwise conveyed or encumbered until the City has 24 provided reasonable notice to all interested parties and held at least one public hearing on the 25 proposed conveyance as set forth herein. Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall 26 follow the process outlined in state code for public notice. 27 B. Reasonable notice of the proposed conveyance shall .include the following: 28 1. Notice of the proposed conveyance shall be mailed to all abutting property owners. 2 29 2. Notice of the proposed conveyance shall be delivered to the Office of the City Council, 30 posted in the Office of the City Recorder, delivered to a local media representative, and posted 31 on the City's website. 32 C. No significant parcel of City owned real property identified in section 2.58.035, including 33 table 2.58.035C, of this chapter may be conveyed until after a public hearing has been held 34 before one or more of the following as may be applicable: the City Council, the Planning 35 Commission, the Airport Board, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, the Golf Enterprise 36 Fund Advisory Board, or the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board. 37 DC. In addition to the public hearing required above, the City Council may also request a 38 second public hearing before the conveyance of the property. Any request for a hearing before 39 the City Council must be delivered to the Office of the Mayor no less than fifteen (15) days after 40 delivery of the notice to the Office of the City Council pursuant to subsection B2 of this section. 41 If no request for a hearing is made within that time period, the City Council shall be deemed to 42 have waived any right to request a hearing. 43 If a written call for hearing has been made by the City Council, the Mayor or his or her designee 44 shall attend the hearing to hear and consider comments upon proposals to convey the property 45 specified in the notice. The hearing shall take place before, after or in conjunction with during a 46 regularly scheduled City Council meeting, as determined by the Mayor. 47 E. Any notice of a proposed conveyance of a significant parcel of City owned real property 48 shall specify the following: 49 1. A description of the property to be conveyed or encumbered; 50 2. The nature of the proposed conveyance or encumbrance, whether the property is to be 51 sold, traded or encumbered, including the nature of the conveyance if the property is to be sold, 3 52 or if a trade or lease of property is contemplated, a brief summary of the proposed transaction; 53 3. Persons to whom interests are to be conveyed; 54 4. Any consideration tendered; 55 5. The name of the person, department or entity requesting such action; 56 6. The basis upon which the value of the interest has been determined by the City; 57 7. The date, time and location of the public hearing to be held before the City Council, the 58 Planning Commission, Airport Board, Public Utilities Advisory Committee, Golf Enterprise 59 Fund Advisory Board, or Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board, as 60 applicable. The notice shall further state that interested persons may appear and comment upon 61 the proposal. 62 F. The conveyance or encumbrance of a significant parcel of real property of the City may be 63 finalized: 64 1. By the Mayor, at his/her discretion following notice and any public hearings required by 65 this section; or 66 2. By the Mayor, if the transfer is revocable and the Mayor has determined that an 67 unanticipated combination of facts and conditions of pressing necessity has emerged that 68 requires that action be taken before a City Council hearing. Such conditions shall not be deemed 69 to arise unless it appears that delay from the notice or a City Council hearing would produce: 70 a. Great or irreparable injury to persons seeking the conveyance or encumbrance, with 71 negligible impact upon City interests; 72 b. Serious detriment to the social or economic interest of the community as whole; or 73 3. Substantial economic loss to the City. 74 G. Any decision by the Mayor to forego the City Council hearing provisions of this section 4 75 shall be made in writing to the City Council, stating the specific reasons upon which the decision 76 was based. 77 H. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 78 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities; 79 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 80 Mayor for a reason identified by the Mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than 81 thirty-one (31) days; 82 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use; 83 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery; and 84 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in 85 connection with utilities or safety equipment such as traffic signal poles. Any such easement or 86 use right must be, which must be primarily for the benefit of the City, and the granting of 87 easements or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such 88 easement or use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as 89 determined by the City. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such 90 easement or use right may be granted only with the approval of the director of the City’s public 91 lands department or their designee in their sole discretionCity’s Open Space Lands Manager. 92 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of land owned by the City for another de 93 minimis parcel of land where the intended use or character of the parcels is substantially similar 94 to each other. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not more than 95 ¼ of an acre. With respect to open space land under chapter 2.90 of this title, such exchange 96 made be made only with the approval of the Mayor. 5 97 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 City. 113 2. Holding a public hearing before the mayor and the city City Council. 114 3. Providing notice of the proposed sale or transfer and the public hearing through the 115 process outlined in state code for 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; 6 121 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 d. 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 City Council may elect to conduct an advisory vote as 140 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. 7 144 B. Any open space lands, conservation easements or other interests in open space land: 1) 145 acquired by the city in partnership with other entities, units of government, or other parties; or 2) 146 received by donation, bequest, devise, or dedication, may only be authorized for sale, conversion 147 from undeveloped open space land to developed open space land, exchange or other transfer if 148 such action is allowed for in the instrument under which the open space land, conservation 149 easement or other interest in open space land was conveyed to, or acquired by, the city. 150 C. The following shall be exempt from the mandatory procedures of this section: 151 1. The leasing of existing buildings, infrastructure, or facilities.; 152 2. Special events lasting (a) less than twenty-one (21) days or (b), with the approval of the 153 mayor for a reason identified by the mayor in writing, more than twenty (20) days but less than 154 thirty-one (31) days.; 155 3. The leasing of recreation areas in accordance with their intended use.; 156 4. The selling of burial rights in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. 157 5. The granting of easements or other rights that service the property, including grants in 158 connection with utilities or safety equipment such as traffic signal poles, which . Any such 159 easement or use right must be primarily for the benefit of the city, and the granting of easements 160 or other use rights to public utility providers for public utility purposes. Any such easement or 161 use right must not interfere with the intended use or character of the property as determined by 162 the City. With respect to open space land under this chapter, such easement or use right may be 163 granted only with the approval of the city's open space lands managerdirector of the City’s public 164 lands department or their designee in their sole discretion. 165 6. A land exchange for a de minimis parcel of open space land owned by the City for 166 another de minimis parcel of open space land where the intended use or character of the parcels 8 167 is substantially similar to each other, provided that such exchange may be made only with the 168 approval of the Mayor. For purposes of this section, a de minimis parcel is one consisting of not 169 more than ¼ of an acre. 170 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published or 171 posted in accordance with Utah Code section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah 172 Code section 10-3-713. 173 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ____________, 174 2023. 175 ____________________________ 176 CHAIRPERSON 177 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 178 179 ___________________________ 180 CITY RECORDER 181 182 Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________. 183 184 Mayor’s Action: __________ Approved. ___________ Vetoed. 185 186 187 ____________________________ 188 MAYOR 189 190 191 192 ___________________________ 193 CITY RECORDER 194 195 196 (SEAL) 197 198 199 Bill No. ______ of 2023. 200 Published: _____________________. 201 Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form By: _______________________ Kimberly Chytraus Date: __________________ 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 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:November 14, 2023 RE: 711 and 721 South 1200 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00496/00639 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 711 and 721 South 1200 East from their current R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) zoning to I (Institutional). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Institutional. Private K-12 schools are not a permitted use in the existing R-2 zoning district but are in the proposed Institutional zone. The proposed amendments would allow expansion of the McGillis School campus for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. While the properties are zoned R-2, the building on the property has been the historic Douglas Ward Building (an Institutional use). The McGillis School is under an agreement to purchase the currently unused church building from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In their application, the petitioner stated an intent to repurpose the building built in 1950 for the school rather than demolish it and construct another building. There is some urgency to the request as the agreement stipulates that the entitlement period ends December 9, 2023. The School is requesting Council action on the rezone and master plan amendment prior to that date. Combined, the two parcels are approximately 0.57 acres and the historic building’s footprint is roughly 8,800 square feet. The parcels are in a residential area primarily zoned R-2 shown in the zoning map below, with single-family homes, duplexes, and an apartment building nearby. The McGillis School’s other building is at the corner of 1300 East and 700 South, approximately 0.2 miles away as shown in the image below. It is anticipated that student drop off and pick-up will happen at the 1300 East building, and those participating in classes or other activities at the 1200 East building will walk between the two. This will reduce traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood. There are sidewalks and a marked crosswalk Item Schedule: Briefing: November 14, 2023 Set Date: November 14, 2023 Public Hearing: December 5, 2023 Potential Action: December 5, 2023 Page | 2 between the two buildings. The McGillis School committed to necessary safety measures for students traveling between the buildings. Area zoning map with the subject parcels shown in red. Note-the McGillis School’s property is shaded in blue in the upper right corner of the image. Image (looking east) showing church building outlined in yellow, and McGillis School outlined in blue. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its October 25, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people, including a representative of the East Central Community Council, spoke. Six of the commenters were supportive of the proposal, and one was opposed. The person who spoke Page | 3 against the proposal cited concerns with additional foot and vehicle traffic. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments with an additional recommendation that the Council discuss a potential development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to include a condition recommended by the Planning Commission that the petitioner enter into a development agreement or restrictive covenant with the City limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function if the Council adopts the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-10 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Compliance with the Standards for General Amendments Planning staff found the proposed zoning map amendment complies with standards outlined below and found in attachment D (pages 54-57) of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 2 – Compliance with City Goals, Policies, and General Plans It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposals align with goals and principles found in Plan Salt Lake and the Central Community Master Plan including: •Maintain neighborhood stability and character. •Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. •Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. •Prohibit the location or expansion of institutional facilities that displace or remove residential uses. •Improve and strengthen relationships between institutions and residential neighborhoods. Consideration 3 – Impact on Adjacent Property Owners In their review of the proposals, Planning staff considered impact on adjacent property owners in three areas: height and setbacks, parking and traffic, and land use. Height and Setbacks As shown in the table below, building height in the I zone is a maximum of 35 feet, with additional height up to 75 feet through design review. For each foot above 35 feet all required yards must be increased by one foot. This is intended to move the height toward the center of the property, and away from adjacent properties. Planning staff found that the I zone’s height requirements and design review process will help mitigate height impacts to adjacent properties if a future change of use is requested. It is worth noting that the church building’s steeple has been removed. Page | 4 Parking and Traffic When an expansion of a zoning district is proposed, the City requires a traffic and parking study along with the application. The McGillis School believes that using the church building as a school will not significantly impact traffic or parking. The City Zoning Administrator reviewed the application, and following department comments that did not include parking and traffic concerns, waived the requirement for a study. A building permit would be required before using the church building as a school. McGillis would also apply for a shared or offsite parking agreement with the existing school. This can be done because the two buildings are so close to each other. As discussed above, under the proposal student drop-off and pick-up will continue at the existing school, and students will walk from one building to the other. Only a few administrative parking spaces are anticipated to be needed at the subject property which can be accommodated with existing spaces. Land Use Planning staff believes that use of the existing church as part of The McGillis School will allow for compatible use while preserving the building. It is their opinion that such a use will strengthen the school’s connections with the neighborhood. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment E (pages 58-61) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a comparison of existing R-2 and proposed I zoning. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-2)Proposed Zoning (I) Lot Area/Width Places of worship: 12,000 square feet /80 feet) Other uses: 20,000 square feet/100 feet 20,000 square feet /100 feet Building Height The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs is 28 feet, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face, while the maximum height of a flat-roofed building is 20 feet. 35 feet, with approval for heights over 35 feet but not exceeding 75 feet through design review. Provided, that for each foot of height over thirty-five feet (35'), each required yard shall be increased one foot (1'). Front Yard/Setback For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the building. Twenty feet (20') Side Yard/Setback Four feet (4'); provided, that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet (10') Twenty feet (20') Rear Yard/Setback Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed twenty- five feet (25'). Twenty-five feet (25') Parking The parking regulations for places of worship are 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less. The square footage of the church building is 8781 therefore Minimum Parking Requirement for K–12 private schools, elementary or middle, is 1 space per 20 students. The enrollment at McGillis School is approximately 430 students; Page | 5 approximately 29 spots would be required. There are 9 spots onsite. 9/29 as a percentage is 31%. For the use as a private school the parking requirement would be about 22 stalls. therefore, the parking requirement would be 22 stalls. Other uses in the I Zone may have more stringent parking requirements. Lot Coverage For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. N/A Open Space See Lot Coverage The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less than forty percent (40%) of the lot area Maximum exterior wall height Exterior walls must be 20 feet adjacent to interior side yards, with height increasing by 1 foot for each foot of increased setback beyond the minimum required side yard. If approved with a reduced setback, wall height decreases by 1 foot. No limit. Landscape The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 54-57) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but Complies Page | 6 not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the proposals are approved, and the property use is changed from a church to a private school. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • June 23, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • July 18, 2023 – Petition assigned to Megan Booth, Principal Planner. Planning staff recommended the petitioner apply for a general plan amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. • August 8, 2023 – Master plan amendment received by Planning Division. • August 10, 2023 – Notice sent to the East Central Community Council. • August 15, 2023 – o Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. o Proposal posted for an online open house. • September 29, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • October 13, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. • October 14, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. • October 25, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments with an additional recommendation that the Council discuss a potential development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. • October 26, 2023 – Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office and the signed ordinance was received the same day. • October 30, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Jim Brewer Head of School values McGillis... committed to 395 STUDENTS 34th SCHOOL YEAR 21 YEARS IN THE DOUGLAS NEIGHBORHOOD McGillis... adapting and expanding The McGillis School Douglas Ward McGillis... adapting and expanding 1915 2023 preservation McGillis has a history of 2020 2021 2022 2023 FEBRUARY Douglas Neighborhood contacts McGillis regarding potential sale of the Ward building. SEPTEMBER McGillis tours Douglas Ward building with neighbor and ward member. NOVEMBER McGillis officially expresses interest in purchasing the ward property. JANUARY McGillis submits 1st offer to purchase Douglas Ward. FEBRUARY Seller chooses competing offer. MARCH McGillis submits 2nd offer to purchase Douglas Ward. APRIL Seller chooses competing offer. FEBRUARY Seller contacts McGillis with approval to sell the Douglas Ward to McGillis. MARCH McGillis submits 3rd and final offer. JUNE McGillis signs and submits PSA to seller. DECEMBER Entitlement period ends, closing deadline 12/9. OCTOBER Planning Commission meeting to review and vote on zoning. timeline Acquisition Activating space Expanding culture community McGillis... committed to Thank you! DOUGLAS WARD GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PLNPCM2023-00639 PLNPCM2023-00496 •McGillis School (668 South 1300 East) is purchasing the Douglas Ward property at 711 and 721 S 1200 East for an expansion of the school •Plan is to reuse the existing church building •A rezone is required to allow a school on the property Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division 700 South 1 3 0 0 E a s t McGillis School Current zoning district: R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District (Yellow) Proposed zoning district: I Institutional (Light Blue) Salt Lake City // Planning Division EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING Salt Lake City // Planning Division MASTER PLAN The Central Community Master Plan designates the properties as low-density residential. (Yellow) The applicant requests the Central Community Future Land Use Map Designation be amended to Institutional. (Blue) Salt Lake City // Planning Division INSTITUTIONAL VS. R2 ZONES Land Uses •R2 – Predominately residential (single-family and duplexes) •Institutional – Schools, Medical Facilities, Offices, Assisted Living Residential Building Height •R2 – 28 feet •Institutional – 35 feet or up to 75 feet with Design Review approval Bottom Line •R2 zone is a typical low density residential district •Institutional zone allows a higher intensity of development (Uses that cater to more people that are located in bigger, taller buildings) Salt Lake City // Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Discussion Points •Impacts of uses allowed in the Institutional zone on adjacent properties •Reuse of existing building Recommendation •Recommended approval of amendments •Recommended that the Council discuss restricting use of the property to a school or similar institutional use ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 10/30/2023 10/30/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 30, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00639, Douglas Ward General Plan Amendment PLNPCM2023-00496, Douglas Ward Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Meagan Booth, Principal Planner, meagan.booth@slcgov.com, 801-535-721 or Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, wayne.mills@slcgov.com, 801-535-7282 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the requested Zoning Map and General Plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jim Brewer, representing the McGillis School, is requesting a General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 711 S 1200 East and 721 S 1200 East. The subject properties are the location of the Douglas Ward House, a now vacant building formerly used as a church. McGillis School intends to purchase the properties and use the existing building as a school. The properties are currently zoned R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. Schools are not an allowed use in this zone, so the applicant is proposing to rezone the properties to I Institutional where schools are a permitted use. The applicant is also proposing to change the future land use designation in the Central Community Master Plan from Low-Density Residential to Institutional to ensure consistency between the City’s general plan and zoning. 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 rachel otto (Oct 30, 2023 16:20 MDT) For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission discussed the petition at their October 25, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted (7:0) to recommend approval of the Zoning Map and General Plan amendment to the City Council. As part of their motion, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council discuss a possible development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting the long-term use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. The discussion focused on the possibility that the property could be sold in the future, and then any use allowed in the Institutional zone would be allowed at this location. They stated in the discussion that some of the uses permitted uses in the I zone could have negative impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission did not vote on a specific condition. They just recommended that the City Council raise the issue as a discussion point. The entire public meeting can be viewed using this link at the 1:49:00 mark. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the East Central Community Council who held a public meeting and input opportunities related to the proposed project. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project on August 15 2023. • An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage August 15, 2023 through September 29, 2023. • Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on October 13, 2023. • Public comments were received before the Planning Commission hearing and included in the Staff Report. The public comments during the meeting were both in support and against the rezoning amendment. The theme of the comments was what happens if the McGillis School vacates the property in the future and impacts the neighborhood. Some parents of students at the McGillis School fully support the expansion of the McGillis School into the Douglas Ward Building. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 25, 2023 (The transmittal was completed prior to adoption of the minutes. The minutes are scheduled to be adopted on November 8, 2023 and will be available here - https://www.slc.gov/planning/public-meetings/planning-commission- agendas-minutes/) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Petition Application 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00496 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Institutional pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00639. WHEREAS the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on October 25, 2023 on petitions submitted by Jim Brewer (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property owner to rezone parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street (the “Properties”) to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00496 and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Institutional pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00639; and WHEREAS, at its October 25, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petitions; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Institutional. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinance amending zoning and MP 711 and 721 S 1200 E APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _October 27, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney Exhibit “A” Legal Descriptions of Properties to be rezoned to I Institutional District. Parcel 1 (Tax ID No. 16-08-230-010-0000): Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2 (Tax ID No. 16-08-230-035-0000): Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639 June 23, 2023 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was received. July 18, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00496 was assigned to Meagan Booth, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Staff discussed the petition with the applicant and recommended they apply for a General Plan Amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. Staff waited for this application in order to route the two applications concurrently. August 8, 2023 Master Plan Amendment Application PLNPCM2023-00639 was received. August 10, 2023 Notice was sent to Recognized Community Organization (RCOs) informing them of the petitions. The RCO was the East Central Community Council. August 15, 2023 Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. August 15, 2023 The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. September 29, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. October 13, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. October 14, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. October 20, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. October 25, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. October 26, 2023 Draft Ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office and the final ordinance was received the same day 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639, a request by Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School, to change the general plan and rezone the properties at 711 and 721 South 1200 East. The purpose of the amendments is to use the existing church building as a school. 1. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00496): The subject properties are currently zoned R- 2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. Schools are not an allowed use in this zone; therefore, the applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the properties to I Institutional. 2. General Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00639): The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use designation of the properties in the Central Community Master Plan from Low- Density Residential to Institutional to ensure consistency between the City’s general plan and zoning. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please contact Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213 or meaagan.booth@slcgov.com, or Wayne Mills at 801-535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the "Planning" tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) PETITION APPLICATION DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. Legal Description of Subject Property: N me of Owner: Mailing Address Street Address: JDR JDR Date: Jun 21, 2023 The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1. If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4. stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to s the subject of this application. Updated 9/14/22 FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Attachment to Zoning Amendment Salt Lake City Rezoning of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE “DOUGLAS WARD” That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27”East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28”West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28”West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. The legal description of the Property shall be determined by the Title Report. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of this amendment to the Zoning Map is to permit a school on the Douglas Ward property. Thus, we request the zoning be changed from R2 to Institutional (I). This zoning is consistent with The McGillis School located at 668 South 1300 East and other private schools in Salt Lake City. This new use has support from neighbors and Council Member Ana Valdemoros has offered to help The McGillis School with this Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment, see attached letter. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be used for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. LIST THE REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts show that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. LIST THE PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED AS PART OF THE REZONING Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. 1632662.1CHL DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F PLANNING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION Thank you for your interest in submitting a General Plan Amendment application. The following packet will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start to finish. The package is broken down into three sections: Information about the application, a visual diagram of the application process, and the application form. We highly encourage you to work with our Planning staff prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre-submittal meeting please contact us at zoning@slcgov.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757. G) ....... 0 � ...... , ....a ...> '--···□ 0 f--fi 0 Important Process Information PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY. UT 84114-5480 Process Timeline Application Form SLC.GOVIPLA /J:'J!NG ZONING@SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7757 .......................................................................................... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION// v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION ORDINANCE Utah Code 10-9a-4 PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS The general plan of the city includes any citywide plan, community plan, small area plan, corridor plan, or other plan that fits the requirements and definitions of a general plan under Utah Code 10-9a. Utah State Law requires every municipality to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for: a. present and future needs of the municipality; and b. growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. B-- EFFECT OF ADOPTED MASTER PLANS OR GENERAL PLANS (21A.02.040) All master plans or general plans adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City, or for an area of the City, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the zoning text or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. CONSULTATION If you have questions regarding the General Plan Amendment regulations or process, please contact the Salt Lake City Planning Counter staff at zoning'.§lslcgov.com or give us a call at 801-535-7757. If you would like to discuss your development plan in more detail, you can request a pre-submittal meeting with Planning staff by contacting the Planning Counter. Pre-submittal meetings are held on Thursdays in 30 minute slots between 1:30 and 3:30 pm. ......................................................................................... . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 2 PLANNING DIVISION// v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F PROCESS TIMELINE TIME FRAME 0 6-12 MONTHS • APPLICANT • STAFF - ································8 ·(014days}. APPLICATION RECEIVED Application submitted and pre-screened to ensure submittal requirements are met and fees are paid. PLANNER ASSIGNED Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete documentation (if incomplete, the applicant will be provided a list of missing info to submit). ,,.. .. ·••• ••• • ••···• � ••••••••• • • • • ••••• -(04Sdays)-8 <{/ ............. APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS Modifications based on public input & City Department review comments (if needed, applicant must submit updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval. 000 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notices sent to nearby neighbors, property owners and Community Councils (when required by ordinance). Application routed to City Departments for review. i1 0::::0 0 0 • •( 0 21 days)·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • ( 0 21 days) .. PLANNING COMMISSION Public hearing scheduled, notices sent, staff report produced, and commission recommendation made. TRANSMITTAL TO COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Commission minutes approval and public record are assembled by staff. After review, the package is transmitted to City Council. .................................... ....,. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS City Council holds a briefing with staff during work session. Public hearing and action follows. Timeline determined by City Council office. U}UJIU.sfc.q1 J1.�/���n,,tc·il. .......................................................................................... DISCLAIMER: APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS. 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION D CD CONSULTATION Available prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding the requirements, email us at zoning@slcgov.com. SUBMISSION Submit your application online through the Citizen Access Portal. Learn how to submit online by following the step-by-step fil,!ide. REQUIRED FEES ' $1,138 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (in excess of 1 acre). ' Additional required notice fees will be assessed after submission. APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL) McGillis School Rezone ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 721 South 1200 East Salt Lake City, Utah REQUEST Master Plan Amendment from "Low Density Residen�al" to "Ins�tu�onal" NAME OF APPLICANT PHONE The McGillis School Jim Brewer 313-909-7672 MAI LING ADDRESS EMAi L 668 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY('"m!laer'; eol,se,11: rnquirn<I) IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST Owner Architect* Contractor* • Other* NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (i/rliJTernrti'Jrnm 1.tppli.:unt:) The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints MAILING ADDRESS 50 East North Temple Street Salt lake City, Utah 84111L Purchasing the property PHONE 801-240-1000 EMAi L kylehamblin@churchofjesuschrist.org OFFICE USE CASE NUMBER RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED TYPE OF AMENDMENT General Plan Text Land Use Map DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT AOOITIONALINFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THEPROJECTPLANNERTO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDEDFORSTAFF ANALYSIS. ALL INFORMATION REQUIREDFOIITAFF ANALYSIS WILL BECOPIED AND MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL00 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS,FORTHEPURPOSES OFPUBLIC REVIEW BY ANY INTERESTED PARTY. 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111 I I II 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 11111 GENERALPLAN AMENDMENTPROCESS 4 PLANNING DIVISION//v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB284F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 1. This is to cer�fy that I am making an applica�on for the described ac�on by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This applica�on will be processed under the name provided below. 2. By signing the applica�on, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instruc�ons provided for processing this applica�on. The documents and/or informa�on I have submited are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. 3. I understand that my applica�on will not be processed un�l the applica�on is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete applica�on includes all of the required submital requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applica�ons. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in wri�ng, a list of deficiencies that must be sa�sfied for this applica�on to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected informa�on. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applica�on. 4. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public mee�ngs. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. NAME OF APPLICANT EMAI L The McGillis School Jim Brewer jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org MAILING AD D RE S S PH ONE 668 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 313-909-7672 APPLICATION TYPE DATE Master Plan Amendment "Low Density Residen�al" to "lns��onal" 8/2/2023 LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Proper�es with a single fee �tle owner may show consent by filling out the informa�on below or by providing an affidavit. Affirma�on of sufficient interest: I hereby affirm that I am the fee �tle owner of the below described property or that I have writen authoriza�on from the owner to pursue the described ac�on. Owner's authoriza�on to applicant to submit this applica�on is subject to the LEGAL DES C R I PTION OF SUBJE C T P R OPE R TY terms and condi�ons contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between See Atached applicant and Owner in connec�on with the Property. NAME OF OWNER EMAI L The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints kylehamblin@churcho�esuschrist.org MAILING AD D RE S S S IGNATU RE JDRJDR DATE 50 East North Temple Street Salt lake City, Utah 84111 L Kyle Hamblin (Aug 4, 2023 15:07 MDT) Aug 4, 2023 Kyle Hamblin Real Estate Manager 1. If a corpora�on is fee �tleholder, atach copy of the resolu�on of the Board of Directors authorizing the ac�on. 2. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, atach copy of agreement authorizing ac�on on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owner's Associa�on is the applicant then the representa�ve/president must atach a notarized leter sta�ng they have no�fied the owners of the proposed applica�on. A vote should be taken prior to the submital and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. DISCLAIMER: BEA DVISED THAT KNOWINGLYM AKING A FALSE, WRITTEN STATEMENT TOA GOVEMENTENTITYI S A CRIMEU NDER UTAH CODE CHAPTER 76-8, PART 5. SALT LAKE CITY WILL REF ER FOR PROSECUTION ANY KNOWING.Y FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE PERTAINING TO THEA PPLICANT'S INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................. IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION • GENERAL PLANA MENDMENT PROCESS 5 PLANNING DIVISION // v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB284F-E47F-46CF-8488-5983DBA4435F SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS . lease provide the c,llowing :nfo1·mation with y, 1i 1r application. Confirm that you ha·;e included each of the requirements listed below by adding a check mark for each item. CHECK REQUIREMENTS (DISCRETIONARY PROCESS DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL) Q Project Description: • Describe the proposed general plan amendment. • A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. • Declare why the present general plan requires amending. • Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. • Is the request amending the text of the general plan? If so, please include the exact language to be changed. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED INITIALS DISCLAIMER: I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED.I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. ■ 11, • • • ■ ■ • e • • e + I I I I • ■ • ■ I lo • • • ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ + • e ■ ■ • ■ ti ■ ■ ■ • I • ■ ■ e ■ ti ti ■ • I ■ ■ ■ e + • ti I I • ■ ■ • • ■ • ■ • • • ■ • • ■ • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 6 PLANNING DIVISION II v7.1.23 Attachment to Master Plan Amendment Salt Lake City Master Plan Amendment of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000 That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34” East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT This Master Plan Amendment is necessary to accompany the Zoning Map Amendment to permit The McGillis School to rezone the Douglas Ward property for use as a school. The Zoning Map Amendment requests a change from Residential (R2) to Institutional (I). This Master Plan Amendment requests a change to the designation of the property in the "Future Land Use Map" of the plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Institutional." STATEMENT DECLARING AMENDMENT PURPOSE The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be preserved and used for classes, meetings, assemblies, administration and community events. AMENDMENT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH GENERAL PLAN The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts shows that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. This requested change is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and will prolong the buildings useful life. The Central Community Master Plan “…encourages diversity of use, preservation of historic neighborhoods and buildings, and design excellence to maintain and enhance the quality of living in the Central Community.” The Master Plan desires to preserve and “enhance neighborhood character and historical integrity….” The East Central South neighborhood enjoys fairly homogeneous Low to High Density single-family residential dwellings intermixed with Public Lands and Institutional Lands as depicted on the map below. This Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Central Community Master Plan. This requested change will: 1) maintain the Central Community’s historic fabric; 2) support quality living without doing harm to citizens; and 3) preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. If The McGillis School does not purchase the Douglas Ward and use the building as a school, the building will most likely be demolished changing the historic fabric and creating undesirable impacts to the neighborhood. Preserving the building by changing its use is far more desirable. This requested change is consistent with Residential Land Use Policy (RLU) 1.1 which desires to preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. The requested change to Institutional Land Use is also consistent with the Central Community Master Plan’s Institutional Land Use policies and goals. Institutional Land, in this case a school, is intended to serve the general public and may be operated by either a public or private entity. The Institutional section of the Master Plan acknowledges that “Many institutional structures have historical significance and are worthy of preservation.” The McGillis School’s desired use of the Douglas Ward as a private elementary school is one of the six permitted uses in the Institutional Land Uses zone. The Master Plan acknowledges that “schools are an important part of the community fabric and an essential component of viable and sustainable neighborhoods.” The Master Plan encourages the city to keep schools “within neighborhoods as a community anchor and serve as a resource for residents of all ages.” The McGillis School’s desire to repurpose the Douglas Ward is consistent with Institutional Land Use Policy (INSLU) 1.4 which provide for appropriate “re-use of abandoned or vacant religious facilities with day care and other social services, residential or open space land use.” The McGillis School feels strongly that the Institutional zone would be more appropriate than the Public Lands zone. This amended application has been submitted to change to the Institutional zone. Section 21A.32.080 (E) requires a minimum of 40% open space. Section 21A.32.080(F) requires Interior Side Yard setbacks of 20’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 25’. Section 21A.32.080(G) requires landscaping Side Yard setbacks of 8’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 8’. The Douglas Ward is an existing structure and does not comply with these provisions. That said, the Applicant believes that the net benefit of keeping the existing structure with the requested zoning changes, outweighs the potential benefits that would be derived from enforcing these requirements. Many of these nonconformities would exist under the Public Lands zone (although the measurements maybe slightly different). Thus, the Applicant requests approval despite these nonconformities. Although many of the requirements of the two zones are very similar, the Institutional zone appears to require a traffic and parking study. The McGillis School intents to have their students dropped off and picked up at their existing school. Thus, the traffic and parking at the Douglas Ward will consist largely of staff parking. In this case, although the use will change, the Applicant believes that the new use will not significantly impact the traffic or parking. Thus, the Applicant requests the Zoning Administrator waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study. As outlined above, this Master Plan Amendment and accompanying Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with Salt Lake City ordinances and policies and are supported by the community because the request will preserve the existing neighborhood. This Master Plan Amendment does not amend the text of the General Plan. 1632662.1CHL Attachment to Zoning Amendment Salt Lake City Rezoning of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE “DOUGLAS WARD” That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27”East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28”West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28”West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. The legal description of the Property shall be determined by the Title Report. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of this amendment to the Zoning Map is to permit a school on the Douglas Ward property. Thus, we request the zoning be changed from R2 to Institutional (I). This zoning is consistent with The McGillis School located at 668 South 1300 East and other private schools in Salt Lake City. This new use has support from neighbors and Council Member Ana Valdemoros has offered to help The McGillis School with this Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment, see attached letter. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be used for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. LIST THE REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts show that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. LIST THE PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED AS PART OF THE REZONING Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. 1632662.1CHL Attachment to Master Plan Amendment Salt Lake City Master Plan Amendment of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000 That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34” East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT This Master Plan Amendment is necessary to accompany the Zoning Map Amendment to permit The McGillis School to rezone the Douglas Ward property for use as a school. The Zoning Map Amendment requests a change from Residential (R2) to Institutional (I). This Master Plan Amendment requests a change to the designation of the property in the "Future Land Use Map" of the plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Institutional." STATEMENT DECLARING AMENDMENT PURPOSE The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be preserved and used for classes, meetings, assemblies, administration and community events. AMENDMENT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH GENERAL PLAN The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts shows that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. This requested change is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and will prolong the buildings useful life. The Central Community Master Plan “…encourages diversity of use, preservation of historic neighborhoods and buildings, and design excellence to maintain and enhance the quality of living in the Central Community.” The Master Plan desires to preserve and “enhance neighborhood character and historical integrity….” The East Central South neighborhood enjoys fairly homogeneous Low to High Density single-family residential dwellings intermixed with Public Lands and Institutional Lands as depicted on the map below. This Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Central Community Master Plan. This requested change will: 1) maintain the Central Community’s historic fabric; 2) support quality living without doing harm to citizens; and 3) preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. If The McGillis School does not purchase the Douglas Ward and use the building as a school, the building will most likely be demolished changing the historic fabric and creating undesirable impacts to the neighborhood. Preserving the building by changing its use is far more desirable. This requested change is consistent with Residential Land Use Policy (RLU) 1.1 which desires to preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. The requested change to Institutional Land Use is also consistent with the Central Community Master Plan’s Institutional Land Use policies and goals. Institutional Land, in this case a school, is intended to serve the general public and may be operated by either a public or private entity. The Institutional section of the Master Plan acknowledges that “Many institutional structures have historical significance and are worthy of preservation.” The McGillis School’s desired use of the Douglas Ward as a private elementary school is one of the six permitted uses in the Institutional Land Uses zone. The Master Plan acknowledges that “schools are an important part of the community fabric and an essential component of viable and sustainable neighborhoods.” The Master Plan encourages the city to keep schools “within neighborhoods as a community anchor and serve as a resource for residents of all ages.” The McGillis School’s desire to repurpose the Douglas Ward is consistent with Institutional Land Use Policy (INSLU) 1.4 which provide for appropriate “re-use of abandoned or vacant religious facilities with day care and other social services, residential or open space land use.” The McGillis School feels strongly that the Institutional zone would be more appropriate than the Public Lands zone. This amended application has been submitted to change to the Institutional zone. Section 21A.32.080 (E) requires a minimum of 40% open space. Section 21A.32.080(F) requires Interior Side Yard setbacks of 20’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 25’. Section 21A.32.080(G) requires landscaping Side Yard setbacks of 8’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 8’. The Douglas Ward is an existing structure and does not comply with these provisions. That said, the Applicant believes that the net benefit of keeping the existing structure with the requested zoning changes, outweighs the potential benefits that would be derived from enforcing these requirements. Many of these nonconformities would exist under the Public Lands zone (although the measurements maybe slightly different). Thus, the Applicant requests approval despite these nonconformities. Although many of the requirements of the two zones are very similar, the Institutional zone appears to require a traffic and parking study. The McGillis School intents to have their students dropped off and picked up at their existing school. Thus, the traffic and parking at the Douglas Ward will consist largely of staff parking. In this case, although the use will change, the Applicant believes that the new use will not significantly impact the traffic or parking. Thus, the Applicant requests the Zoning Administrator waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study. As outlined above, this Master Plan Amendment and accompanying Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with Salt Lake City ordinances and policies and are supported by the community because the request will preserve the existing neighborhood. This Master Plan Amendment does not amend the text of the General Plan. 1632662.1CHL Welcome to McGillis AN INDEPENDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8TH GRADE Where community is a core value October 18, 2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, As Head of School at The McGillis School, and on behalf of the School’s Board of Trustees, I write to ask for your consideration in our application for Rezone and General Plan Amendment for the Douglas Ward property. I am also writing to share with you some background on The McGillis School and why we wish to acquire the Douglas Ward Building. Rooted in Jewish culture and values, our independent private school is open to all children and serves Kindergarten through 8th Grade. McGillis believes in creating community (kehilah), repairing the world (tikkun olam), and doing good and kind deeds (gemilut hasadim). We are currently in our fourth decade of operations in Salt Lake City and have called the former Douglas Elementary School building our home since 2001. We feel honored by the opportunity to add the Douglas Ward Building to our school community for many reasons. The Ward meetinghouse, located at 721 South 1200 East, is just one block from our school, and we were fortunate enough to temporarily hold classes and activities there in 2010, while our current building underwent construction for a major addition. Beyond that direct connection, we have long appreciated and nurtured our relationship with our immediate neighborhood, including the Douglas Ward and the East Central Community Council. We are invested in this neighborhood and wish to continue being a good neighbor. As demonstrated in how we approached our building’s expansion in 2010, we also have a proven history of preserving local architecture. We took great pride then in matching the exterior of our addition to the original building, creating a seamless look for the campus that we call home today. Finally, we have expanded our offerings in recent years and need more space. In the fall of 2020, McGillis opened its doors to students with language-based learning differences (dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia) by offering a program called The Learning Center (TLC), the only school-within-a-school model in the state of Utah. In just three years, this program, which began with 11 students, has tripled in size and will graduate its first 8th Grade class in May 2024. We anticipate the demand for this unique program to continue to grow year over year. I invite you to review the pages that follow, which demonstrate more about the history of McGillis. Please feel free to reach out to me directly should you have questions or wish to discuss further. Sincerely, Jim Brewer Head of School jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org Vision, Purpose, Mission, and Values Our VISION is to inspire and prepare our community for a lifetime of creating a better world. Our PURPOSE is to create individuals committed and able to repair the world. Our MISSION is to educate children and instill in our students a love of learning and the abilities to think critically, live ethically, and appreciate the value of each individual. McGillis Values Our teaching and our community are grounded in the fundamental values found in the Jewish culture and shared by all who seek to better the world. We celebrate Jewish traditions and holidays and bring the values they represent to life in the ways we educate our children, build our community, govern our school, and utilize our resources. Tzedakah Giving to others Tikkun Olam Repairing the world Gemilut Hasadim Doing good and kind deeds Limud L’shma Learning for the sake of learning Derech Eretz Having respect for all Kehilah Our community Lower School Kindergarten – Grade 5 Middle School Grades 6 - 8 Three Divisions, One Community Recognizing that each child is unique in their development, our grade-level teams collaborate as we think about how we implement classroom instruction. With various structures, students receive the personal support they need to achieve success and develop core skills. We have a vertical curriculum that is aligned around priority standards taught with fidelity at each grade level using a range of teaching methods, instructional materials and student groupings. The academic program, while sophisticated, is not based on a linear approach to curriculum. Rather, the emphasis is on inquiry-based learning and designed to broaden conceptual experience and create opportunities for students to construct highly personal and meaningful understanding. Classes are taught by masters in the fields of: • Science • Math • Ethics & Culture • Service Learning • Social-Emotional Learning • Outdoor Environmental Education • Language • Art • Music • Drama • Physical Education STUDENTS OF JEWISH DESCENT 15% STUDENTS OF COLOR GRADES K-8 STUDENTS STUDENT TO FACULTY RATIO 8:1 AVERAGE CLASS SIZE 19 The Learning Center Differences • Health & Wellness Respecting and Preserving Local history matters to our community Excerpt from Utah Heritage Foundation article: The McGillis School's renovation of the historic Douglas School is a wonderful example of how old school buildings can meet the needs of modern educators and students. On a tight timeline and budget, The McGillis School team successfully addressed many of the issues used to justify tearing down historic schools. For example, the McGillis project used center-core drilling to economically and effectively address seismic safety concerns. A wireless broadcast network eliminated the need for rewiring the building to accommodate new technologies. Sensitive alterations, including a new elevator and raised front entrance, made the school ADA accessible. The McGillis School used the original plans for Douglas School to guide its renovation and preserve much of the building's historic fabric. The original maple floors in the halls were refinished. Drop ceilings in the classrooms were raised to expose beautiful tall windows to their full height. On the exterior, water- damaged concrete was painstakingly repaired. An unobtrusive aluminum cap on the roof's parapet wall will protect it from further damage. The McGillis School used the original plans for Douglas School to guide its renovation and preserve much of the building's historic fabric. More than just a great building, the former Douglas School is also a landmark on 1300 East and the namesake of the Douglas neighborhood. When Salt Lake City School District announced plans to sell the building, many worried it would be demolished for new development. Fortunately, The McGillis School and the Douglas Neighborhood Association shared the goal of preserving the building and its surrounding open space. With its modern amenities in a welcoming historic setting, The McGillis School offers a wonderful environment for learning and preserves a neighborhood legacy. Article source: http://utahcfa.org/project/douglas-mcgillis-school Original Douglas School Building, 1915 Present-day McGillis School Building, 2023 2020 2021 2022 2023 FEBRUARY Douglas Neighborhood contacts McGillis sale of the Ward building. SEPTEMBER McGillis tours Douglas Ward building with member. JANUARY offer to purchase Douglas Ward. FEBRUARY Seller contacts McGillis with Douglas Ward to McGillis. offer to purchase Douglas Ward. JUNE McGillis signs and APRIL Seller chooses AUGUST non-refundable. OCTOBER Planning zoning. DECEMBER ends, closing deadline 12/9. Acquisition Timeline NOVEMBER McGillis officially purchasing the property. FEBRUARY Seller chooses and final LOI and offer to purchase Douglas Ward. Cory Sinclair Board Chair Let’s Connect! Brewer Head of School Michael VanTyne Director of Operations Letters of Support Jason Stevenson McGillis Parent and former Chair of East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) Esther Hunter East Central Community Council (ECCC) Frederick Stagbrook de Clairmont Neighbor Brandy Strand Preservation Utah *Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council *William McClelland Former Bishop of Douglas Ward *Letters written in 2022 addressed to seller in previous acquisition effort. October 5, 2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commissioners: I am writing in support of the Douglas Ward rezone and general plan amendment proposed by The McGillis School (PLNPCM2023-00496 and PLNPCM2023-00639). I want to disclose that two of my children started attending McGillis school this year, giving me a stake as a parent affiliated with this school. I also have a community connection to this project. Last October I stepped down after serving for six years as the co-chair of the East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO), the community council located two blocks south of the East Central neighborhood where this project is located. At ELPCO, I engaged with multiple land use and zoning applications that came before our council and this commission. I saw The Good. The Bad. And the Ugly. The application by The McGillis School is in the “Good” category. First, this proposal will extend the active lifespan of the Douglas Ward for many years. During multiple community meetings, residents told McGillis and community leaders that their primary goal was the preservation of the Douglas Ward building. The McGillis School intends to renovate and update the ward building to use as an extension of their existing school. McGillis has already demonstrated their willingness to preserve buildings with local significance through their skillful renovation of the Douglas School, which now houses their lower grade classrooms. McGillis purchased the 1916-era Douglas School in 2002 and completed renovation and seismic retrofitting to open the new school in time for students by the next fall. When McGillis needed to expand in 2010, they maintained the original Douglas School and constructed a modern architectural mirror of the building on adjacent land and connected the buildings with interior walkways. Second, McGillis has proven itself as a reliable and accessible community partner. The school routinely hosts community council meetings as well as PCE plume information sessions and special events, such as a city council and mayoral candidate forum earlier this month. The goodwill generated by the school’s approachability has led to widespread support for this project from neighbors and the East Central Community Council. Third, the traffic and parking impacts of this application have been addressed thoroughly in the application. McGillis plans to use the Douglas Ward for staff parking, keeping the current pick-up and drop-off locations for students at the existing school. Based on my experience with my own kids at McGillis this year, the school devotes significant time and attention to planning and improving parking, traffic, congestion, and student safety. Based on these points, plus the broad community support that accompanies this application, I urge you to support the Douglas Ward rezone and general plan amendment proposed by The McGillis School. Sincerely, Jason Stevenson September 29, 2023 Meagan Booth Principal Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Neighborhoods Meagan.booth@slcgov.com 801.535.7213 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Corporation Regarding: 721 S. 1200 E. - PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639 Dear Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners, The East Central Community is in complete unanimous support of the McGillis School rezone and master plan amendment for the Douglas Ward property. The ECC has had a longstanding positive and trusting relationship with McGillis. We cannot say enough good about this school, their benefit to our neighborhood and the thoughtful way they conduct all aspects of their property/school in the neighborhood. They are great neighbors. It is for this reason when the Douglas Ward building was being vacated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ECC approached the McGillis administration to explore the possibility of their needing this additional space. We are very pleased that this opportunity is becoming a reality. This proposal was reviewed during the August 10th general membership meeting of the ECC with approximately 72 neighbors present. After the presentation it was proposed that a positive recommendation be forwarded to the city by acclamation. The vote was 72 to 0 in favor of the recommendation with no conditions. Prior to the ECC meeting the proposal was also distributed to the proprietary email list of 7052 ECC members requesting feedback on the proposal. Thirteen positive comments were received along with one question related to future uses of the zone should McGillis sell the property in the future. This proposal was also reviewed against neighbor, neighborhood, master plan, traffic, all other existing city plans for potential impacts and implications by the ECC Community Development and Land Use Committee who gave their full endorsement of the proposal. With best regards, Esther Hunter Chair, and on behalf of the East Central Community Council eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com 30th September 2023 Dear Salt Lake City zoning and planning team members, Like many fellow residents in our neighbourhood, I am delighted that McGillis school has been able to buy the old, disused Douglas ward chapel. As a resident of the Douglas neighbourhood I support McGillis school's request for a zoning change from 'R2' to 'institutional'. Best regards, Frederick Stagbrook de Clairmont 801-231-4782 reservatiori Utah October 1, 2023 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 S State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Planning Commission, Since its congregation vacated it in 2019, Preservation Utah has been deeply concerned about the future of the historic Douglas Chapel located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City. Dating back to its dedication in 1953 by President David O McKay and continuing until very recently, the Douglas Chapel has served as a vital center for the surrounding community, fostering gatherings, education, and acts of service. Moreover, with its distinctive blend of American Colonial and midcentury architectural elements, this chapel has proudly stood as a dignified neighborhood landmark, embodying a legacy of faith and community service thanks to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who funded its construction and maintained it for over seven decades. On behalf of Preservation Utah, I express our wholehearted support for the proposal put forth by the McGillis School for the adaptive reuse of the Douglas Chapel. The McGillis School envisions a future where the Douglas Chapel continues to play a vital role as a community gathering place, albeit with a fresh purpose. Their proposal seeks to transform the chapel into an educational center catering to students with language- based learning differences. This initiative preserves the chapel's association with education and community service and ensures its continued significance as a cherished neighborhood landmark. I am confident that the members of the Douglas Ward will welcome the McGillis School's stewardship of the Douglas Chapel, given the school's strong commitment to community relationships and historic preservation. Over the years, our team has engaged in discussions with the school's administration, trustees, and members of the Douglas Neighborhood Council. This proposal is mutually beneficial for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the McGillis School, the Douglas Neighborhood, the Salt Lake City preservation community, and, most importantly, the underserved population of students who will ultimately benefit from this revitalized space. If our team can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 13_v{a Brandy Strand Executive Director 17:'> i•,J Cnnyon f d, S/llt l.n ,,, City, U I 8410.1 (f'OI) 533-0EISH p10.SP!VcJ1ionuloh 'ltn [5> DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 March 22, 2022 Dear Friends of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints: As the representative of District 4, I write to offer my full support of The McGillis School in their pursuit of the purchase of the Douglas Ward. I am fully aware of the alignment of the school’s vision and purpose with the history of the Ward, and the wishes of the neighborhood. This opportunity arrives at an ideal time for McGillis. The school launched a new division - The Learning Center - which serves students with dyslexia and other language-based learning differences. The Learning Center is unlike any other program in the Mountain West and has doubled in size in its second year. To accommodate future growth and serve more learners and families who need these unique educational services, the school requires additional space. The Douglas Ward offers 20% additional space to the school’s existing facilities with space for public gatherings, performances, and indoor play space. Exactly what any school could need. Over the past months, District Four community voiced their support during various council meetings for The McGillis School to acquire the Douglas Ward. The school’s contributions to our local community align with our vision and needs for our neighborhood. I have attended these meetings and directly heard from my constituents of their full support and desire for McGillis to grow in the neighborhood. The School and the Douglas Neighborhood have taken good care of one another for decades, both bringing value to the neighborhood. The school has a record of preserving places that matter to its nearby residents and welcoming neighbors to their campus. It has been brought to my attention that zoning changes may be necessary to accommodate the needs of McGillis should they acquire the Douglas Ward. The school has my full support should rezoning be necessary. I am confident that support would extend to my peers on the Council to help McGillis achieve the zoning necessary to perform their educational vision at the Douglas Ward. Sincerely, Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council Member Council District Four AV/pt OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PO BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM January 14, 2022 Dear Church Real Estate Department, Over the years, the Douglas Ward members and Community have enjoyed a great relationship of working together with the McGillis School. We have shared our Ward house many times for their school activities, and we have used their facilities for community meetings. The McGillis School has done a lot of outreach in the community, for example, annually they have provided leaf raking for neighborhood residents. As a Ward I know it would be a very positive outcome to have the McGillis School purchase the property because there is already a family and community connection. The feeling of the ward members, especially those who have called the Douglas Building their home from its construction, remember watching parents and other Ward members work together digging foundations, putting on bake sales, rummage sales and Ward dinners to contribute funds to the construction costs. The McGillis School management will maintain the physical and emotional essence of the building. The concern is that another party will not do the same and indeed destroy the building in favor of an apartment complex. I appreciate your kind consideration of this matter on behalf of the Douglas members. Bishop William McClelland (erit6) u' --t/_/41v-v-c/L _L_=-_, <C,._===--=-=...L=--- -= ----- lL, 6th January 2022 We, neighbors of the McGillis School, strongly support the school's desire to purchase the Douglas Ward. McGillis School has been a great and reputable institution within our neighborhood for many, many years. Furthermore, we feel that the school's intention to use the chapel to expand its special-needs programme is a worthy cause. We also feel that preserving the building is important to us, for it has been part of our neighborhood for many decades. The signatures below unquestionably represent the general sentiment of our neighborhood. l--- l,Q::!..._ L :..J.. /....j_ =-- !_-'---1.-t._.. -l-- - l � t v A (Cl --------------- I I - N 2-.Z- I q /1?-Z f------=-..z= :--"-J.-i,+1./,L-L-------I-I-WL--==::::..; --=--.- / ;;z_ ;5'LL 'g<//0,2_ ro(J_, J)t ?> [c1 1------++--...,.,._�-----.------'--------'---_....:....-- . --==--..:'.....l L ) V\ yL-f 6;71.,. LC, urgt/1 i-\:::�.J....l,_!_....,q-=.,.-=,t1�"---l,.i.::....s,L_-'--=-���!::Ll..4----?+-...:.. -=----=.,....:::i.-Ll '6 (;I o7 i----�----'---'-!.------1.,.4-..!£...._-U-. :_���L._:....:_....=...L-....JC. -.L--:-£.---=LL:{=::..J 9.Lj/ 0;>-- 1-----""-= ....,,....--1- .!<...:........------=--- ::::.....:..... ------------------ l L t: j,_ ...::: L ::::_: J_..4..L.::¥, 'd...Lk,.. .s.t :::_Jl_'LC-==---i g- '/- I cJ z. , 'S i_ e.. Bt+I o ?._, 4) MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS UNIT CITY STATE ZIP Current Occupant 1203 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1237 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1158 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 729 S ELIZABETH ST Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 724 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 768 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 730 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 721 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 771 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1221 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1229 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1233 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 749 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 756 S DOUGLAS ST #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 711 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1208 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 763 S 1200 E #NFF Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 731 S DOUGLAS ST Salt Lake City UT 84102 NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ANDERSON, DORTHY A 1528 E ARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BAILEY, JAMES A & ANDREA E 711 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BIG CHAINRING VENTURES, LLC 12553 S HERITAGE HILL CT HERRIMAN UT 84096 BLACKHAM, SONJA M JTBLACKMAN, BRIAN JT 1084 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BRUCE THOMAS SHIELDS & DIANA HET AL 1234 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CAROLYN ABRAVANEL TRABRAVANEL, CAROLY 1235 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CASTLETON, JASON D &MEGHAN L S; JT 4756 S QUAIL POINT RD MILLCREEK UT 84124 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OFLATTER-DAY SAIN 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 CLAYTON, DALE H; TRET AL 738 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DAY, REBECCA W; TR(RWD TR) 760 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DIBBLEE, RICHARD C; TR(R&HD FAM TRUST) 721 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 FOGELSON, AARON L &FEDER, DEBORAH S; JT 354 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 GAWRON, LORI; JTGAWRON, ANDREW; JT 709 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 GERSTENBERGER, JOHN; JTGERSTENBERGER, M1180 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 HANSEN, AMY L 1215 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 HLP HODINGS IV LLC 9351 S SUNSET RIDGE CIR SANDY UT 84092 HORNE, CHRISTIE D 7259 S VIANSA CT MIDVALE UT 84047 HSU, TUNG & RU-LIN (JT) 737 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 IWASAKI, MARK & JODI L (JT) 720 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JENSEN, ERIC A 746 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KARAS, LAUREN E 761 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KATZ, BRADLEY J; JTCONRAD-KATZ, TRACEY E; J 1225 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KEPNER-SYBOUNMY, KIMBERLY; JTSYBOUNMY 760 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KNETTLES, KIMBERLEY M 1212 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LAMARCHE, SHAUN P; JTREES, ANASTACIA; JT 741 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LONG, LARRY 721 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LONGO, SIMONE;ET AL 1207 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LUND, JOHN M 731 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MACEY, STEPHEN JBUTLER, LAUREN M 1646 N PLUM CT CANBY OR 97013 MASHKURI, PARI L 743 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MAYEDA, SHAUNA R 717 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MCCLELLAND, WILLIAM &DORI L; JT 747 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MCKELLAR, MARK 728 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PARLIAMNET LLC 1239 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PARRISH, TYLER; JTPARRISH, ANGELIA L; JT 4826 S QUAIL POINT RD MILLCREEK UT 84124 PEERS, THERESA M; JTPEERS, MATTHEW L; JT 740 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PERFUMO, PIETRO &CARRARA, MARIA PIA; JT 720 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 POLLARD, AARON W; JTPOLLARD, ERIKA V M; J 676 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PURSER, JAMES E 1204 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RASSIAH, PREMAVATHY 715 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 REEVE, MARK; TCREEVE, ROSEMARY; TC 753 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 REID, JULIA E &LUNBECK, JAMES E; JT 761 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RYBALKIN, ANDREY 1221 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 S T TR;ET AL 724 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SALAZAR, DALE C &VASQUEZ, ANNA M; JT 754 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SCHWARZ, MARTIN R &BETH ANN; JT 705 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SERIES THREE, AN INDIVIDUALPROTECTED SERI 347 RANCH DR ALPINE UT 84004 SHEA, TIMOTHY M &SCHWARTZ-SHEA, PEREGR 1172 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SMITH, WHITNEY R; JTSMITH, TYLER B; JT 1213 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SNOW, DANIEL W &JACCI L; JT 737 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SUNDER LLC 3135 S METROPOLITAN WY MILLCREEK UT 84109 SVENDSEN, KATHLEEN A; TR(KS LIV TRUST) 1164 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TELFER, DIANA L 744 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRABERT, BRITTON L 766 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 VELA ASSET PROTECTION TRET AL 1228 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WALDRON, JOY; TR 1216 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WILLIAM MULLIGAN & KIMBERLYKERNAN REV 741 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WINTER-DUNN REV TRET AL 750 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WOO, WEI-CHI J 1222 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 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: Tony Sieverts Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00236) STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, 801-535-6182 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approves the requested Zoning Map Amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has received a request from Tony Sieverts of Gladiola Street, LLC, the property owner, to rezone the property at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street from M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The stated intent of the proposed rezoning is to enable the use of the property as a commercial truck driving school (classified as a vocational school with outdoor activities), which is permitted within the M-1 Light Manufacturing zoning district and not within the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing district. The project area is roughly 4.79 acres or 208,652 square feet. The applicant has not included development plans with this request. If the Salt Lake City Council adopts the rezone request, the applicant would then need to submit the necessary development applications, and the development proposal would need to comply with all applicable regulations within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Additional details regarding this request can be found in Planning Staff’s report for the Planning Commission rachel otto (Oct 9, 2023 11:19 MDT)10/09/2023 10/09/2023 PUBLIC PROCESS: For a full project timeline, please refer to Exhibit 1 • June 20, 2023 – Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Glendale Community Council. Neither council provided feedback on the proposal. • June 20, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • June 26, 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. All projects west of 2200 W require an Online Open House post. • August 4, 2023 – The required 45-day notice period ended. • August 10, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and distributed through the Planning Division’s email listserv. • August 11, 2023 – Public Hearing Notice signs posted on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION On August 23, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 1:39:34. One individual commented expressing concern that the rezone would affect his ability to continue his asphalt and concrete recycling facility (a use permitted only in the M-2 district). Location Map of subject property The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Mailing List 4) Original Petitions SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street from the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to the M-1 Light Manufacturing District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the property located at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street from the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to the M-1 Light Manufacturing District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00236. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (”Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 23, 2023, on an application submitted by Tony Sieverts of Sieverts Property Holdings, LLC to amend the zoning map from the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to the M-1 Light Manufacturing District for a parcel located at approximately 680 South Gladiola Street (Tax ID No. 15-08-503-002-0000) (the “Property”), pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00236. WHEREAS, at its August 23, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to the M-1 Light Manufacturing District. 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 ______________, 20___. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20___. Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 680 Gladiola Street APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 26, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: Tax ID 15-08-503-002-0000 A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 1 South, Range l West, Salt Lake Base & Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located on the westerly right-of-way of Gladiola Street, said point also being S0°11'17"W 1324.80 feet and West 22.50 feet from the Centerline monument located at the intersection of 500 South and Gladiola Street, said point also being S89°37'35"E 1404.96 feet along the Section line and S0°22'25"W 47.54 feet from the North Quarter Corner of Section 8, Township I South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base & Meridian; and running thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way S0°11'17"W 254.67 feet to a point located on the northerly subdivision line of Sorenson Technology Park Plat 3, recorded as Entry No. 7095353 in Book 98-9P at Page 263, Date: September 23, 1998 on file with the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence running along said subdivision line the following two (2) courses: (1) S89°53'16"W 1379.40 feet; thence (2) N0°03'15"W 41.18 feet to the southerly right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point being located 50' perpendicular from the centerline of the existing railroad track; thence N81°05'54"E 1397.10 feet to said westerly right of way, said also being the point of beginning. Contains 4.68 acres more or less TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) MAILING LIST 4) ORIGINAL PETITIONS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00236 March 24, 2023 Application submitted. April 20, 2023 Petition assigned to staff. April thru June 2023 Planning Staff worked with applicant to remedy application deficiencies. May 3, 2023 Petition routed for Department Review Comments. June 20, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Community Councils. June 20, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. August 4, 2023 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. August 10, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. August 11, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. August 23, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments. September 4, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. XXXX XX, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00236 Sieverts Zoning Map Amendment. Tony Sieverts, the property owner of 680 South Gladiola Street, has submitted this request to rezone his property from M-2 Heavy Manufacturing District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The stated intent of the proposed rezoning is to enable the use of the property as a commercial truck driving school (classified as a vocational school with outdoor activities), which is permitted within the M-1 Light Manufacturing zoning district and not within the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing district. The project is within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Aaron Barlow at 801.535.6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00236. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ALLIED WASTE TRANSFERSERVICES OF UTAH INC          18500 N ALLIED WAY PHOENIX AZ 85054 BTBW, LLC 4835 S VIEWMONT ST HOLLADAY UT UT 84117 C1 SLC III‐V, LLC PO BOX A3879 CHICAGO IL 60690 CLCJ LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC 606 S GLADIOLA ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CTC PROPERTIES, LLC 529 E OAKHOLLOW CT BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 Current Occupant 3611 W 500 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 3720 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 3763 W 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 615 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 622 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 632 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 650 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 655 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 670 S FULTON ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 675 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 680 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 715 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 720 S GLADIOLA ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 DREDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC 1770 W ALEXANDER ST WEST VALLEY UT 84119 FREMONT PEAK, LLC 3073 E DIMPLE DELL CIR SANDY UT 84092 GFP ALLIANCE SALT LAKE, LLC PO BOX 460189, Dept 126 HOUSTON TX 77056 MICHAEL & JULIE HUISH REV TRET AL                         PO BOX 271067 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84127 NEW PRIME, INC 2740 N MAYFAIR AVE SPRINGFIELD MO 65803 QUESTAR GAS COMPANY PO BOX 27026 RICHMOND VA 23216 ROBINSON FANS WEST, INC 725 S GLADIOLA ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SIEVERTS, TONY R 10084 S Altavilla Dr SANDY UT 84092 UNION PACIFIC RAIL ROADCOMPANY                       1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 OMAHA NE 68179 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 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: TAG 1380 Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2032-00172) STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, 801-535-6182 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approves the requested Zoning Map Amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Drake Powell of TAG SLC, LLC, representing several property owners, has submitted a request for a Zoning Map Amendment for the properties listed below: •1380 South 900 West (Parcel ID 15-14-202-014-0000) •1361 South 1000 West (Parcel ID 15-14-202-026-0000) •1367 South 1000 West (Parcel ID 15-14-202-028-0000) This Zoning Map Amendment request is to rezone the above-listed properties from R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential. The project area is roughly 1.34 acres or 58,292 square feet. A formal development petition has not been submitted at this time. Preliminary Plans, including the applicant’s description of the proposal, can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The applicant owns the property located at 1380 South 900 West and intends to only develop that property. The other two properties (1361 & 1367 South 1000 West) are owned by a separate organization that asked to be included in this request to enable additional development flexibility. rachel otto (Oct 9, 2023 11:24 MDT)10/09/2023 10/09/2023 HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION Per Chapter 18.97 of City Ordinance, any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. The applicant submitted a housing loss mitigation plan, which can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, that satisfied Housing Loss Mitigation requirements. Because the cost to replace the one dwelling situated on the subject site is greater than the assessed value, no mitigation is required. The final plan was evaluated and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director, Blake Thomas, prior to the Planning Commission’s review of this petition. PUBLIC PROCESS: For a full project timeline, please refer to Exhibit 1 •May 3, 2023 – Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Glendale Community Council. Neither council provided feedback on the proposal. •May 3, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. •June 17, 2023 – The required 45-day notice period ended. The above map shows the location and current zoning of the properties that are a part of this request. •July 28, 2023 – Sale of property and transfer of application from Trille Properties (the original applicant) to TAG SLC, LLC (the current applicant) confirmed by Planning Division. •August 10, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed, posted on City and State websites, and distributed through the Planning Division’s email listserv. •August 11, 2023 – Public Hearing Notice sign posted on the property. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On August 23, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 1:13:22. Two public comments were read into the record. Both expressed concerns about the proposed rezone citing, parking, privacy, and property values. The Comments are included in Exhibit 4. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of August 23, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1)Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Mailing List 4)Comments Received During and After Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202__ (An ordinance amending the zoning of properties located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West from the R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West from the R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00172. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (”Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 23, 2023, on an application submitted by Drake Powell of TAG SLC, LLC, (“Applicant”) on behalf of several property owners to amend the zoning map from the R- 1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District for three parcels located at approximately 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West (Tax ID Nos. 15-14-202-014-0000, 15-14-202-028-0000, & 15-14- 202-026-0000) (collectively, the “Property”), pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00172. WHEREAS, at its August 23, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be Ordinance rezoning 1380 South 900 West, 1361 South 1000 West, and 1367 South 1000 West Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date:� By:���----�---­Katherine D. Pasker, EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: Tax ID 15-14-202-014-0000 Beginning 825 feet east, and 188.10 feet south, and 9.91 feet West from the northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, and running thence south 0°56'36" west 109.68 feet; thence south 0°12'09" east 9.31 feet; thence west 354.31 feet, thence north 118.96 feet, thence east 356.09 feet to the point of beginning. 0.97 acres more or less Tax ID 15-14-202-028-0000 Lot 3, Three Eagles Subdivision according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. Together with a 20 foot access and utility easement as shown on the official record plat of Three Eagles subdivision, recorded February 17, 2023, as entry number 14073617, book 2023P, page 39. 0.178 acres more or less Tax ID 15-14-202-026-0000 Lot 2, Three Eagles Subdivision according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder. Together with a 20 foot access and utility easement as shown on the official record plat of Three Eagles subdivision, recorded February 17, 2023, as entry number 14073617, book 2023P, page 39. 0.191 acres more or less TABLE OF CONTENTS 1)PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3)MAILING LIST 4)COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND AFTER PUBLIC HEARING 5)ORIGINAL PETITIONS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00172 March 3, 2023 Applications submitted by Trille Property Solutions, LLC. April 4, 2023 Petition assigned to staff. April 4, 2023 Petition routed for Department Review Comments. April 4 to May 1, 2023 Staff worked with applicant to remedy deficiencies in application. May 3, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Community Councils. May 3, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. June 23, 2023 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. July 28, 2023 Sale of property and transfer of application from Trille Properties (the original applicant) to TAG SLC, LLC (the current applicant) confirmed by Planning Staff August 10, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. August 11, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. August 23, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments. September 4, 2023 Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. September 26, 2023 Ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00172 TAG 1380 Zoning Map Amendment Drake Powell of TAG SLC, representing the various property owners, has submitted this request for three separate properties located at 1380 S 900 W, 1361 S 1000 W, and 1367 S 1000 West. Approval of this request would rezone these properties from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). The intent of this amendment request is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Aaron Barlow at 801.535.6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00172. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3.MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP AGUILERA, PAULO 945 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BARLOW FAM TR 1364 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BENJAMIN KUNZ 941 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BOLINDER, DAVID V 2045 E 6060 S HOLLADAY UT 84121 CHRISTENSEN, ERIC &TATEVIK; JT 551 W CEPHUS RD DRAPER UT 84020 CLAYNE O WAYMAN FAM TRET AL 1367 S 1100 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CRESLAND ACQUISITION, LLC 1265 S CONCORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 956 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 928 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1388 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1354 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1368 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1400 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 939 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1380 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1392 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 941 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 953 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1409 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1425 S 1000 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 937 W 1400 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1414 S 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 941 W 1400 S UT 84104 Current Occupant 1410 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 855 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 DALTON, DAVID I & GEORGIA P;JT 7885 W MAYTIME DR MAGNA UT 84044 EMERY, CODY &MARTHA; JT 1540 E WILLIAMSON CIR SANDY UT 84092 ESTRADA, BENJAMIN &MALDONADO, MARIO; JT 1008 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 FOSTER, JULEE L 932 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 GUTIERREZ, JOSE E 1408 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 HEGERHORST, WALTER F &ORA M; TRS 3541 W WHEATWOOD CIR WEST JORDAN UT 84084 HERNANDEZ, CELIA; JTHERNANDEZ, JESUS A; JT 1389 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 INGERSOLL, BRIAN D & KATHY M;JT 951 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 INGERSOLL, SONYA T 924 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JONES, JOY R 1420 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JONES, STEPHEN C &CYNTHIA C (JT)1402 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KEFU, MANISELA; JTET AL 1420 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KLAIN, ELAINE &FIGUEROA, EDGAR; JT 944 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KNUDSEN, JANET 1018 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LEATUTUFU, SUSITINA; JTLAITA, FAGALII; JT 1404 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LONGLEY, MICHELLE L 950 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LOSCHER, HAROLD P &SHARON F; TRS 1403 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LOSCHER, TERESA A &KENT D; JT 929 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LYON, GABRIELE C 938 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MAURICIO, PEDRO 966 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MCQUEEN, MIKE 959 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MIDDLETON, WAYNE PO BOX 9948 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 MONTANO, RANDOLPH &LORRAINE; JT 950 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 NGUYEN, LIEM T &LE, DAO; JT 963 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 PADILLA, IVANI O 933 W 1400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RAMIREZ, MARCELINO &MARIA P; JT 1131 W EMERY CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROJAS, EDUARDO & ESTELLA;JT 1328 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALAZAR, CARL R &ROBIN A; JT 1180 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SANDERSON, JONATHAN 936 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SITAUTI, SIOELI H &RAINA K; JT 1889 W SPRINGFIELD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SOUTHWORTH, WHITNEY B 1336 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 THACATUS, LLC 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SLC 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TOMSETT, ANDREW &BUCKSTAD, LISA; JT 1000 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRAN, HUNG VAN PO BOX 651237 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165 TRILLIE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS,LLC 1375 S 1000 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 URZUA, DIEGO C; JTDUNN, JAIMIE; JT 1386 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 VANLEEUWEN, JOHN I &KERRY; JT 923 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 VEA, CAPE 1350 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WILLIAMS, CAMERON 1358 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 WOOD, DALLIN A; JTWOOD, NATALY; JT 1362 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 5.ORIGINAL PETITIONS DocuSign Envelope ID : 1309F8CE-6924-4A65-80BB-7AC9E4AF5EB0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made avai lable to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: Application Type: Trillie Property Solutions LLC / Trent Hatch Zonning Amendment Mailing Address: Po Box, 2058 Orem, UT 84059 Email: Tj@Teillieproperties.com Signature: DocuSigne<l by: 21 E8DD80A0EG485 ... AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST Phone: 801-319-5915 Date: 03/03/23 I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. The following shall be providea if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1.If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2.If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3.If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4.If a Home Owner's Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant's interest in the property that is the subject of this application. Updated 9/14/22 Property purchased by TAG SLC on June 8, 2023 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 31, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY24 Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $0.00 $1,430,731.89 FLEET FUND $20,000.00 $20,000.00 CIP FUND $205,000.00 $205,000.00 IMPACT FEES FUND $0.00 $6,527,961.00 IMS FUND $12,000.00 $4,531,083.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND $1,705,700.79 $2,234,473.29 CDBG FUND $0.00 $46,642.50 TOTAL $1,942,700.79 $14,995,891.68 Greg Cleary (Oct 31, 2023 16:51 MDT) Greg Cleary Alejandro Sanchez (Nov 1, 2023 08:54 MDT) rachel otto (Nov 1, 2023 08:55 MDT)11/01/2023 11/01/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024. Due to the timing of this budget amendment, there are no updates to the FY 2024 revenue projections. Revenues are trending as expected are there are no reasons to assume any variance to the initially adopted projections. The City has begun closing out the financials for Fiscal Year 2023, and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses and is finalized. Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,847,140 129,847,140 - Sale and Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 117,129,000 - Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 12,348,127 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,905,573 1,905,573 1,905,573 - Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 261,229,840 - Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-FY23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,878,104 40,878,104 - Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 - Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 - Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,548 - Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,881,922 4,881,922 - Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 - Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 - Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 - Total W/O Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 - ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 - Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 - The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #3. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #3, the available fund balance will adjust to 13.89 percent of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 13,132,752 97,874,345 111,007,097 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 7,595,457 58,403,398 65,998,855 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 29.60%27.04%27.30%14.51%14.89%14.85% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) (2,257,746) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 7,595,457 56,145,652 63,741,109 Final Fund Balance Percent 29.60%26.45%26.78%14.51%14.32%14.34% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - (475,000) (475,000) - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - (754,483) (754,483) BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - - - 187,250 187,250 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - 6,000,000 6,000,000 - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) - (1,430,732) (1,430,732) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 194,600 194,600 - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) - - - BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) - - - BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 19,120,198 19,120,198 - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (11,719,731) (12,219,731) - - - BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - - - - Change in Revenue - - - - - - Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 13,132,752 94,530,495 107,163,247 7,595,457 54,147,687 61,743,144 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 29.60%24.64%25.04%14.51%13.81%13.89% Projected Revenue 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 Salt Lake City General Fund TOTAL Fund Balance Projections FY2024 BudgetFY2023 Budget Projected The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $1,942,700.79 in revenue and $14,995,891.68 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with an increase of nine (9.0) FTEs. The proposal includes 28 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending June 30, 2024. In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 150,119.00 Ongoing 4.00 1 Fire Department Single-Role Paramedics GF - 10,400.00 One-time - 2 ARPA Employee Expenses Misc Grants - 14,225.00 One-time - 3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 297,220.40 Ongoing 4.00 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF - 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division IMS 12,000.00 12,000.00 One-time - 4 City Attorney's Office Legislative Division GF 20,000.00 One-time 5 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,323,590.00 One-time - 6 Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees - 3,204,371.00 One-time - 7 Access Control System Upgrade - Security GF - 400,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - (20,000.00)One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF - 20,000.00 One-time - 8 Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 One-time - 9 Road Marking Maintenance GF - 200,000.00 Ongoing - 10 Paystation Replacement GF - 135,992.49 One-time - 11 Rail Spur Removal GF - 205,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Rail Spur Removal CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 One-time - 12 Temporary Shelter Community Misc Grants - 500,000.00 One-time - 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 75%CDBG Grants - 43,642.50 Ongoing 0.75 13 Grant Employee - Finance - 6 Months @ 25%Misc Grants - 14,547.50 Ongoing 0.25 13 Grant Employee - Finance - One-time Costs CDBG Grants - 3,000.00 One-time - 14 Consulting for the Enterprise Billing Systems IMS - 250,000.00 One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - (513,208.00)One-time - 1 Move Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF - 513,208.00 One-time - 2 IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS - 4,269,083.00 One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF (250,000.00)One-time - 3 Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF 250,000.00 One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Consent Agenda #2 1 Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc Grants 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time - 2 Department of Workforce Services Know Your Neighbor Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 3 EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Cleanup Misc Grants 495,200.00 495,200.00 One-time - 4 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG Grant)Misc Grants 38,000.00 38,000.00 One-time - 5 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants 346,131.80 346,131.80 One-time - 6 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)Misc Grants 386,620.00 386,620.00 One-time - 7 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc Grants 29,507.51 29,507.51 One-time - 8 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc Grants 20,517.38 20,517.38 One-time - 9 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc Grants 12,881.77 12,881.77 One-time - 10 Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc Grants 22,642.33 22,642.33 One-time - 11 FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc Grants 39,200.00 39,200.00 One-time - 12 Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc Grants 15,000.00 15,000.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 9.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #1: General Fund GF - 1,430,731.89 - - 8.00 Fleet Fund Fleet 20,000.00 20,000.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 205,000.00 205,000.00 - - - Impact Fees Fund Impact Fees - 6,527,961.00 IMS Fund IMS 12,000.00 4,531,083.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Misc Grants 1,705,700.79 2,234,473.29 - - 0.25 CDBG Operating Fund CDBG Grants - 46,642.50 - - 0.75 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,942,700.79 14,995,891.68 - - 9.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 2 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget - Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 - 448,514,918.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 - 0.00 1,700,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00 Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 25,240,459.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 20,000.00 32,165,769.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 36,281,357.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 - 5,597,763.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 26,823,040.79 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 32,341,586.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 205,000.00 56,108,649.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 1,942,700.79 - - 1,667,589,684.04 3 Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,430,731.89 449,385,899.89 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00 Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 520,438,997.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 28,263,792.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 20,000.00 46,980,543.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 43,248,254.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 5,644,405.50 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 27,351,813.29 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 10,212,043.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 6,732,961.00 41,627,940.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 55,412,179.25 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 14,995,891.68 - - 1,840,458,025.63 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics GF $150,119.00 GF $10,400.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Karl Lieb / Clint Rasmussen For questions, please include Chief Lieb, Clint Rasmussen, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson Current Status The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs. Each MRT is comprised of 4 Firefighters (FFs), for a total of 16 FFs allocated and funded for the MRT program. All FFs currently allocated to the MRT are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). By staffing a MRT with 3 EMTs and 1 Paramedic, rather than 4 EMTS, the response capability would increase by Replacing one of the EMTs as a Paramedic (Advanced Life Support or ALS) would increase the capability of the MRTs by approximately 30% and allow them to perform more advanced patient assessments. Paramedics are currently at a premium nationwide. Fortunately, SLCFD trains and remains appropriately staffed with Paramedics on our Medic Engines (4-handed) for our optimal response model - two Paramedics on each of eight daily Medic (ALS) Engines within SLC. These Medic Engines respond to the most serious medical and fire calls and should remain staffed in this configuration as a 4-handed unit for maximum capability. Proposal This item it to establish 4 new FTEs (Medical Response Paramedics) and reclassify 4 existing FTEs (Firefighters) to Medical Response Paramedics. The SLCFD proposes to diversify our current MRT model by replacing and displacing a total of eight (8) MRT FF EMTs with Medical Response Paramedics (SRPs). This would ideally staff one (1) Paramedic on each unit of four daily operating MRTs. The transition would expand the current MRTs response capability with an ALS component while maintaining the integrity of the MRT as a FD resource responding from and residing within select SLCFD fire stations. The SRPs would be civilian, potentially sworn, and eligible to participate in the Firefighters or Tier 2 Public Safety/Firefighter retirement systems. The SRPs would participate in a training regimen developed by the SLCFD for their specific role within our EMS response model. SRPs will serve under a new job title, new wage schedule, and possibly as part of SLCFD’s Local 81 labor group. Process The SLCFD would realize eight (8) Medical Response Paramedics through a combination of additional FTEs and conversion of existing FTEs: 1. SLCFD is requesting four (4) additional FTEs in the form of Medical Response Paramedics at a half-year cost $150,119 plus some start-up costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be an additional budget increase of $142,519. No new equipment (radio’s, tablets, vehicles, etc.) is required. These new positions would be funded for six months beginning January 2024. 2. SLCFD would retain the option to convert four (4) existing vacant FF positions currently funded for the MRT to SRPs by the end of calendar year 2023. 3. The remaining four FFs displaced by the four requested SRPs would be utilized to fill 4 -handed vacancies or additional resources throughout Salt Lake City in an effort to reduce OT and consistently staff SLCFD heavy apparatus. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 A-2: ARPA Employee Expenses Misc. Grants $14,225.00 Department: Finance & Economic Development Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson Funding in the amount of $14,225.00 is being requested to cover expenses for one grant employee for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. Throughout the year, staffing levels have been in flux to support this ongoing need . The additional amount will sufficiently cover the personnel expenses, factoring in vacancies savings, to support Economic Development’s ongoing ARPA grant activity. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division GF $297,220.40 GF $12,000.00 IMS $12,000.00 GF $20,000.00 Department: City Attorney Prepared By: Katherine Lewis For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, Katie Lewis This funding is to establish and support four (4) new FTEs, creating the Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s office. The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City. The proposed funding in the amount of $297,220.40 assumes the positions to be filled for six-months in Fiscal Year 2024, with a hire date in January. The four (4) positions are to be ongoing, with a financial impact of $594,440.79 annually beginning if FY25. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Director (E34) • Senior City Attorney (E39) • Special Projects Analyst (E26) • Administrative Assistant (N21) The supporting Ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s legislative agenda, and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. This initial funding request accounts for one-time expenses for staff equipment such as computers ($12,000), funding via a Non Departmental Transfer ($12,000), and a tenant improvement to established workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,323,590.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 2100 South Reconstruction Project. Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 2100 South Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,323,590 of Streets Impact Fees. A-6: Streets Impact Fee Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction Project Impact Fees $3,204,371.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Mark Stevens For questions, please include Mark Stevens, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Jorge Chamorro Engineering and Transportation are requesting a budget amendment to increase the appropriation of Streets Impact Fees for the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project . Multiple departments (Engineering, Transportation, the Finance Capital Asset Planning Team, and the Office of the City Attorney) have conducted an analysis of the 600 North/ 700 North Reconstruction Project, and based on the increase in overall cost and the increase in the portion of the project related to Complete Streets, this project is eligible for an additional $3,204,371 of Streets Impact Fees. A-7: Access Control System Upgrade – Security GF $400,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro The current access control system and devices across City buildings are now considered outdated and vulnerable, and staff are proposing this be addressed before the system fails. This system is used for access badges issued to all City employees to scan at certain doors to gain access to a given space. The Safety and Security Program proposes continuing the transition to the S2 control access system as a City-wide standard. With the recent allocation of funding from Council, the Public Safety Buildi ng and City Hall have upgraded their back-end software. The funding requested for the next phase should transition Plaza 349 and the Justice Courts. Additionally, access cards and card readers will be purchased for all four buildings. This project scope has been developed with staff from various departments, including IMS, to ensure standards and needs are met. The estimated cost for this project is $400,000. A-8: Compliance Electric Vehicle Funds Transfer to Fleet GF ($20,000.00) GF $20,000.00 Fleet $20,000.00 Department: Public Services – Compliance Prepared By: Erik O’Brien / Julie Crookston For questions please include Erik O’Brien, Julie Crookston, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen Public Services - Compliance is requesting a transfer of $20,000 to the Fleet Replacement Fund helping cover the difference in cost to purchase two electric trucks instead of the originally funded smaller vehicles. Fleet has been presented with an opportunity to order these electric trucks. One of the vehicles is part of the replacement cycle, upgrading the originally intended vehicle to a more capable one, and will allow for Parking Enforcement operations to continue during winter snow events, especially in areas like the Avenues. Additionally, the extra cargo space is needed to transport equipment such as pay station kiosks and equipment as needed. In addition to these advantages, the second Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 vehicle will provide adequate space to transport three (3) mitigation officers (FTEs recently approved) and their supplies for our Long-Term Parking Mitigation Team. The addition of these 2 EVs will bring Compliance closer to their goal to have a 100% electric fleet. A-9: Road Marking Maintenance GF $200,000.00 Department: Public Services – Streets Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro For question, please include Jorge Chamorro Over the past few years the Transportation Division has been successful in obtaining funding for special road markings through the CIP process, which include green paint on certain bike lanes . After assessing the current inventory of assets made up of 1010 bike racks and 3.23 miles of green-painted bike lanes and markings, staff has concluded that this ongoing maintenance need should no longer rely on the CIP process but rather be added to the Streets operating budget. At this time the need does not justify upfront cost of equipment procurement, Streets will develop a maintenance schedule and oversee a contract to perform the necessary maintenance work. If funding is approved for this item, though most of the work would not occur in the winter, contract development and work scheduling could be done in the meantime with work happening as weather allows. The Streets Division is requesting $200,000 to be added to their budget for ongoing maintenance of road markings and assets recently inventoried. A-10: Pay Station Replacement GF $135,992.49 Department: Public Services/Finance The current pay stations were purchased over 10 years ago. Due to their age, they are past the end of their useful life and a t risk of failure. New pay stations will allow the City to modernize the services offered to end users. The new pay stations will provide more features for the public including parking payment, information sharing about events going on city wide, the capability to pay by license plate technology, potential pollution sensors, and other innovative features. The modernization of the pay stations will allow for smoother staff operations and continued service to end users. City Finance is recommending a 7-year amortization rather than using the General Fund for one-time payment. The amortization schedule is attached and includes a 7-year payment schedule, with $135,992.49 due in Year 1, and $271,984.98 due in years two (2) through year seven (7). This includes an interest rate of 4.60%. The Council may consider a 5-year schedule which is also attached, with an interest rate of 4.77%. This item is being brought forward with Budget Amendment 3 due to the Request for Proposal process and market conditions around equipment. At the time of budget development, staff did not have clear insight into the cost or timeline of pay station procurement and delivery. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff feel it is best to proceed with the selected vendor for the reasons outlined above. A-11: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 CIP $205,000.00 Department: Public Services – Engineering Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro / JP Goates For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro and JP Goates Housekeeping request to move $205,000, approved by Council on BA#1 of FY23, item A -7, but placed on a GF cost center, and were recaptured at the end of FY23, from Fund Balance to a Capital Project Cost Center for Engineering to initiate the project. An overview of the original request is below. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 The property on which this rail spur is located, 535 S. 600 W., was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, ope rate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement, executed on July 3, 2000, the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year, a nd that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City’s expense. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. A-12: Temporary Shelter Community (Sanctioned Camping) Misc. Grants $500,000 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Greg Cleary/Shellie Dietrich Staff is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $500,000 to support startup costs associated with city efforts around a Temporary Shelter Community or Sanctioned Camping. This funding will allow staff to roll out the program, with ongoing assessment in needs, service levels, and funding being further developed in the coming months. Specifically, the $500,000 will support the Police Departments role in this effort, with overtime staffing of offers at the temporary shelters. In addition to the program, the most effective and efficient police staffing levels will also be assessed. The Police Department will look to savings in other areas of the budget to help support the program, notably with the savings realized with any vacant positions. Staff will return to council in the coming months with additional funding requests as needed, and once there is better data and information available on what the program is to entail and what might be needed to fund the ongoing efforts. Attached to this item is an ARPA financial reconciliation. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst – Housing Stability Program Support CDBG Grants $46,642.50 Misc. Grants $14,547.50 Department: CAN Prepared By: This request is for funding to support one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024, which is intended to oversee the grant allocation from the ARPA program, supporting the Housing Stability Program. The proposed Finance Grant Analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements . The position will be split across two grant funding sources – 75% CDBG and 25% Misc. Grants. A job description for this position is attached. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems IMS $250,000.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes This item provides funding for consulting services for the Enterprise Billing systems for PUBS which is primarily used by Sustainability and Public Utilities. PUBS needs to be replaced or upgraded, and the consultant work includes an analysis of the city's needs and compare that to best practices and make a recommendation on where the city should be moving with regards to future decisions. Microsoft’s has the city’s current solution mapped at the end of life by FY2025. Therefore, staff are initiating the work to finding a solution in the current year have an adequate platform it in place by the beginning of FY2025. The proposal and expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis and is estimated based on 1,000 hours of work, at $250 per hour. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project GF ($513,208.00) GF $513,208.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For question, please include Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker, JP Goates Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward IMS $4,269,083.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony / Gloria Cortes For questions, please include Joseph Anthony, Gloria Cortes, Aaron Bentley IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect it's revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center GF ($250,000.00) GF $250,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental, Economic Development Prepared By: Greg Cleary For questions, please include: Mary Beth Thompson, Lorena Riffo -Jenson, Felicia Baca This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Misc. Grants $200,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. Public hearing was held on September 19, 2023 Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 No match is required. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor Misc. Grants $100,000.00 Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023 No Match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup Misc. Grants $495,200.00 Department: RDA Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the S alt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. Public hearing was held on December 13, 2022 No Match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates Misc Grants $346,131.80 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. Public hearing will be on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $386,620.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following : • Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park Misc. Grants $29,507.51 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park Misc. Grants $20,517.38 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex Misc. Grants $12,881.77 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library Misc. Grants $22,642.33 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Amy Dorsey This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) char ging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras Misc. Grants $39,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Amy Dorsey FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force Misc. Grants $15,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,402,656$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 273,684$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 16,793,487$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,304,485$ D 24,774,312$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 1,103,628$ 1,103,628$ 202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ 113,748$ 113,748$ 202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 3,960$ 3,960$ 202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 26,929$ 26,929$ 202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ 95,407$ 95,407$ 202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 1,065,383$ 1,065,383$ 202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 95,762$ 95,762$ 202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ 53,972$ 53,972$ Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2026 -$ -$ -$ 2,558,788$ 2,558,788$ FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 FY 2 0 2 6 Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/20/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation IFFP Contract - Police 8423003 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Grand Total 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire Training Center 8417015 (499,533)$ -$ (499,533)$ -$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 IFFP Contract - Fire 8423004 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ B IF Excess Capacity - Fire 8423006 2,200,000$ -$ 2,200,000$ -$ Grand Total 1,712,546$ 3,021$ 1,700,467$ 9,058.00 Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ RAC Parcel Acquisition 8423454 395,442$ -$ 395,442$ 0$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 13,968$ 1,672$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ FY IFFP Contract - Parks 8423005 9,000$ -$ -$ 9,000$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 132,168$ 6,874$ 17,785$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 240,179$ 764,614$ 37,902$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 443,065$ 93,673$ 71,752$ C FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 44,791$ 30,676$ 81,099$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 555,030$ 52,760$ 402,270$ 100,000$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 13,640$ 107,393$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 1,310$ 120,971$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ 2,781$ 158,038$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 156,146$ 104,230$ 159,624$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 712$ 178,611$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ 678$ 299,322$ Open Space Prop Acq-Trails 8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 5,593$ 23,690$ 398,791$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 18,467$ 14,885$ 413,472$ Open Space Prop Acq-City Parks 8423452 450,000$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 9,440$ 34,921$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ 106$ 499,457$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 2,906$ 865,056$ Marmalade Plaza Project 8423451 1,000,000$ -$ 3,096$ 996,905$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 41,620$ 62,596$ 1,200,466$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 524,018$ 930,050$ 1,723,781$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 69,208$ 94,451$ 2,985,464$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 24,106,716$ 1,913,351$ 4,236,078$ 17,957,287$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,292$ -$ 1,292$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ -$ 13,473$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ 13,000$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 38,084$ 6,316$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 11,746$ 29,734$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 124,068$ 40,300$ 117,218$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ 542$ 181,303$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 46,269$ 393,884$ 340,029$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 45,972$ 734,918$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ 166$ 1,119,834$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 1,192,649$ 224,557$ 1,694,129$ Grand Total 8,267,218$ 1,503,600$ 987,926$ 5,775,692$ Total 34,095,480$ 3,419,972$ 6,924,471$ 23,751,037$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 8484002 24,774,312$ 8484003 8484005 16,793,487$ 6,304,485$ $273,684 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,402,656$ Attachments A-1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2023 (Requesting Admission to the Firefighters Retirement System) WHEREAS, Utah Code Sections 49-23-101 et seq. authorize an employer of emergency medical service personnel to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, employers of full time emergency medical service personnel including paramedics for interfacility transport, including Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”), are authorized to elect to include such personnel in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement system with the Utah Retirement System; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide benefits authorized by Utah state law for the public safety personnel by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council of Salt Lake City (“City Council”) to exercise the election authorized by statute to approve and authorize coverage under the Fighters Retirement Systems for City firefighter and emergency medical services personnel, including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. Election and Authorization. The City Council hereby elects to cover the City’s emergency service personnel, also including the City’s social workers who provide emergency response services, who can be qualified for such coverage pursuant to Utah Code Sections 49-23- 101 et seq. in the Tier 2 Firefighter Retirement System with the Utah Retirement System. The Mayor is hereby authorized to undertake all of the necessary actions to enroll the City in the benefit programs of the Firefighters Retirement Systems offered by Utah Retirement Systems, including the retirement coverage and death benefit coverage for qualified employees under the laws and regulation of the Utah Retirement Systems. 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office ______________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney Date: ______October 9, 2023________ Medical Response Paramedic Job Profile Summary Under the supervision of a Fire Department Officer and the direction of emergency room medical personnel, and in compliance with Utah State and Fire Department operating procedures, provides basic and advanced life support and medical care to victims of sudden illness and accident, at the emergency scene, and during transport to an appropriate medical facility. This is a specialized work performed in accordance with National and Salt Lake City Fire Department performance and training standards. Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES: • Responds to medical emergencies in fire department vehicle with EMT partner. Examines patient at emergency scene and establishes priorities for treatment. Communicates with appropriate hospital emergency room. Provides all treatment according to orders from hospital staff or standing orders, including ECG monitoring, administering IV fluids and medications, defibrillation intubation, splinting and bandaging, extraction, and other treatments necessary for stabilization of patients prior to arrival at emergency room. May transport patients with assistance from contracted ambulance company. • Performs daily medical equipment checks, cleans, and makes equipment used at medical scene serviceable after each call. Keeps record of each medical emergency and patient on forms provided by Utah State Division of Health. Maintains company medical logbook. • Responds to other emergencies with assigned partner as dispatched, carries out orders of company/division officer and other activities necessary for handling an emergency. Acts to maintain safety for self and other members of the team. • Participates in drills and classes as provided by the department or company officer. Participates in physical fitness training. Demonstrates medical skills as required by appropriate authority. Fulfills paramedic certification requirements as established by the State of Utah. Conducts periodic medical training for members as assigned. • Complies with city and department policies and procedures. Completes daily job assignments from company officer to maintain fire station, grounds, and equipment in clean and serviceable condition. Meets with company officer to assess job performance. • Maintains the ability to perform medical activities and participates in all functions required of a paramedic on the Salt Lake City Fire Department. • Performs other duties as required. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: • Successful completion of paramedic training and maintenance of certification and licensure as a Utah State Paramedic, including CME attendance and all required testing. Such certification must be in good standing at all times. • Must satisfy the medical condition requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1582. • Possession of valid driver license. WORKING CONDITIONS: • Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior while responding to emergency and non-emergency situations. Medical Response Paramedic • Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to stand, walk, or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Exposure to disagreeable elements such as cold, dampness, toxic fumes, smoke, and noise. Intermittent exposure to infectious diseases, emotionally upset patient, and relatives. Frequent exposure to extreme weather conditions. • May be subjected to lifting weights of 50 pounds or more, aroused out of sleep by fire alarm gongs. Subjected to rapid changes in temperature by responding from station facilities to outside temperatures. May be required during prolonged emergency operations to work without sleep for extended periods. Subjected to traffic hazards during emergency responses through city traffic. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Attachments A-4 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ___ of 2023 (Division of Legislative Affairs and City Attorney Reporting) An ordinance amending chapter 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to add a division of legislative affairs to the Department of the City Attorney and to clarify the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation is the capitol city and engages in year- round efforts to collaborate with and advocate before the Utah legislature. WHEREAS, the Utah legislature is meeting more frequently and opening more bill files that affect Salt Lake City and all Utah municipalities. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has a strong interest in monitoring trends in federal legislation. WHEREAS, given the City’s legislative goals, the City is committed to establishing a fulltime staff of City employees who are engaged in and supporting the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor have a significant interest in equally participating in the direction of the City’s collaboration and advocacy for the City’s legislative interests. WHEREAS, under City Code 2.08.040, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office is responsible to both the Mayor and the City Council, and the executive and legislative branches enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the City Attorney’s Office. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City now desires to amend city code to create a division of legislative affairs within the Department of the City Attorney. WHEREAS, the division of legislative affairs will direct the City’s legislative advocacy and collaboration efforts, and will be equally responsible to the Mayor and the City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City also desires to clarify the Department of the City Attorney’s reporting obligations to both branches of government and clarify the instances in which the City may hire outside counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That section 2.08.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.08.040: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: A. Functions: 1. The city attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the city and shall be responsible to the mayor and city council for the proper administration of the legal affairs of the executive and legislative branches of city government. The city attorney shall report to both the mayor and the council chair and may be removed at the discretion of the mayor. 2. The executive and legislative branches of government shall enjoy equal and independent access to the services of the office of the city attorney with reference to their respective functions and duties. It shall be the responsibility of the city attorney to administer the office of the city attorney in a manner which will enable the mayor and city council to fulfill their respective duties in a timely fashion. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, the city attorney shall not in any instance, either personally, or by his or her deputies, act as both prosecutor and advocate before (and at the same time advisor to) any board, commission, agency, officer, official or body of the city. In cases where such a conflict shall arise, special counsel may be employed who shall not be subject to the control or direction of the city attorney in such matter, and who shall provide the legal service to or before such board, commission, agency, officer, official or body. 3 4. Supervise the office of the city recorder, the risk management division, and the division of legislative affairs. B. Outside Executive Or Legislative Counsel: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the city attorney from retaining outside counsel for either the city council or mayor from appropriated funds, provided, however, that the city attorney will retain outside counsel for either the mayor or city council only after he/she concludes that the office of city attorney has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform the legal work requested on behalf of such branch of city government. C. City Recorder: 1. The city recorder shall be assigned to the office of the city attorney and be under the administrative direction of the city attorney; however, the recorder shall be responsible to the city council, which shall have equal and independent access for services with respect to legislative functions. 2. The city recorder shall keep the corporate seal, the official papers and records of the city, as required by law; the record of the proceedings of the city, as required by law; and shall attest legal documents of the city and do those other matters prescribed by law. D. Division of Legislative Affairs. 1. The division of legislative affairs will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the city. 2. The director of legislative affairs will be responsible for working with the executive and legislative branches of city government to craft a legislative agenda for the city and will report to both branches of city government on legislative priorities and policies. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of __________________ 2023. ____________________________________ Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST: 4 _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2023. Published: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Oct 25, 2023 14:59 MDT) October 25, 2023 911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council  members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. ed  911 BUREAU Job Title Grade 911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X 911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X AIRPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X DIRECTOR AIRPORT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 039X DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY 041X DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X CITY RECORDER 035X LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 034X CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A* EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X LEGISLATIVE & POLICY MANAGER 037X SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 031X COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT Effective June 25, 2023 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 033X FINANCE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X CITY TREASURER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 036X FIRE FIRE CHIEF 041X DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X HUMAN RESOURCES CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X* TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X* TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X* INFORMATION MGT SERVICES CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 039X JUSTICE COURTS JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 038X JUSTICE COURT ADMINISTRATOR 037X MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF 041X CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 039X DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X SENIOR ADVISOR 039X COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X POLICY ADVISOR 029X REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR 024X COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X POLICE CHIEF OF POLICE 041X ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X CITY ENGINEER 039X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X SAFETY & SECURITY DIRECTOR 037X FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 026X REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 041X DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be added, remov or modified without approval of the City Council. * Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member‐elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for city council  members‐elect are also equivalent to those provided to full‐time employees. ed  Director of Legislative and Government Affairs The Director of Legislative and Government Affairs reports to the City Attorney and is responsive to both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government. The Director is responsible for monitoring and interpreting state legislation, appropriations and authorizations, and proposed or existing state regulations, keeping both the Legislative and Administrative branches of Salt Lake City government informed of legislative impacts to the City, and advising and developing policy responses. Incumbent must be able to work extended hours and on weekends as needed, especially while the Legislature is in session. Duties: - Helps ensure City departments are apprised of existing and proposed state regulations and laws and ensures such regulations and laws are fully implemented. - Knows City legislative priorities and advocates for City legislative priorities before the State legislature. - Communicates effectively between the Administrative and Legislative branches of Salt Lake City government to ensure that the City’s legislative priorities are agreed-upon and clearly communicated internally and externally. - Knows City department-specific legislative priorities and negotiates the acceptable City priority when multiple departments have different/conflicting priorities. - Ensures City departments and Administrative and Legislative branches of government timely receive information necessary to understand and participate in City legislative priorities. - Participates with City elected officials and department leadership in establishing direction, goals, and policies. - Meets with staff in both branches of City government to determine needs and challenges. - Oversees staff in the Office of Legislative Affairs and outside contracted lobbyists, and helps set goals for performance. - Ensures compliance with applicable federal and/or state laws, regulations, and/or City rules, standards and guidelines, etc. - Represents City interests on key legislative issues, task forces, committees, etc. and/or drafts legislation, find sponsors, proposes amendments, etc. - Ensures that legislation is implemented and followed. - Works with both branches of City government and legislators if there are concerns in implementation. - Identify and prioritize system changes and improvements in legislative processes. - Demonstrate and utilize knowledge and understanding of best practices in working with the legislature. - Supervise subordinate personnel including hiring, determining workload and delegating assignments, training, monitoring and evaluating performance, and initiating corrective or disciplinary actions. - Gives recommendations to both branches of City government regarding implementation of passed legislation. - Tracks current events, legislation and other issues of interest to both branches of City government. - Other duties as assigned. Qualifications: - Sufficient education to demonstrate an aptitude to perform above and related duties; AND minimum of six (6) years of progressively responsible experience directly related to municipal government administration, and state and local legislative processes; OR An equivalent combination of education and experience. - Thorough knowledge of principles and practices of city government and legislative processes; Utah laws, regulations, and guidelines governing all aspects of municipal operations; legal and political issues affecting city operations and management. - Considerable skill in the art of diplomacy and cooperative problem solving; establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with state, federal, and other local officials, elected officials and City residents. - Ability to understand and interpret complex laws, rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines; establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, other entities and the public; communicate effectively, verbally and in writing; implement cooperative problem-solving processes. - The ability to communicate information and ideas so others will understand, including the ability to adapt communication. - Collaborative with stakeholders and both branches of City government. - The ability to think critically to help solve problems. - The ability to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong and help pull the right people together to solve it. - Experience working with diverse communities. - Strong planning/project management skills. Attachments A-13 Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department Job Title: Finance Grant Analyst Job Code Number: 002589 FLSA: Exempt Pay Level: 27 EEO Code: 2 Bargaining Unit: 600 Benchmark: Research Analyst Grant Prog. Mgr. JOB SUMMARY: The Finance Grant Analyst will be under the general direction of the Deputy Director of Finance. The Finance Grant Analyst will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. , TYPICAL DUTIES: Assist the Deputy Controller with Financial support for Housing grants. This includes, but limited to: • Working alongside other financial professionals. • Preparing calculations in Excel • Managing and approving payments through Workday • Reviewing, reconciling, and administering controls for grant funds • Analyzing, summarizing and/or reviewing data • Reporting findings, interpreting results and/or making recommendations • Collaborating with other team members • Work to ensure budgets and budget amendments are reconciled. • Assist in entering grants into Workday and managing the Workday Grants process. Assist the Grant Manager with reporting and monitoring of grants. This includes, but not limited to: • Assisting the Housing Stability division with City contracts and processes. • Reviewing subrecipient contracts to ensure grant compliance. • Serves as a liaison to provide administrative and technical guidance. • Identifies, resolves, and ensures system compliance issues to follow State and Federal regulations, as well as City policies, procedures, and ordinances. • Organizes and reviews grant files to ensure documentation is complete, maintained, and retained for appropriate audit trails. • Prepares and presents reports for informational briefings and status updates. • Performs other duties as assigned. MINIMUM OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited College or University in a related field su ch as accounting, business or finance and four years of years in contract and/or grant experience. Education and experience may be substituted on a year-for-year basis 2. Knowledge of finance and accounting theory, including generally accepted accounting principles. 3. Knowledge of administering and managing grants and contract policy, procedure, and guidelines under City, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 4. Knowledge of 2 CFR 200 Federal grant regulations. 5. Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing and build consensus with diverse backgrounds, with varied organizational needs and differing priorities. 6. Ability to coordinate with and instruct others, as necessary, to ensure compliance and accuracy. 7. Ability to independently bring tasks and projects to meet successful and timely resolution. 8. May require minimum amounts of travel to and from meetings, trainings, and conferences. 9. Occasional non-traditional working hours, which may include evening and weekend meetings. PREFERRED OUALIFICATIONS: 1. Experience in federal grant administration. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Light physical effort, comfortable working conditions, handling of light weights, intermittent sitting, standing and walking. 2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of report deadlines and human behavior. Offers of employment are contingent on successful completion of a criminal background check in accordance with City policy and applicable law. Criminal offenses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from City employment. The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified. All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Position Review Information Date: 10/28/2023 Departmental Approval: Mary Beth Thompson HR Consultant Approval: Mike Sanchez Compensation Approval: David Salazar Notes: Update to minimum qualifications 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: 11/06/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/06/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/06/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Robyn Taylor-Granda member of the City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 6, 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 City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee. Robyn Taylor-Granda to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and consent and ending on July 19, 2027. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/03/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/03/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/03/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Landon Kraczek member of the Planning Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 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 Planning Commission. Landon Kraczek 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