06/08/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
LIMITED FORMAL MEETING AGENDA
June 8, 2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Amy Fowler, Chair
District 7
James Rogers, Vice Chair
District 1
Dennis Faris
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Generated: 15:28:06
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council
meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who
may be present, and that the City and County building has been ordered closed to the public for
health and safety reasons.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most
comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they are available on
the following platforms:
•Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email:
•24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
Based on feedback we have received, we will be going back to our regular Formal Meeting
format. Public hearings will be heard in the order on the agenda followed by a general comment
session later in the meeting.
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 Amy Fowler 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 Tuesday, October
13, 2020 and Tuesday, October 20, 2020.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2020-21. 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 a request to increase the Library’s General Fund budget to
account for pass-through property tax revenue collected by Salt Lake County
which goes directly to the Utah Inland Port Authority and the Convention Facility.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
NONE.
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects
The Council will set the dates of Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday,
August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting a
resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program,
which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks,
streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or
more years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is
approved by September 1 of the same year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue
The Council will set the date of July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment
and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map for
property at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue. The proposal would rezone the parcels
from CN (Neighborhood Commercial District) and SR-1A (Special Development
Pattern Residential District) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The
applicant would like to build a multi-family development on the lots, however the
request is not tied to a development proposal. The properties are located within
the Avenues Local Historic District and any demolition or construction must be
approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Consideration may be given to
rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other
sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00703
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) – Justin
Rodriguez
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Justin Rodriguez to the
PCRB for a term ending September 2, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4. Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) – Raheem
Bennett
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Raheem Bennett to the
PCRB for a term ending September 2, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5. Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City – Tina
Padilla
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Tina Padilla to the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for a term ending June 8, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City – Amy
Hawkins
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Amy Hawkins to the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for a term ending June 8, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
7. Board Reappointment: Planning Commission – Brenda Scheer
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Brenda Scheer to the
Planning Commission for a term ending June 8, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
8. Board Reappointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Joshua Poppel
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Joshua Poppel to the
Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending June 8, 2024.
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, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
9. Board Reappointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City – Cindy
Gust-Jenson
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Cindy Gust-Jenson to
the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for a term ending June 8, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, 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.
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.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 13, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to the Chair’s determination
and Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Chris Wharton, James Rogers, Amy
Fowler, Analia Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, and Darin Mano.
Absent: Councilmember Andrew Johnston.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s Chief Administrative
Officer; David Litvack, Mayor’s Senior Advisor; Lorna Vogt, Public
Services Director; Mike Brown, Police Chief; Mary Beth Thompson,
Chief Financial Officer; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Policy Analyst;
Lehua Weaver, Council Associate Deputy Director; Amanda Lau,
Council Staff Assistant; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Environment
Director; Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Housing and Neighborhood
Development Director; Bill Wyatt, Airport Director; Brian Butler,
Airport Finance/Accounting Director; Tony Milner, Housing and
Neighborhood Development Policy/Program Manager; Jennifer
Schumann, Housing and Neighborhood Development Deputy Director;
Blake Thomas, Community and Neighborhoods; Sam Owen, Council
Policy Analyst; Jonathan Larsen, Transportation Director; and
Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m. 2:04:07 PM
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:05:16 PM Informational: Updates Relating to Mayor’s Proclamations Declaring Local Emergencies for COVID-19, March Earthquake, and Windstorm
The Council will receive an update from the Administration
about the Mayor’s emergency declarations relating to COVID-19
(coronavirus), the March 18th earthquake in the Salt Lake Valley,
and the September 8th windstorm. As part of the update, the Council
may discuss public health and other public safety, policy and
budget issues stemming from the emergency declarations. The
Council may also receive information or updates from organizations
or experts related to the emergency responses and coordination,
including but not limited to earthquake damage to the City, the
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 2
functioning of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), City
response and aid, and the status of City buildings.
Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer and Lorna Vogt
briefed the Council. Comments included increasing the City’s
restriction level to orange, total re-work of the color system
(for transmission levels), currently operating in the moderate
restriction level, required mask mandate (in most places in the
state), transitioning Streets crews away from debris removal (back
to normal duties), release of the Utah National Guard, coordinating
with the State/County to assist Public Utilities with clearing
trees from streams (to prevent flooding problems), sidewalk
repairs due to stumps in the right-of-way/, information submitted
to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (no response yet),
and no significant injuries/accidents reported.
Lisa Shaffer informed the Council they would be briefed about
Budget Amendment No. 3 which included preliminary damage
assessment numbers totaling almost $6 million related to the
windstorm (based on contractor estimates). She explained this was
not the final tally and reminded the Council of her last update
with estimated costs of around $11 million.
Discussion was held regarding the parking enforcement
moratorium (emergency proclamations effecting parking).
Council Members requested the following item from Staff:
• Provide total numbers on tonnage of tree/debris removal.
#2. 2:15:45 PM Informational: Updates on Relieving the Condition of People Experiencing Homelessness
The Council will hear updates and discuss issues pertaining
to relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness in
neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake City.
Mayor Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, and Lisa Shaffer briefed the
Council regarding week two of phase II of the Community Commitment
Program focused on the 700 South area (resource center) including
outreach (3 weeks of daily efforts) and determining needed/wanted
services. She stated the Saint Vincent DePaul overflow facility
was set to open Wednesday night.
Discussion was held regarding the Health Department
beginning to abate encampment activity on 700 South (October 23,
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 3
2020) and adequate notice being provided to the encampments in
advance of abatement activities.
#3. 2:26:22 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on
various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity
and policing in the City. The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race, equity, and justice in relation to
law enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and ordinances.
Discussion may include:
• An update or report on the newly created Commission on Racial
Equity in Policing; and
• Other project updates or discussion.
Councilmember Wharton stated discussion of this item would be
combined with Item 5 (Budget Amendment No. 3).
#4. 2:27:30 PM Ordinance: Police Officer Body-worn Cameras
The Council will discuss options for a new ordinance for the
Police Department’s use of body-worn cameras. The Police
Department has policies for body-worn camera use and there have
been executive orders relating to footage release. Currently,
however, there is not a City ordinance that standardizes the policy
direction. This is part of a multifaceted approach the City is
taking to examine internal systems and identify paths toward better
accountability and equity. View Attachment Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Katherine Lewis, Mayor Mendenhall, and Mike Brown briefed the Council with attachments.
Comments included constituent feedback (public interest to
maintain/expand body-worn camera use), updating the ordinance to
reflect the statute of limitations retention schedule (4 years),
outline of the draft ordinance (define officer involved critical
incidents (including K-9), keeping record of instances when a body-
worn camera was deactivated (how the record would be
audited/provided to elected officials), adding a placeholder for
further discussion/understanding of what “valid law enforcement
purposes” meant, and monthly random audits to ensure officers were
complying with State law/City code/Police Department policy.
Discussion was held regarding reasons why an officer would
turn off a body-worn camera, potential of additional staff to
handle auditing functions, number of audits being considered (five
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 4
per month), retention/data storage options/costs, whether the
Civilian Review Board Administrator (with current work load) was
the appropriate person to perform audits, and timeline to release
footage of body-worn cameras to the Council (two versus five
business days).
Unanimous Straw Poll: Support to have the ordinance state
that body-worn camera footage should be provided as soon as
practicable but within no more than five business days to the
Council. All Council Members present were in favor; Councilmember
Valdemoros and Johnston were absent for the vote.
Council Members requested the following items from Staff:
• Provide the cons of triggering an Officer Involved Critical
Incident (OICI), including K-9 bites.
• Consider more staff to perform work being done by the Civil
Service Commission and pricing of the auditing functions (who
reviews/how provided).
#5. 3:34:25 PM Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2020-2021
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that
would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the
employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments
to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for Airport
Projects, Racial Equity in Policing Commission operating costs and
windstorm expenses, among other items. View Attachment Benjamin Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Bill Wyatt, Brian Butler, Lorna Vogt, David Litvack, and Jennifer Bruno briefed the
Council with attachments. Comments included revenues update
(projected deficits), Fund Balance update, expenses in response to
the September 8, 2020 windstorm (working with Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)/Insurance for reimbursement), General
Fund update, and review of Administrative/Council added/requested
budget items.
Discussion was held regarding the use of Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funding (could not be
used to off-set revenues), anticipated/predicted deficits, excess
of Fund Balance, projected/actual revenues, Sales and Use Tax
revenue (line items), FEMA reimbursement (18-24 months), use of
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 5
Police Impact Fees, Fire/Parks Impact Fees proposed/eligible
expenses/spending, Item A-1 Airport Hardstand: examples of
additional scopes of work that would benefit from the requested
larger budget adjustment, how Airport passenger comfort would be
addressed (moving from a bus to the plane during inclement
weather), Item A-2 Windstorm Damage Cost Estimates: explanation of
contracting an Archeologist, expenses for plot damages at the
Cemetery, responsibility of concrete repairs damaged from fallen
tree stumps (in parking strips), plot owners covering costs of
damaged headstones, Item A-3 Racial Equity in Policing Commission:
ongoing versus onetime costs of additional City employees to
address the continual workload of the Racial Equity in Policing
Commission, Racial Equity in Policing Committee Facilitator
activities, Commission Members stipend determination/ potential of
increase, Committee recommendation procedures, and potential of
funding through the Police Department (rather than the General
Fund).
Council Members requested the following item from Staff:
• Provide actual revenues through the end of September.
#6. 4:35:21 PM Tentative Break
#7. 4:53:36 PM Resolution: Update to the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities (CARES) Act Funds
The Council will receive a briefing about updating the City’s
2020-24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City expects to receive
approx. $7.1 million in HUD CARES Act funding and must amend the
Consolidated Plan and associated 2020-21 Annual Action Plan to
utilize those funds. The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals
and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities
through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment
Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA). View Attachment
Benjamin Luedtke, Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Tony Milner, Jennifer Schumann, and Blake Thomas briefed the Council with attachments.
Comments included Budget Amendment No. 4 being crucial to the
implementation of the CARES HUD-CV funding, CARES HUD-CV
funding/process, and timelines/deadlines.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 6
Discussion was held regarding clarification on why Housing
Stability was not implicated, process of targeting Small Business
Grants, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV) funding use timeline,
funding categories meeting the needs the Council receives feedback
on from the community, and funding determination (what/when).
Council Members requested the following item from Staff:
• Provide quarterly reports of funding recipients for
information purposes and to keep the community informed that
funds were being used properly.
#8. 5:42:00 PM Ordinance: Dockless Shared Mobility Devices (Electric Scooters) Follow-up
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposed
ordinance that would regulate the use of electric scooters and
other dockless, shared mobility devices in the City. The Council
would also consider amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule as part
of the dockless shared mobility device ordinance. Currently,
dockless scooter companies operate under temporary operating
agreements until an ordinance is passed. The latest version of a
draft ordinance was sent to the Council in March 2020. The updated
ordinance incorporates some feedback and concerns including
additional requirements for safety features, insurance requirement
changes, and language to better differentiate between scooters and
devices - motorized or otherwise – used by individuals with reduced
or specialized mobility, among other changes. View Attachment
Sam Owen, Blake Thomas, and Jonathan Larsen briefed the
Council with attachments. Comments included cost justification
analysis, financial components, policy consideration, fee
structure, and request for proposal (RFP) selection process.
Council Members thanked Staff and Administration for their
hard work on this project and said they hoped to vote on this item
before the end of the year.
#9. 5:56:00 PM Informational: Final Status of Sustainability Projects for the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
The Council will receive a written briefing about the final
status of Sustainability Projects approved in the Fiscal Year 2020
budget. View Attachment
Vicki Bennett and Mayor Mendenhall briefed the Council.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2020
20 - 7
Discussion was held regarding the Call2Haul program. No new
information was available; however, work had continued and a hybrid
system (balanced approach between old/new system) was being
considered.
STANDING ITEMS
#10. 5:58:01 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#11. 5:58:11 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
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.
See File M 20-5 for announcements.
#12. 6:00:42 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE §52-4-205 FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
October 13, 2020.
sc/ks
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday October 20, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to Chair determination Salt
Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Andrew Johnston, Amy Fowler, Chris
Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, and Analia
Valdemoros.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; David Litvack, Mayor’s Senior Advisor;
Allison Rowland, Council Public Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver,
Associate Council Deputy Director; Kristin Riker, Public Lands
Deputy Director; Nancy Monteith, Engineering Senior Landscape
Architect ; Brian Fullmer, Council Constituent Liaison & Policy
Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Sara
Javoronok, Senior Planner; Michelle Hoon, Homeless Services
Project Manager; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Advisor; Lisa
Shaffer, Mayor’s Chief Administrative Officer; Amanda Lau,
Council Public Engagement & Communications Specialist; Benjamin
Luedtke, Council Policy Analyst; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City
Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Jeffrey Barrett, Rocky Mountain Power (Item
#4); Holly Yocum, Salt Lake County Community Services Department
Director (Item #8); Matt Castillo, Salt Lake County Arts & Culture
Acting Division Director (Item #8); Doug Thimm, Architect (Item
#9); Angela Vanderwell, Salt Lake County Arts & Culture Associate
Division Director/General Manager-Eccles Theater (Item #8); Anna
Laybourn, Design Workshop consultant (Item #5); Paul Nielsen,
Applicant (Item #7), and Mark Greenwood, Applicant (Item #7).
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m. 2:07:47 PM
*All Meeting Materials found here.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:09:06 PM Informational: Updates Relating to Mayor’s
Proclamations Declaring Local Emergencies for COVID-19, March
Earthquake, Recent Protests, and Windstorm. The Council will
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 2
receive an update from the Administration about the Mayor’s
emergency declarations relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus), the
March 18th earthquake in the Salt Lake Valley and the September
8th windstorm. As part of the update, the Council may discuss
public health and other public safety, policy and budget issues
stemming from the emergency declarations. The Council may also
receive information or updates from organizations or experts
related to the emergency responses and coordination, including but
not limited to earthquake damage to the City, the functioning of
the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), City response and aid, and
the status of City buildings.
Rachel Otto and Mayor Mendenhall provided a COVID-19 update:
• Today being the highest number of cases to date in the State
(1081)
• 452 of those cases were in Salt Lake County
• 14 positive cases in the Police Department
• 16 Police Officers quarantined (down from 57 employees out two
weeks ago)
• 16 Fire Department employees quarantined
• 11 positive cases in the Fire Department (since March)
• Hospitals having to cut more elective surgeries to free up
capacity for COVID patients
• Hospitalization rates not static – not looking promising with
the rate of increasing cases
#2. 2:13:33 PM Informational: Updates on Relieving the
Condition of People Experiencing Homelessness. The Council will
hear updates and discuss issues pertaining to relieving the
condition of people experiencing homelessness in neighborhoods
throughout Salt Lake City.
Rachel Otto briefed the Council regarding the Community
Commitment Program, including: outreach efforts, resource fair
being provided with various service providers, and a new employee
on the Homeless Engagement and Outreach Team (HEART) - Allison
Dupler – with expectations for focus on the Community Commitment
Program and working on the Neighborhood Action Strategies Plan
(final version provided to the Council by end of week).
Councilmember Valdemoros requested an update on Advantage
Services and their hazardous waste cleanup efforts over the past
few weeks. Michelle Hoon said she would provide actual figures to
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 3
the Council at a future meeting but noted in general there had
been no issues mentioned, and target areas were attended to between
one and two times daily.
David Litvack briefed the Council regarding preparations for
winter overflow shelter, including:
• Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Mr. Litvack was
serving on behalf of the City) had been leading the overflow
planning efforts
• Overflow shelter being provided at Saint Vincents (men only –
40 beds)
• Motel vouchers (80 beds/40 rooms – primarily offered to women)
being provided in partnership with VOA & Utah Community Action
Program
• Stay Home, Stay Safe Motel (serving individuals with high risk
of complications of COVID-19) continuing to operate through the
overflow season (132 beds)
• Efforts to implement/identify a non-congregate setting for
additional overflow shelter for winter (needing capacity for
150 beds – with motel setting preferred due to COVID-19 health
risks (safer in rooms than open rooms with cots)
• Funding available for additional emergency shelter was primarily
COVID-19 emergency funds from the State/County/City
• Goal to have last shelter plan in place by November 1, 2020
• New provider Switchpoint expressed interest in running the
overflow shelter this year
#3. 2:27:14 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and
Policing. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts
on various projects City staff are working on related to racial
equity and policing in the City. The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice in
relation to law enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and
ordinances. Discussion may include:
• An update or report on the newly created Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing; and
• Other project updates or discussion.
Cindy Gust-Jenson provided the Council with general
updates, including:
• Council had completed the ordinance restricting acceptance of
surplus military equipment
• Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB); Council having had one
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 4
discussion about enhancing the ordinance – Council Members would
be meeting with members of the board individually to brainstorm
ideas, create possible ordinance language, discuss budget
changes with the Administration and expect a draft ordinance
back to the Council by the end of the year (2020)
• PCRB having full representation for all Council districts for
the first time in several years.
• Body-worn cameras items to follow up with Administration;
logistical & administrative process items (retention and use of
cameras), ordinance scheduled for the Council to consider in
November with proposed revisions, and meeting with the
contractor providing the cameras to gain better understanding
on capabilities of the technology.
• Racial Equity in Policing (REP) Commission continuing to meet,
new subcommittees had been created, and a facilitator was now
on-board (Council Staff sustains as support for the commission).
• Police audit (for Police policy issues and informing a zero-
based budget) proposal returning to the Council by November 4,
2020.
• Budget Amendment No. 3 included an appropriation for the REP
Commission for operations through FY 20-21 – due to advertising
errors public hearing would be moved to Wednesday, October 28,
2020 for a vote.
#4. 2:33:57 PM Informational: Rocky Mountain Power Service
Briefing. The Council will receive a briefing from Rocky Mountain
Power representatives about power outage response plans.
Discussion will also include restoration plans when natural
disasters occur. The briefing may include plans for infrastructure
improvements and other related projects in the City.
Nick Tarbet provided and introduction of the briefing and
introduced Mr. Barrett.
Jeffrey Barrett (Rocky Mountain Power - RMP) provided a
presentation and briefed the Council regarding system restoration
following the September 8, 2020 windstorm, in summary:
• 225,077 customers without service during peak of storm – 99% of
all customers (including Idaho & Wyoming) restored by September
14, 2020 with final customers restored on September 21, 2020
(20,493 being Salt Lake City residents).
• Mutual assistance was requested/answered with various external
resources.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 5
• 55 tree crews were brought in to clear 2,537 trees.
• Windstorm was most significant in terms of customer outages in
recent history (affecting 32% of RMP’s customers)
• Prioritizations made in consultation with local municipalities
(e.g. water infrastructure, schools, temporary shelters,
detention centers, etc.),
• Post-recovery inspections included: crews sent to repair damaged
meter bases, low/sagging service wires, broken service masts,
trees or branches on lines, and any unsafe conditions.
• Recognized efforts/opportunities to improve, included: improved
mobile outage application (currently in pilot stage), review
real-time automated text/phone/email communication platforms
for engaging affected customers, etc.
Mr. Barrett covered questions from the Council regarding
restoration of underground powerlines, infrastructure improvements
for resiliency of power grid, ensuring equity among customers, and
being aware of service level differences between neighborhoods.
Mr. Barrett also reviewed the North Temple Redevelopment
Plan, including: 105-acre site to rebuild RMP headquarters,
proposal to include a new mixed-use community (green space,
expanded transit facilities, etc.), and priority to be
sustainable, emissions free, and all electric as possible.
Councilmember Johnston inquired about decisions on substation
prioritization for mass outages (being made based on highest impact
by number of customers), and if there had been research into the
nature of the grid itself and differences across the City as it
did not seem uniform in the way power was restored in different
areas of the City (some lasted a week/some did not). Mr. Barrett
said he would pursue the question and follow up with the Council.
#5. 3:24:55 PM Informational: Public Lands Master Plan Update.
The Council will receive an update from the Public Services
Department about community engagement efforts and plans for the
new Public Lands Master Plan. The Plan will guide the ongoing work
of the Division of Parks, Trails and Natural Lands and the Urban
Forestry Division as the City's population and density continue to
increase.
Allison Rowland provided an introduction, noted the update
was meant to comply with the Council’s Resolution 14 of 2020, and
todays update focused on community engagement strategy.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 6
Nancy Monteith, Kristin Riker, and Anna Laybourn (consultant,
Design Workshop) briefed the Council with attachments, addressing
topics such as:
• Reasoning for a master plan being an opportunity to address
parks and natural lands as essential elements for better air
quality, climate change mitigation, energy efficiency, and
environmental justice.
• Plan identifying specific projects/initiatives that aligned
Public Lands values including stewardship, livability, and
equity.
• Past and current steps included planning preparation (completed
fall 2019 prior to Resolution 14 of 2020 adoption), and
assessment of existing conditions (needs assessment completed
April 2019).
• Public engagement, and future steps included draft plan,
adoption, and implementation.
• Project extents included 70 miles of existing trails, 129.4
miles of proposed trails, 1,694 acres of natural lands, 6,423
acres of foothills natural area, Parks Division managing 735
acres of parks, and Urban Forestry caring for 86,500 public
trees.
• First window of engagement was completed (open from August 26
to October 14) with the administration of digital surveys
(4,405), 21 pop-up events, six micro-regional events (focus
groups), 17 community presentations; reaching over 7,000
outreach opportunities with the community including over 200
community stakeholders.
• Goals/Metrics established for the project to reach 10% of the
adult population (or 10,000) - with a response rate that
reflected the geographic/ethnic demographics, providing
multiple avenues to provide input (alternatives to digital
engagement).
• Frequency of use this year (compared to previous years): 43%
increase in parks use and 41% increase in trails use.
• Next steps included reviewing write-in comments, engaging
stakeholders, and selecting a group to refine the list and
return in January to share an initial list of considerations.
Council Members Mano and Rogers expressed interest in small-
group meetings to discuss the transformational projects in further
detail.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 7
Councilmember Wharton inquired how the Public Lands Master
Plan interfaced with other master plans such as the Trails Plan
that was recently put into place. Ms. Riker said plans like the
Foothills Trails Master Plan and Cemetery Master Plan would
complement and encompass these more detailed plans into the Public
Lands Master Plan.
#6. Tentative Break
#7. 4:12:40 PM Ordinance: Street Vacation Near 800 North and
Warm Springs Road. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to
close a portion of 800 North Street adjacent to I-15 and Warm
Springs Road. The applicant owns the property to the north and
proposes that the vacated area will be split between the owners to
the north and south. The closure will not impact traffic or access.
The subject right-of-way is no longer used as a roadway and is
generally unoccupied.
Brian Fullmer and Sara Javoronok provided a presentation and
briefed the Council regarding key considerations (Utah State Code-
Section 10-9a-609.5, City Master Plans, City ownership/use, etc.),
and details of the proposed area to be vacated (adjacent to a
former overpass from 800 West over I-15 to Warm Springs Road).
Councilmember Rogers inquired if a deed restriction could be
placed on the newly vacated land that would prohibit billboards to
be erected on it, discouraging further billboard proliferation.
John Anderson said State Law was strict/protective over billboards
and the City had ordinances in place that governed placement of
billboards; however, the issue could be investigated. Paul Nielsen
(applicant) added that it was his property with the intention to
be sold and restrictions could be placed on it, provided that the
purchaser would be agreeable to the restrictions.
Councilmember Mano inquired if the property owner to the south
would have the option to purchase half of the vacated land, as
they would if was an alley. Ms. Javoronok said she believed they
would have the opportunity to do so. Mark Greenwood (applicant)
said the property owner to the South had expressed interest in
purchasing the other half and it was agreeable to both parties. He
also noted there were no intentions to place billboards on the
property and if the City wanted to ensure nothing was placed on
the property, they were not opposed to any type of restriction on
the deed (removing any ability to place a sign on the property).
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 8
Councilmember Valdemoros inquired about the proposed land use
of the vacated land. Mr. Greenwood said the current use on the
north side was storage of construction equipment and the vacated
land would be a continuation of that use also allowing for
additional street access on the south side of their yard. The
property owners to the south (Directional Boring Company) would
also use the newly acquired land for construction equipment
storage.
Straw Poll: Support to hold one public hearing on this item
instead of two. All Council Members were in favor.
#8. 4:34:51 PM Informational: Eccles Theater 2021 Site Budget.
The Council will be briefed about the Eccles Theater (Utah
Performing Arts Center, or UPAC) Site operating budget for Fiscal
Year 2020-21. The UPAC Fiscal Year operates on the Calendar Year.
This is the annual presentation of the UPAC site budget.
Holly Yocom, Jennifer Bruno, Matthew Castillo, and Angela
Vanderwell briefed the Council regarding the Eccles Theater 2021
Site Budget; County Mayor Wilson presented the current budget,
including:
• County was subsidizing next year for $1.8 million from the
General Fund to preserve staff/operations at the theater
• Eccles employees being redeployed to other County projects
• City’s budget was tied to site operations for the theater
• 2019 highlights included 57% increase in site activity (number
of bookings), Tin Angel restaurant opened in September, Regent
Street Black Box Residency Program launched in July, and
festival activity developing on both McCarthy Plaza & Regent
Street (Busker Festival and Urban Arts Festival combined brought
2,500 festival attendees)
• 2020 focus was primarily on health, safety, and financial
management
• 2021 budget challenges and opportunities included anticipated
reduced capacity restrictions continuing through June 1, 2021,
strategic expense reductions including a hiring freeze and
redeploying County employees to other agencies, and finding safe
site activation opportunities
• 2021 budget highlights included presenting a flat operating
subsidy compared to 2020; revenue increase at $18,328, with an
expected increase in event revenue from restored activity
beginning summer of 2021
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 9
#9. 4:52:53 PM Ordinance*: Zoning Text Amendment to Increase
Building Height Limits in a Portion of the G-MU Zone Follow-up.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a request to
increase the building heights within a portion of the G-MU (Gateway
Mixed Use) zoning district from a current maximum of 120 feet up
to 190 feet across portions of two separate blocks located between
500 West Street and the railroad tracks (approximately 625 West)
and 200 South and 400 South. The applicant is requesting the change
for a specific development project and is not seeking to alter
height limits across the entirety of the zone.*The Planning
Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, therefore an
ordinance was not drafted with the original transmittal but has
since been added for the Council's formal consideration.
Russell Weeks provided an introduction and overview of the
proposed ordinance and reviewed four motions for the Council to
consider.
Councilmember Valdemoros expressed the importance of setting
a timeline for the height study (for both sides; developer and
City) within Motion II, ensuring time was not wasted if there was
not serious interest.
Councilmember Mano suggested an amendment for Motion II for
the City to only re-zone for additional height the one parcel that
was under consideration for development, and to keep the other
parcels currently proposed within the ordinance at the current
height. Cindy Gust-Jenson said the amendment he suggested could be
added to Motion II and include in the motion the intent to leave
the remaining portions of the petition open allowing the other
properties to stay in progress – not having to revisit the Planning
Commission process.
Councilmember Fowler expressed concern, in regard to Motion
II, with not having a foundation of what the Council believed to
be a public benefit and selection on a case by case basis (until
a height study could be completed) could potentially be perceived
to be arbitrary. Mr. Weeks said it was his understanding that
Motion II in no way pauses the proposed project until the height
study was done and in fact was a way for the project to get started
while the height study was underway.
Councilmember Johnston said he echoed Councilmember Fowler’s
concern with Motion II, regarding undefined public benefits and in
a way, asking for a trade off with zoning – allowing the new zoning
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 10
designation only if the public benefits were received.
Katherine Lewis spoke to Councilmember Johnston’s concerns of
requiring conditions in order to approve of the additional height,
informing Council Members that it was legal and the City often
required conditions prior to zoning, with those conditions having
to be fulfilled prior to publishing an ordinance. (The concept not
being unusual or unprecedented in requiring conditions.)
Councilmember Valdemoros requested an update from the
applicant including a timeline, if any plans changed since
submission, and noted her concerns about a large parking lot
planned for the project. Doug Thimm (Architect) said there was no
specific timing in terms of the development currently as it was
largely dependent on being shovel-ready and when the right entity
came into play. He added there would be a reduced need for parking
due to it being near a transit hub; however, parking on a block by
block basis should be sought in a partnership manner so there was
opportunity to reduce parking throughout the day/week (parking
stalls get used 2-3 times a day instead of once a day), and having
the right number of stalls to ensure parking was used (and not sit
fallow).
Nick Norris added that the potential of having to determine
public benefits applying to only one portion of the parcel would
prove to be complicated - the portions of the parcel not within
the extra height area would not be subject to the public benefit
requirement or any kind of condition placed on it, making it more
challenging determining any kind of public benefit that may be
required (how to determine, value, measure, and judge it).
Jennifer Bruno added that this case was an unprecedented
situation the Council was being asked to consider and would be a
matter of tracking where the parcel was and making sure it was
recorded and as the next applications came in (considering what
the public benefits would need to be), there would be information
in the record that would reflect that the Council said yes to this
project because policy goals for the City were part of the project.
Straw Poll: Support to revisit this issue by the end of
January 2021. All Council Members were in favor.
#10. 5:42:49 PM Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission
– John Ewanowski. The Council will interview John Ewanowski prior
to considering his appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 11
for a term ending October 20, 2024.
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said John
Ewanowski’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal
consideration.
#11. 5:48:53 PM Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission
– Babs DeLay. The Council will interview Babs DeLay prior to
considering their appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission
for a term ending October 20, 2024.
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Babs DeLay’s
name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#12. 5:55:13 PM Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission
– Aiden Lillie. The Council will interview Aiden Lillie prior to
considering her appointment to the Historic Landmark Commission
for a term ending October 20, 2024.
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Aiden Lillie’s
name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#13. 5:59:51 PM Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board –
Kristen Lavelett. The Council will interview Kristen Lavelett
prior to considering her appointment to the Business Advisory Board
for a term ending January 1, 2021. Kristen has been inadvertently
serving unofficially since January 2017. The Administration would
like to count this as time served towards her term limit and make
this her final term.
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Kristen
Lavelett’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
STANDING ITEMS
#14. 4:33:50 PM Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Councilmember Wharton said based on recent feedback received
from the public who wanted to speak at a scheduled hearing, the
Council would be reverting to the older format where public
hearings would be held individually in the order on the agenda
followed by a general comment session later in the meeting. He
added that the City Attorney advised there was a legal duty to
ensure the public had adequate access to comment on the items.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 12
#15. 4:27:52 PM 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;
• TANFF III Fairpark Afterschool Program Funding Grant –
Request for Additional FTE;
• Wasatch Choice Workshop; and
• Scheduling Items.
See announcements.
#16. 6:03:37 PM Tentative Closed Session
Councilmember Fowler moved and Councilmember Johnston
seconded to enter into Closed Session for Advice of Counsel,
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. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Johnston,
Wharton, Mano, Valdemoros, Dugan, Fowler, and Rogers voted aye.
See File M 20-1 for Sworn Statement.
In Attendance: Council Members Valdemoros, Wharton, Fowler,
Rogers, Dugan, and Mano.
Others in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Mayor
Mendenhall, Lehua Weaver, Lisa Shaffer, Rachel Otto, Amanda Lau,
Benjamin Luedtke, Katherine Lewis, Nick Tarbet, and Cindy Lou
Trishman.
The Closed Session meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m.
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
20 - 13
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
October 20, 2020.
dr
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: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:June 8, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET – LIBRARY SYSTEM BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2
MOTION 1 – To close the public hearing and consider at a later date:
I move that the City Council close the public hearing and refer action to a later date.
MOTION 2 – To continue the public hearing:
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a later date.
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 NOTE
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:October 31, 2022 at 9:28 PM
RE: LIBRARY SYSTEM BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
This item is a public hearing on a budget amendment for the Salt Lake City Public Library
System’s budget for the current fiscal year which ends June 30. The proposed amendment largely is a
bookkeeping exercise required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board – the independent
board that establishes accounting and financial reporting standards for U.S. state and local
governments that follow the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles – “the rules that encompass
the details … and legalities of business and corporate accounting.”1
Council staff has prepared a motion sheet pertaining to the public hearing. Given the
circumstances, Motion No. 1 to close the hearing and refer action to a later date probably is the most
appropriate.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This item is identical to two bookkeeping items the City Council is considering as part of d in
Budget Amendment No. 9. The items require Salt Lake City to track property tax revenue for the Utah
Inland Port and the Salt Palace Convention Center hotel.2 The Council held the second public hearing
on Budget Amendment No. 9 at its June 1 meeting.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: (Written) May 18,
2021
Set Date: May 18, 2021
Public Hearing: June 8, 2021
Potential Action: June 15,
2021
Page | 2
According to the transmittal letter, the Library System is seeking a $270,000 increase to
its Fiscal Year 2021 general fund budget, but the proposed increase will in essence track
property tax revenue earmarked for the Inland Port and the Convention Center. Like the City, the
Library System is required to budget and account for pass-through property tax revenue
collected by Salt Lake County and remitted directly to the Utah Inland Port Authority and the
Convention Center hotel.
According to the transmittal, “Neither of these entities has taxing authority, so the
respective governments with taxing authority to which the tax revenues would have gone must
show the revenue and a corresponding expenditure in their financial statements as required by
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements 33 and 77.”3
1 Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, www.accounting.com.
2 The following items are from a City Council staff report by Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards, May 4, 2021, Page 5 :
A-5: Budgeting for Inland Port Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral) As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was
informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue within the boundaries of the Inland Port. Because the tax
revenue is dispersed directly to the inland port, the City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to
recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding expenditure account recognizing the pass-through, so City revenue is not
overstated. A $500,000 portion of the Inland Port revenue was accounted for in Budget Amendment #7 of this fiscal year.
This amendment will account for the remaining $483,242 in anticipated revenue. At the time of writing Budget Amendment
#7, the City did not know when actual tax revenue would be determined. The final revenue allocation was received on March
30.
A-6: Budgeting for Convention Hotel Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral) As part of the City's annual financial audit, the
City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue at the Convention Center Hotel. Because the tax
revenue is dispersed directly to the convention hotel, the City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line
item to recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding expenditure account, so City revenue is not overstated. This
amendment is for the $10,116 in anticipated revenue. The hotel is being built on County-owned property. This means the
property was tax-exempt and became taxable with the hotel construction. The GOED Development Board adopted a motion
on November 6, 2018 which approved the following incentive package under authority of Utah Code 63N-2-503.5. Approve
Salt Lake City CH, LLC for a post-performance, New Convention Facility Development, Incentive consisting of: Up to 100%
of the new incremental State Sales Tax not to exceed $75,000,000 over 20 years Up to 100% of local (city and county) sales
tax and property tax over 25 years Including conveyance of land from Salt Lake County to Salt Lake City CH, LLC State law
includes language to hold the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) harmless for existing debt obligations (bonds). Some hotel
increment could be used to meet RDA bond payments if needed in the future. The County is required to provide an annual
report identifying tax increment generated by the hotel property. See Attachment 1 for a letter from the Salt Lake County
Auditor that provides a breakdown of tax increment revenues being diverted by taxing entity. A-7: Presumption for CARES
Act Funding – ($-293,06
3 Memorandum, former Library System Executive Director Peter Bromberg, April 19, 2021.
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 4, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library Budget Amendment #2
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (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 2020-21 Library Fund adopted
budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
LIBRARY FUND $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000.00
LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 0.00 0.00
TOTAL $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000.00
Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2021 09:31 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On April 26th, the Salt Lake City Public Library’s Board of Directors approved a budget
amendment for the Library Fund that would leave an unrestricted fund balance well above the 16
percent target balance. The Administration is requesting the City Council adopt the proposed
budget amendment of $270,000.00 for the Library Fund.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
(Second Amendment of the Final Budget for the Library Budget of
Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21)
An ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 25 of 2020 which adopted the
final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2020 and ending June 30, 2021.
PREAMBLE
On June 16, 2020, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget for the Library
fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021,
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, copies of which are
attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget 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 for
the Library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City
Ordinance No. 25 of 2020.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, attached hereto and
made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into
the budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020
and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128, of the Utah
Code.
2
SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City’s Policy and Budget
Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy
of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor.
SECTION 4. 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 in the office of said
Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for
public inspection.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________,
2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date:____________________
MEMO | April 19, 2021
To: Salt Lake City Public Library Board of Directors, Salt Lake City Administration and City Council
From: Peter Bromberg, Executive Director
Re: Budget Amendment 2 for FY2020-21
Library Administration is requesting a $270,000 increase to the FY21 general fund budget. This increase
is required to budget and account for pass-through property tax revenue collected by Salt Lake County
and remitted directly to the Utah Inland Port Authority and the Convention Facility. Neither of these
entities has taxing authority, so the respective governments with taxing authority to which the tax
revenues would have gone must show the revenue and a corresponding expenditure in their financial
statements as required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements 33 and 77. This
requirement was noted as part of the Salt Lake City’s FY 2020 audit, and the issue has been discussed
with Paul Skeen, the Library’s independent auditor, and Seth Oveson from the Office of the State Auditor
of Utah, both of whom confirmed this requirement. The City has a similar amendment moving through
the approval process.
Administration is requesting that this amendment be approved at the April 26, 2021 meeting, so the
amendment can be forwarded to the Salt Lake City Administration and City Council. The amendment is
time sensitive and needs to be approved by both the Library Board and Salt Lake City Council prior to the
end of FY2021.
General Fund – Proposed increase of $270,000
Account Name Budget
Amount
Requested
Amount
Amended
Amount
Funding Sources
CY Property Taxes-Pass Through $0 $270,000 $270,000
Totals $0 $270,000 $270,000
Expenditures
Payments to Other Governments $0 $270,000 $270,000
Totals $0 $270,000 $270,000
Recommended Motion:
Move to approve an increase to the Library’s FY21 general fund budget of $270,000.
City Budget Director Analyst, City Council Date
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
FY 2021-22 PROJECTS OVERVIEW A-1
FY 2021-22 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY A-2
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND B-4
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS B-5
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page has been intentionally left blank
Capital Improvement Program Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital
expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. Two elements guide the City in
determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current
fiscal year's capital budget.
Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private
funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be
recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with
each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory
boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund
recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are
consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration.
Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book)
Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating
and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency
regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation
Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total
appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,653,052 general
fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, $4,900,000 transportation tax, and 491,520 of Impact Fee funds.
Projects include traffic signal upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and
neighborhood byway enhancements.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget
includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various
improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water
park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park,
Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park.
Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of
$1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital
replacement projects that are long overdue.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-1
Deb
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667
B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377
ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500
ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0
ESCO Parks Debt Service 0
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390
Ong
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab 560,869 560,869
Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000
Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869
Oth
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield 154,000 154,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner 148,505 148,505
Public Services - Memorial House 68,554 68,554
Other Ongoing 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059
Maintenance Funded Projects
Mai
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Multimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000
Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-2
New
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000
400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092
A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400
Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000
Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000
Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000
Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000
Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333
Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146
Area Studies 201,000 201,000
Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222
Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834
Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167
Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000
700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450
900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-3
New
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329
Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819
Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114
Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337
Other Capital Improvement Programs
CDB
G
City Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)
SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000
Total CDBG 322,000 322,000
Air
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000
Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000
North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000
Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000
Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000
Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000
Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000
Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-4
Air
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500
Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000
GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000
Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500
Gol
f
Golf CIP Projects
Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575
Range Improvements 177,836 177,836
Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000
Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411
Pub
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000
Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000
Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000
Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000
Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000
Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000
Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000
Landscaping 68,000 68,000
Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826
Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000
Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000
Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500
Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000
Detention Basins 50,000 50,000
Landscaping 168,000 168,000
Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000
Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-5
RDA
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179
Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179
Sus
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Total Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects 0
Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416
GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 703,068,753
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-6
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL
Imp
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
Impact Fee Projects
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
400 South Viaduct Trail 90000 90,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000
Urban Trails 6,500 6,500
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422
Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500
900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-7
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2022
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Constituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315
Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue
1,405,000 1,405,000
Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South)
3,500,000 3,500,000
Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River)
400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000
Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive
800,000 800,000
Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422
Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427
Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495
Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895
Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785
Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740
Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction
1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000
Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center
1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100
Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing
1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000
Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500
Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000
Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750
Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000
Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation
2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325
Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge
200 N Street 790,000 790,000
Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000
Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-8
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements
440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000
Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development
Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East
225,000 225,000
Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction
2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000
Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194
Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction
Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920
Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South)
400,000 400,000
Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north
500,000 500,000
Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000
Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-9
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-10
This page has been intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$333,514 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2012 10/1/2032 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing
and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North
Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000. As of June 30, 2021,
$10,845,000 in principal remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The Series
2012A bonds mature on October 1, 2032.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$530,801 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
November 2013 10-01-2033 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of
financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to
create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. As of June 30,
2021, $5,470,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2033.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$744,951 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2021, $8,430,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2034.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-1
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,009,296 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of
the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the
acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building
for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on
the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $2,363,890.47 for the City. As of June 30 2021, $17,910,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$366,151 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a
portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX
Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $299,661 for the City. As of June 30, 2021, $2,095,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
April 1, 2027.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$975,377 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of
constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West,
and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-2
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2021, $2,820,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on April 1, 2024.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$82,850 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs
of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,200 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$118,300 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund
This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$500,900 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
March 2016 04-15-2037 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series
2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14
Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,755,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-3
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds
mature on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$483,233 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
April 2017 04-15-2038 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2021, $7,555,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$560,869 General Fund
Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab
Facilities Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building
stock.
Parks Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-4
Percent for Art
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$120,086 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP)
Cost overrun
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$160,114 General Fund
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$156,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing
the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old.
CIP Memorial House
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$68,554 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the
use of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 Other – Surplus
Land
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-5
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2021 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
October 2019 04-01-20 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the
purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and
related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable
to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of
$6,396,905. As of June 30, 2021, $57,740,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1 beginning in 2020. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1.
The bonds mature on April 1, 2038.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-6
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-3
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-4
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-16
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-20
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-39
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-40
This page has been intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports has 610.8 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and
promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2022 budget continues to show financial impacts due to COVID-19. The Salt Lake City
International Airport, along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has been acutely impacted by
the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including
reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The Airport continues to look for ways to control
costs and provide airline and concession relief through the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) grant as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation ACT
(CRRSAA) grant. These grants will offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing
fee and terminal rents charged in FY22. While the American Rescue Plan has been passed, no allocations
or awards have been made at this time and are not reflected in the Airports FY22 budget. While
passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, the Department of Airports will act
prudently in managing the FY22 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital
expenses where feasible and look for ways to strengthen our revenues.
The developed FY22 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits while facing challenges of
decreased passengers and revenues. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital
projects while deferring non-critical projects to preserve cash and liquidity. These projects include the
Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which will improve
ongoing operations, create jobs, and provide economic stimulus to the City’s and State’s economy.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-16
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds have not been
released for use as the fund balance has been needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund
deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division has proposed increasing the Golf CIP Fund
from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the
Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The projected increase
for the final six months of FY22 from the proposed increase is $124,800.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $257,575 in FY 2022 to purchase additional, mostly used equipment (lease-return equipment
from high-end private courses).
The Golf Division will be focusing on making improvements to the driving ranges and practice areas
located at five of our six locations and have allocated $177,866 from the Golf CIP Fund for solid-surface
hitting stations with artificial turf hitting mats along with new dispensers/washers.
The Golf Division will be undergoing a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling
a number of tee boxes at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY22 from the Golf CIP Fund for
materials and equipment rentals.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-20
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water,
and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund
these activities. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation
Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the
services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were
developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these
assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year
2022, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on
existing projects. Some planned capital improvement projects initially anticipated for FY2021 were
deferred and reprioritized to FY2022 and beyond. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in
the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the
largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging
problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment
plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Alternatives from a recently completed condition
assessment for all three plants are being evaluated. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that
Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water
rights and exchange agreement obligations.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-23
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-24
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-25
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-26
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-27
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-28
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-29
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-30
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-31
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-32
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-33
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-35
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-36
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-37
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-38
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-39
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-40
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial
districts that experience disinvestment. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial, planning, and
revitalization tools to support redevelopment projects that encourage economic investment, assist in the
housing for low-and moderate-income households, and help implement Salt Lake City’s Master Plan. The
RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income
revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2022 budget proposes only one
potential City public infrastructure project. The Station Center infrastructure project is an allocation for
the construction and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure surrounding the Agency’s properties in the
Depot District. This project is currently being designed in conjunction with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Departments.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-41
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-42
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:June 8, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue
CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 PLNPCM2020-00703
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for properties located at
approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue from their respective zoning designations of CN
(Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use). The applicant would like to develop multi-family housing on the lots and
submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties (found on pages 27-37 of the
Administration’s transmittal). It should be noted the plan is only conceptual and the rezone request is not
associated with a specific project at this point.
The subject properties are within the Avenues Local Historic District and include two structures. A gas
station/auto repair business is located at 860 East 3rd Avenue. This building was constructed in 1962 and is
listed as noncontributing to the historic district. A single-family dwelling was built in 1892 and is listed as a
contributing structure to the historic district. Any demolition, new construction or exterior modifications
would require a Certificate of Appropriateness issued administratively or through Historic Landmark
Commission approval depending on the extent of modifications.
Under the conceptual plan, the two lots would be combined, the gas station/auto repair shop would be
demolished, and the single-family dwelling would be preserved. Six for sale, three story attached
townhomes with two car garages are proposed in the plan.
Planning staff noted rezoning the properties has potential to lose a commercial node in the neighborhood
resulting in reduced services. They recommended to the Planning Commission that the rezone be
conditioned on inclusion of a commercial component on the corner. The Planning Commission found the
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 8, 2021
Set Date: June 8, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
condition was not appropriate. The Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council
for the proposed rezone.
Aerial image of subject properties outlined in red.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown on the map below, properties surrounding the subject parcels are almost exclusively zoned SR-1A
with some RMF-35 and RMF-45 (Moderate Density and Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential)
zoning to the south and southwest, closer to South Temple.
Page | 3
Zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red.
(Salt Lake City Cemetery is green area at upper right.)
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s transmittal)
includes tables outlining existing conditions and development standards, and land use comparison for the
existing SR-1A and CN zoning designations and the proposed R-MU-35 zoning.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Three key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project, neighbor and
community input, and department reviews. A summary of each is below. See pages 18-21 of the
Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Consideration 1: Development Plans and Rezone Request
Rezone requests do not need to be associated with specific projects and are not typically conditioned on
one. As mentioned above, the applicant provided a conceptual plan for the properties to indicate their
intentions. Planning staff noted the development could change as the design progresses or due to
unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the rezone request should be considered on its own merits.
According to Planning staff, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning has potential to result in more density within
the combined properties than is currently attainable. Lot consolidation and single zoning designation
would allow for easier siting of a new building and provide an additional 10’ in permitted height (35’ vs.
current 25’). It is Planning’s opinion increased development potential resulting from the proposed rezone
should not increase potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
Page | 4
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning designation would require a 10’ landscape buffer on the south and east
property lines. The corner parcel’s current CN zoning requires a minimum 7’ buffer and the existing
structures are noncomplying. The increased buffer requirement could minimize impacts of the potential
rezone to neighboring properties.
Although the Avenues Master Plan discourages increased density in the neighborhood, the plan was
adopted in 1987 when there was less focus on building form. In the Planning Commission staff report it
states “Recent planning best practices show that building form has more impact in neighborhood character
than density itself, and that density can support community’s livability, walkability and promote the
efficient use of resources.” More recent master plans including Plan Salt Lake and the City’s Housing Plan,
Growing SLC encourage density in areas that can accommodate it. Planning staff’s understanding is the
Avenues Master Plan’s overall goal is to promote and protect compatible development rather than strictly
limit housing units. More information can be found in Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff
report (pages 39-41 of the Administration’s transmittal).
Regardless of whether the City Council votes to rezone the subject properties, the Historic Landmark
Commission would review scale, size, and form of new structures as well as potential modifications to
existing buildings to determine if they are appropriate for the historic district.
Increased density is often correlated with additional parking demand and traffic. The proposed zone
requires one parking stall per dwelling unit, which would be required in a new development. As noted
above, the conceptual plan includes a two-car garage for each townhome (though what is eventually built
may be different from the concept plan). Planning staff stated parking requirements for the proposed
zoning designation are appropriate for the area.
Consideration 2: Loss of Commercial Use in a Neighborhood Zone
Planning staff research indicates 868 East 3rd Avenue has been used for commercial use for more than a
century. A 1911 Sanborn map shows a store at this location, and a Sanborn map as well as an aerial
photograph from the 1950’s show a store and dwelling on this parcel. Permit records suggest the store and
dwelling were demolished prior to the 1962 service station construction.
Although the Avenues Master Plan is a main guiding document for the neighborhood, it was adopted in
1987, which is earlier than most current master plans. Planning staff noted this should be taken into
account when considering neighborhood and citywide goals. The plan has some relevancy since the area
has not changed significantly. The Avenues Master Plan recommends commercial uses in some
neighborhood nodes where long-established businesses are located.
Planning staff stated commercial uses of an appropriate scale for the neighborhood could be desirable and
serve community needs. They suggested the corner property’s existing commercial zoning provides an
opportunity for residents’ needs, support walkability and a more livable community.
Planning noted that under the proposed mixed-use zone both residential and commercial uses are allowed.
This would allow for strictly commercial or residential development or mixed-use. Planning pointed out a
distinction between R-MU-35 and CN in which the latter requires a commercial component in order to
construct a residential development.
Planning staff recommended the rezone be conditioned on future development containing a commercial
component on the corner property. As mentioned above, the Planning Commission did not include this
condition in its recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 5
Consideration 3: Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
As discussed above, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning allows for both residential and commercial uses without
requiring mixed-use. This would allow the 860 East 3rd Avenue property to be developed as multi-family
residential. There is also the potential for non-residential use at 868 East 3rd Avenue, which could result in
expanding commercial uses into a long-established residential area. Planning staff pointed out the 868
East 3rd Avenue structure’s contributing status to the local historic district provides some assurance. It
would be difficult to demolish the building or use it in a way that would not preserve its integrity.
Conversion to a different use would likely require improvements to comply with current code. Exterior
modifications would require a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Chapter 18.97 Salt Lake City Code requires a housing mitigation plan for property rezones permitting non-
residential uses on a parcel with housing units. The chapter does not contemplate situations where no
residential building is anticipated to be demolished, but the difference between housing value and
replacement cost was assessed for the existing dwelling unit at 868 East 3rd Avenue. This is included in
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 50-62 of the Administration’s transmittal).
The report determined the applicant is not responsible for mitigating the housing loss resulting from this
proposed rezone.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 42-45 of the Administration’s
transmittal) includes a table listing existing conditions and development standards. A land use
comparison table is included as well. A summary of existing and proposed zoning designations is
included below. Please see the transmittal for additional information.
Development
Standard
CN
Existing Zoning 860
East 3rd Ave.
SR-1A
Existing Zoning 868
East 3rd Ave.
R-MU-35
(Proposed)
Lot Area 16,500 sq ft max.5,000 sq ft min 5,000 sq ft minimum
for conditional use
Maximum Height 25’23’20’ non-residential
35’ residential
*see specific
provisions below
table
Front Yard Setback 15’ minimum,
25’ maximum for
65% of façade
Average of front
yards of buildings on
block face
5’ minimum,
15’ maximum
Rear Yard Setback 10’25% of lot depth,
15’ minimum,
30’ maximum
25% of lot depth, but
need not exceed 30’
Side Yard Setback None 4’ and 10’Corner-5’ minimum,
15’ maximum.
Interior-none unless
abutting single- or
two-family
residential. Then 10’
min. and 1’ for every
1’ greater than 25’
Page | 6
Maximum Building
Coverage
None beyond setback
requirements
40%None beyond open
space requirement
Open Space None None 20%
Landscape Buffer 7’ if abutting
residential district
None 10’ if abutting
single/two-family
residential
* E. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'), except
that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section.
Buildings taller than thirty five feet (35'), up to a maximum of forty five feet (45'), 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').
2. Nonresidential uses are only permitted on the ground floor of any structure.
3. Nonresidential uses in landmark sites are exempt from the maximum height for nonresidential buildings
and the maximum floor area coverage limitations.
4. For any property abutting a Single-Family or Two-Family Residential District, the maximum height is
limited to thirty five feet (35') and may not be increased through any process
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment F of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 46-47 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards with the aforementioned condition
of maintaining commercial use at the corner 860 East 3rd Avenue property. As noted previously, the
Planning Commission did not include this condition in its recommendation to the Council. Please see the
Planning Commission staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• October 16, 2020 Notice sent to the Greater Avenues Community Council requesting comments.
The community council chair did not ask Planning staff to present at the meeting. No public
comments were provided by the community council.
• Early notice was sent October 30, 2020 to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject properties.
• Planning Commission public hearing notice was posted on the property November 19, 2020.
Public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners November 20, 2020 and
posted to City and State websites on this date.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing December 2, 2020. Four people expressed
opposition to the proposed rezone or shared concerns with parking and traffic. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
• Planning staff received two additional comments on the proposed rezone. A neighboring property
owner called to express opposition citing concerns of impact to the neighborhood from increased
density and traffic. The other comment was provided by email and was supportive of the proposal.
The email is included on page 49 of the Administration’s transmittal.
• This proposed project was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021. The
commission was generally supportive of the proposal.
• As of the writing of this report, Council staff has not received comments on the proposed rezone.
Any comments received will be forwarded to the Council.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00703 – Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 860 & 868 E 3rd
Avenue
STAFF CONTACT: John Anderson, Planning Manager, john.anderson@slcgov.com, (385) 226-
6479
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the proposed zoning map amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Remarc
Investments, representing the property owner, is
requesting to rezone the properties at approximately
860 & 868 E 3rd from CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development
Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use). The reason for the rezone
is to allow a multi-family development to be
developed on the lots. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties.
However, it is only a conceptual design and the
request is not associated with a specific project at
this time.
March 22, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 7, 2021 15:23 MDT)04/07/2021
04/07/2021
The two properties are located within the Avenues Local Historic District. The gas station and
auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1962, but it is listed as a noncontributing structure.
The single-family dwelling on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892, and it is listed as a
contributing structure. Any future demolition, new construction or modifications to the exterior
of the structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC).
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could result in more density within the combined
properties than it is currently attainable. However, when compared to the current zoning and the
size of the combined properties, it is unlikely that the rezone would result in a significant
increase in the number of units.
The rezone could result in the loss of a historically established commercial node. There is limited
opportunity to add commercial zones in the neighborhood, and the loss of an already designated
commercial property could reduce services at the community level and alter the character of the
neighborhood node. Planning staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the rezone be
conditioned on new development including a commercial component on the corner. However,
Planning Commission found that the condition was not appropriate.
The rezone would also allow for the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling into a
nonresidential use. However, staff found that the contributory status of the structure makes
demolition very difficult to approve and limits the intensity of the house conversion.
The applicable master plans contain city goals and policies that support the proposed zoning map
amendment. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan calls for
Business/Commercial on the corner of the 3rd Avenue and N Street. The proposal is also in line
with the policies related to the preservation of residential character and existing land use patterns
found in the Avenues Master Plan and those related to smart growth and compatibility found in
Plan Salt Lake.
More information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 3b).
PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the
Greater Avenues Community Council on October 16, 2020. Early engagement notices were also
sent to owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property on October 30, 2020. A public hearing
with the Planning Commission was held on December 2, 2020. No one from the public
commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. A work session with the Historic
Landmark Commission was held on January 7, 2021. The Commission was generally supportive
of the proposal.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record
a) Hearing Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
4) Historic Landmark Commission Record
a) Memorandum
b) Agenda and Minutes
5) Public Comments
6) Original Petition
7) Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to the parcels of property located at 860 and 868 East 3rd
Avenue to rezone the parcels from CN Neighborhood Commercial District and SR-1A Special
Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the parcels of property located at
860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue to rezone the parcels from CN Neighborhood Commercial District
and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed
Use District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00703.
WHEREAS, Remarc Investments submitted an application to rezone the parcels of
property located at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue from CN Neighborhood Commercial District
and SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed
Use District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00703; and
WHEREAS, at its December 2, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt
Lake City Council on the 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 parcels located at 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue (Tax ID
2
Nos. 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto, are rezoned from CN Neighborhood Commercial District and SR-1A Special
Development Pattern Residential District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use 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 ____________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
February 16, 2021
3
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the properties
Tax ID No. 09-32-379-001-0000
COM AT NW COR LOT 3 BLK 24 PLAT G SLC SUR S 82.5 FT E 99 FT N 82.5 FT W 99 FT
TO BEG
Tax ID No. 09-32-379-002-0000
COM AT NE COR LOT 3 BLK 24 PLAT G SLC SUR W 4 RDS S 5 RDS E 4 RDS N 5 RDS
TO BEG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. HEARING NOTICE
B. STAFF REPORT
C. AGENDA AND MINUTES
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
A. MEMORANDUM
B. AGENDA AND MINUTES
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ORIGINAL PETITION
7. MAILING LIST
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00703
August 7, 2020 Petition received by the Planning Division.
August 23, 2020 Petition assigned to Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, for staff analysis
and processing.
October 15, 2020 Petition was determined to be complete.
October 16, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the
Greater Avenues Community Council.
October 30, 2020 Early notification sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet
of the property.
November 20, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of
property within 300 feet of the property.
December 2, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public
hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
January 7, 2021 The project was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission for
input. The Commission was generally in support of the proposal.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00703 Rezone at
approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue - A request by Remarc Investments, representing
the property owner, to approve a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use) at the 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue. The applicant would like to rezone the
properties to allow a multi-family development on the lots, however the request is not tied to a
development proposal. The properties are located within the Avenues Local Historic District and
any future demolition or new construction must be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission. Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to R-MU-35,
consideration may be given to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
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: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. 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
Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at Mayara.lima@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.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Hearing Notice
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com
Date: December 2, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00703 – 3rd Avenue Rezone
Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue
PARCEL IDs: 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002
MASTER PLAN: Avenues Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: CN Neighborhood Commercial & SR-1A Special Development Pattern
Residential
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Avenues Local Historic Preservation District
REQUEST: Remarc Investments, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map
Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-listed addresses. The applicant
would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development on the lots. The
properties are located within the Avenues Local Historic District and any future demolition or
new construction must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information included in the staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council for the proposed zoning map amendment with the following condition:
• Any future development of the properties must include a commercial component at the
intersection of 3rd Avenue and N Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Zoning Map
B. Site Photographs
C. Application Materials
D. Master Plan Policies
E. Existing Conditions & Development Standards
F. Analysis of Standards
G. Public Process and Comments
H. Housing Loss Mitigation Report
BACKGROUND: The proposal is to change the zoning designation of the properties at 860 and 868
E 3rd Avenue from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
1
Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use). The surrounding properties are predominantly
residential, zoned SR-1A, and include single-family, two-family and some multi-family dwellings.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties under the proposed
zoning district. The anticipated development would include combining the two lots, preserving the
existing single-family dwelling, demolishing the commercial structures and constructing six attached
single-family dwellings on the properties. Because the two properties are within the Avenues Local
Historic district, any future development would have to be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
The gas station and auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue date back to 1962 when the property was given a
building permit to operate a service station. The canopy was constructed later, but the use of the
property as commercial has been consistent for almost 60 years. Despite the age, the structures are
not considered contributing to the historic district. In regard to the standards of the underlying
zoning district, the land uses are nonconforming (not permitted but created prior to the zoning) and
the structures noncomplying to the current CN zoning.
Figure 1 – Conceptual plan submitted by the applicant.
Figure 2 – Photo of the gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue
2
The house on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892 and has always been a single-family dwelling. The
house is listed as contributing to the historic district. The use of the property is permitted in the
current SR-1A zoning district, but the small east side setback renders the existing structure
noncomplying. This property is included in the rezone request because of its lot size, which remains
partially unobstructed by buildings on the west side.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Consideration 1: Development plans and rezone request
A rezone request need not be associated with a specific project and it is not typically conditioned on
one. Even though the applicant has provided a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties that
help indicate their intentions to the community and review boards, the development could change as
the design progresses or because of unforeseen circumstances. Hence, the rezone request should be
considered on its own merits.
Attachment E shows that the existing structures on the properties would continue to be considered
noncomplying to the proposed zoning district without necessarily increasing the degree of
noncompliance. As far as future development goes, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could
result in more density within the combined properties than it is currently attainable. This is because
the lot consolidation and single zoning would allow for easier siting of a new building and provide an
additional 10’ in permitted building height. However, the increase in development potential resulting
from the rezone should not increase potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and the
neighborhood.
Currently, the existing SR-1A zoning of 868 E 3rd Avenue limits its development potential. The
property contains approximately 5,449 square feet and therefore, can only accommodate a single-
family dwelling. 8,000 square feet of lot area would be required for a duplex. The CN zoning of 860 E
3rd Avenue could create in a mixed-use development any density at a maximum 25’ in height that
complies with applicable codes and regulations. The subject properties combined would result in a
13,616 square-foot lot that is reasonably small but would accommodate a moderate increase in
density.
An increase landscape buffer requirement would also reduce the impact of the proposed rezone.
Under the R-MU-35 zoning, any future development would have to comply with a required 10’
Figure 3 – Photo of the single-family dwelling at 868 E 3rd Avenue
3
landscape buffer along the south and east property lines. The buffer requirement in the CN zoning
district is 7’ and the existing structures are noncomplying to this standard. This increase in buffer
requirement would help to protect the adjacent SR-1A zoned properties and preserve the residents’
enjoyment of their properties.
As discussed in Attachment D, the Avenues Master Plan discourages density increases in the
neighborhood. However, the master plan was adopted in 1987 when there was not much discussion
about building form. Recent planning best practices have shown that building form has more impact
in neighborhood character than density itself, and that density can support community’s livability,
walkability and promote the efficient use of resources. Indeed, newer master plans such as Plan Salt
Lake and the city’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC, encourage density in areas that can accommodate it.
The overall goal of the Avenues Master Plan is hence understood as being to promote and protect
compatible development, rather than strictly limit housing units.
Furthermore, the rezone would not impact the authority of the Historic Landmark Commission as
any future development of the properties would have to comply with the standards of the overlay
district and receive the appropriate approvals. HLC review will address scale, size and form of new
structures and proposed modifications to existing buildings and should be sufficient to ease density
concerns.
It is worth noting that more density is often associated with more parking demand and traffic
impacts. The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district requires 1 parking stall for every dwelling unit,
which a new development would have to comply with. This neighborhood offers many transportation
options, including public sidewalks, bike lanes and two bus lines with stops located adjacent to the
property. The smaller blocks compared to other areas in the city also encourage walking. Thus, the
proposed zoning parking requirement is appropriate for the area.
Consideration 2: Loss of a commercial use in a neighborhood node
Historic research indicates that the property at 868 E 3rd Avenue has had commercial use for over a
century. The Sanborn map shows a store siting on the corner of N street and 3rd Avenue in 1911. The
store occupied the lot with another dwelling and both structures were also documented in the 1950
Sanborn map and in a 1958 aerial photograph. The permit history of the service station suggests that
the store and the dwelling on the property were demolished prior to 1962, when the current use was
established.
Figure 4 – 1911 and 1950 Sanborn maps show a corner store and a dwelling on the property.
4
The Avenues Master plan is one of the main guiding documents for land use decisions in the
neighborhood. However, the fact that it was adopted in 1987, earlier than most current master plan
documents, should be taken into consideration when considering neighborhood and citywide goals.
The plan does maintain some relevancy given that the area has not substantially changed. In this
master plan, zoning for commercial uses is recommended in a few neighborhood nodes such as this
one, where businesses had been long established. As discussed in Attachment D, additional
commercial zones are discouraged unless the need for retail services is clearly expressed by residents.
This limitation on future commercial development raises the question of whether the loss of an
already commercially zoned property would reduce services available at the community level and
alter the character of this neighborhood node.
On one hand, large commercial uses may create negative impacts to adjacent residential uses.
However, smaller commercial uses such as those permitted in the CN zone could be desirable,
appropriate in scale with the neighborhood, and serve the community’s future needs. A proposal to
rezone another property in the Avenues to allow commercial land uses in the future could face
multiple challenges given the neighborhood’s established residential character, the policies currently
in place, and the potential impacts to abutting properties. The existing commercial zone of this
corner property offers the neighborhood an opportunity to provide for resident’s daily needs, support
walkability and promote a more livable community.
On the other hand, the applicant is proposing a mixed-use zone, where both residential and
commercial uses are allowed. The property could still be developed as strictly commercial under the
new zoning district, as well as it could be solely residential, or mixed-use. This is an important
distinction between the proposed R-MU-35 zone and the existing CN zone: the latter would require a
commercial component in order to construct a residential development. The applicant has expressed
interest in developing single-family attached dwellings on the rezoned properties, with a possibility of
creating live/work units.
Given these considerations, staff finds that it is important for a commercial land use to remain on the
corner of 3rd Avenue and N Street. Live/work units may not activate this neighborhood node to its full
potential, but it would help to increase activity on the corner. Retail shops and services would
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
Figure 5 – Aerial photograph shows that the two
structures existed at least until 1958.
5
certainly contribute more to the intended character of this node and attract more people to give life to
the street. Another possibility is to construct convertible spaces, where residential units can easily be
converted into commercial space. Understanding that zoning should not be prescriptive and that the
current zoning allows for different nonresidential uses, staff is recommending that the rezone be
conditioned on a future redevelopment containing a commercial component on the corner property.
Consideration 3: Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
As mentioned above, the proposed R-MU-35 zoning district allows for both residential and
commercial uses without requiring a mixed-use combination. This would allow not only for the
property at 860 E 3rd Avenue to be developed as multi-family but would also allow a nonresidential
use at 868 E 3rd Avenue. Hence, the rezone from SR-1A to R-MU-35 could mean an expansion of
nonresidential uses into an area that has long been established as residential.
The Future Land Use Map in the Avenues Master Plan is not clear on boundaries of zoning
designations because it is intended to serve as a guiding tool and not as a binding regulation. Even so,
the Business/Commercial designation on the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and N Street seems to be
larger than the existing 860 E 3rd Avenue property, possibly encompassing 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Independently of how one reads this future map, if the two lots were to be combined, the single
zoning would simplify future redevelopment of the properties.
Any rezone that would permit nonresidential uses in a residential property containing housing units
must include a Housing Loss Mitigation plan, as outlined in Chapter 18.97 of the City Code. Even
though the chapter does not address situations where no residential building is targeted for
demolition, the difference between housing value and replacement cost was assessed for the existing
housing unit at 868 E 3rd Avenue. Attachment H includes the housing loss mitigation report
approved by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director. The report determines
that the applicant is not responsible for mitigating the housing loss resulting from this rezone.
Although the conversion of the single-family dwelling to nonresidential uses could create some
impacts to the abutting properties, the historic status of the property provides some assurances. The
existing structure is listed as contributing to the Avenues Local Historic district and therefore, it
would be difficult to demolish it or accommodate any use that cannot preserve the integrity of the
structure. A conversion to another use will likely trigger building improvements for compliance with
building and fire codes. Any exterior modifications to the structure would require a Certificate of
Appropriateness whether issued for minor modifications Administratively or major modifications by
the Historic Landmark Commission. The review would focus on design elements, however, the
limitations on reuse of the building could somewhat limit the intensity of the house conversion.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed zoning map amendment from CN and SR-1A to R-MU-35 would allow for the
redevelopment of the subject properties. The possible loss of commercial on the corner of 3rd Avenue
and N Street is a concern because that street corner has had commercial land uses for over a century
and could continue to serve the community’s future needs. The commercial zone of this node is both
an opportunity to provide services to immediate residents and an urban design strategy to promote a
livelier neighborhood. In considering these factors, staff finds that the commercial aspect of the street
corner should be maintained. The impacts of an expansion of commercial land uses further into the
east of the block and the moderate increase in density are mitigated with the assurances given by the
historic overlay district and required landscape buffers. Future development on the properties and
even modifications to the existing structures are subject to HLC review, which would limit impacts to
the adjacent properties and ensure design compatibility. Thus, staff is supportive of the proposed
rezone.
6
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration as part of the final decision on this petition. If the request is approved, any future
development of the property would need to comply with the R-MU-35 zoning regulations and would
be subject to any conditions imposed. If denied, the subject property would maintain its current
zoning designations and could potentially be redeveloped but utilizing the existing zoning standards.
7
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Zoning Map
8
ATTACHMENT B: Site Photographs
Figure 6 – Properties located to the south of 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 7 – Southwest view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 8 – West view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 10 – Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 11 - Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 9 – Properties located west of 860 E 3rd Avenue
9
Figure 12 – House on 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 14 – Properties located north of the 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 15 – Properties located north of 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 13 – Northwest view of 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue.
10
ATTACHMENT C: Application Materials
11
THANK YOU
17
(REC. S 89°58'59" E 423.92' ) MEAS. 89°58'04" W 424.16'
N 89°59'38" W
51.39'
S
0
0
°
0
2
'
0
0
"
W
44
.
2
1
'
W-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-LW-LW-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
PARCEL #09-32-379-001
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS LLC
ADDRESS 860 E. THIRD AVE.
PARCEL # 09-32-379-002
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS
ADDRESS 868 E. THIRD AVE.PARCEL # 09-32-379-003
OWNER GALIAN, JOHN
PARCEL # 09-32-379-009
OWNER WILL & ALEX LLC.
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PA
D
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
CANOPY
PILLAR
PILLAR
CANOPY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS GRASS GRASS
3RD AVE.
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WOOD &
WIRE FENCE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBINGCONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
PROJECT BENCHMARK
SEWER MANHOLE
EL.= 4510.00'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4518.49'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4520.76'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4516.14'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4504.04'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
58" REBAR & CAP
SET BY McNEIL ENG.
EL.= 4515.64'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
RIVET SET IN WALKWAY
EL.= 4507.28'
BASIS OF BEARING (N 89°58'00" W 845.17' REC. ) AS PER PLAT G S.L.C. SURVEY
MON. AT M ST. & 3RD TO MON. AT O ST. 3RD AVE..
(R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
4
1
3
.
0
3
4
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
2
2
"
W
8
2
7
.
1
6
'
STREET MON. NOT FOUND AT
INTERSECTION OF 3RD. AVE. & N ST.
S 89°52'38" W 66.00'S 89°52'38" W 99.00'
N
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
E
8
2
.
5
0
'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
N 89°52'38" E 66.00'N 89°52'38" E 99.00'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 2ND AVE
FOUND 2.5" FLAT BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 4 TH AVE.
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION M ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 2 ND AVE.
N.W. COR. BLK. 24
PLAT "G" S.L.C. SUR.
NOT FOUND P.O.B.
1.4'
2.2'
1.6'
CHAIN &
TPOST FENCE
WOOD
FENCE
CHAIN FENCE
ON PROP LINE
CHAIN
FENCE
CHAIN
FENCE
CONCRETE (
R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
W
4
1
2
.
9
1
3
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
0
0
°
0
0
'
4
2
"
E
4
1
3
.
1
3
'
EXISTING BUILDING
SIGN
VALVE
BUILDING STARTLES
PROP. LINE
0.4'
CONCRETE
POURCH
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
STORM DRAIN LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
COMMUNICATION LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT
FILE # 1843610 BK. 1918 PG. 285
S
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
E
7.
0
0
'
S 89°52'38" W
7.00'
N
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
W
7.
0
0
'
N 89°52'38" E
7.00'
N 89°52'38" E
99.00'
SURVEYINGJOHANSON
SURVEY DESIGN SEPTIC PLANNINGSURVEYINGJOHANSONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSOOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOOOOOOOOSOOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOSOOOOOOSOOSSOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Parcel # 09-32-379-001
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence South 82.5 feet; Thence East 99 feet; Thence N 82.5 feet; Thence West 99 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing +/- Acres
Parcel # 09-32-379-002
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence West 4 Rods; Thence South 5 Rods; Thence East 4 Rods; Thence N 5 Rods to the
point of beginning
Containing 15.89 +/- Acres
SHEET-1
BROCK T. CISNEROS
This drawing is and at all times remains the exclusive property of Johanson
Surveying shall not be used with out complete authorization and written support.
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NO.
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
OVERSEEN BY:SHANE R. JOHANSON P.L.S.
REV #
DESCRIPTION DATE
STAMP
09-28-2020
S-20-118
I, R. Shane Johanson, Do hereby certify that I am a Professional Land Surveyor, holding
certificate No. 7075114, as prescribed under the laws of the State of Utah, and that I have made
a survey of the described tract of land as shown on this plat and that this survey retraces lot
lines and may have adjusted said lot lines to coincide with found evidence and other
interpolations based from ground measurements and found records. Furthermore I recognize
that other unwritten rights of ownership or lines of possession may exist, I do not imply to
certify any of those rights, unless agreed upon by the appropriate parties.
S.W. 1/4 SEC. 32 T.1 N. ; R.1 E.
10
1 inch = 10 ft.( IN FEET )
1050 20
P.O. BOX 18941
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84118
Shane Johanson P.L.S. 801-815-2541
This Survey was performed at the request of Oren Hillel For the purpose to locate
contours and elevations of the ground in relationship to the intended positioning of this lot. Also
for the possible purpose of lot sales, future building and landscaping. During the course of this
survey there was an area of encroachment discovered along the East boundary line of parcel #
09-32-379-002 said encroachment is a wood fence that crosses the bundary line by approx. 1.4'.
It is advised for the client to approach the land owner and resolve this encroachment before land
sales or development.
The basis of bearing was derived from the found local street monumintation and utilized
on this survey as N 89°58'00"W as shown on Plat G Salt Lake City Survey. Survey also coincide
with local property corners found as well as survey S2006-06-0507 on file with the official
records of Salt Lake City. by McNeil Eng.
Shown are Two foot Contours Highlighted at Ten foot Intervals as labeled. Found rebars,
plugs/rivets and street monumentation have been tied, utilized and shown on this survey. The
elevation base is determined by the field G.P.S. Projection Based on Utah North NAD 1983
Projection then rounded off to the nearest 10 foot mark for a more efficient Bench Mark base.
The project bench mark is 4510.00' = Found Sewer manhole at intersection of 3rd Ave. and N
Street as shown.
1. Surveyor has made no investigation or independent search for easements of record
encumbrances restrictive covenants ownership title evidence, or any other facts, conflicts, or
discrepancies which may be disclosed by the details of a currant title insurance policy.
2. See city and county planning, and zoning maps for information regarding setback, side yard,
and rear yard instances as well as other building, use restrictions, and requirements.
3. Utility pipes, wires etc. may not be shown on this map. Utility locations shown heron are as
per Bluestake at the time of this survey. Contractors builders and excavators shall verify the
location of all existing utilities prior to construction, and/or excavation. Contact blue stakes and
refer to utility maps for additional information.
4. It was relayed to this office that the existing structure's on Parcel # 09-32-379-001 were to be
demolished, this survey has taken this into consideration and the accuracies of the
improvements on said lot are not exact.
= STREET MONUMENT
= FOUND PROPERTY MARKER
= REPRESENTS PROPERTY LINE
= EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
= EXISTING WATER METER
= EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
= EXISTING GAS METER
= EXISTING UTILITY POLE
= EXISTING LIGHT POLE
= WOOD/VINYL FENCE
= CHAINLINK/WIRE FENCE
= STORM BOX CURB
= EXISTING WATER VALVE
= EXISTING UTILITY BOX
= EXISTING ROCK RETAINING WALL
S
G M
= SURVEY CONTROL POINT
23
r
-
----=--\ \
------------~
"S..
-I -
\ I
r
-I
/
I
\_
I
I I
I I
I I
I
D 0
◊
_/
-----r ~-r ;•~1
Ir 11
Ir~ L ~~ ..LL L_____/jl
------"'"-. & . . .
t w--,
--/'--------·-. --------------------
ATTACHMENT D: Master Plan Policies
Avenues Master Plan
The subject property is located within the Avenues Master Plan (adopted July 1987) and is designated
in the future land use map as “Business/Commercial".
The land use goal of that master plan is to:
Preserve the residential character and existing land use patterns in the Avenues
Community. Special emphasis should be placed on regulating foothill development and
preserving the historically significant sites and districts.
Relevant land use recommendations to this proposal include a general policy that additional
zoning changes to accommodate higher density multiple-family dwellings in the Avenues are
not desirable or needed, and that no immediate need exists for additional business property.
The plan indicates that additional retail services may eventually be needed. However, it
recommends that changing zoning to accommodate new retail service should not be made
until Avenues residents express the need for additional retail shopping and specific criteria
should be considered in the decision.
The historic preservation goal is also relevant to this proposal:
Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the
established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts.
Staff Discussion: The proposed rezone will continue to allow residential uses on the two properties
but could alter the existing land use pattern of the neighborhood. The difference between the current
zoning and the proposed is that for 860 E 3rd Avenue multifamily would be allowed without any
commercial component, and for 868 E 3rd Avenue multifamily and commercial uses would be
allowed. Because these properties are located in the Avenues Local Historic District and there are
tools in place for historic preservation, new land uses and new development would not diminish the
character of the area. The overlay district requires compatibility in the design of new buildings and
modifications to existing, which ensures the appropriate scale, size and form of structures. Staff is
recommending a condition to maintain a commercial component on the properties to help preserve
the already established neighborhood node. The proposed rezone, if approved with this condition, is
in line with the Avenues Master Plan, including its Future Land Use map designation.
Plan Salt Lake
This citywide master plan adopted in 2015 provides a vision and policies for the future of
Salt Lake City. The following principles and initiatives are relevant to this project:
Guiding Principle: Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiative:
• Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about
where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
Initiative:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities,
such as transit and transportation corridors.
• Encourage a mix of land uses.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
24
Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels
throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to
changing demographics.
Initiative:
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that
have the potential to be people-oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm
our past.
Initiative:
• Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
• Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Guiding Principle: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an
innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to
thrive.
Initiative:
• Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood
business nodes.
Additionally, the proposal relates to several sustainable growth & development concepts
outlined in the master plan, including:
• Diverse mix of uses: By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building
types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where
they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and
evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide
will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and
provide people with real choices.
• Density: Density and compact development are important principles of
sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and
creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations,
including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major
transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more
efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to
where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less
automobile dependency and greater mobility.
• Compatibility: Compatibility of development generally refers to how a
development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.
New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development,
taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing
opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place.
Staff Discussion: As discussed above, the rezone would not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood. The proposal would however increase the development potential of the properties,
which could result in a land use that is more compatible with adjacent uses, serviced by existing
infrastructure, and with potential to be people-oriented. The allowance of multifamily uses would
provide a moderate increase in density that is appropriate for the area, especially considering the
25
HLC authority over the historic district. The historic preservation review required for new
construction and modifications of the properties would help to preserve the character of the area,
ensuring compatibility while allowing flexibility for growth. The proposed zoning allows for a mix of
land uses and a condition to maintain a commercial component on the intersection of 3rd Avenue and
N street would help support this neighborhood node and the city’s economy.
26
ATTACHMENT E: Existing Conditions & Development
Standards
860 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions CN Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use
Gas station/
Minor Auto
repair
Prohibited/
Conditional No Prohibited No
Lot Area 8,168 sq ft 16,500 sq ft max. Yes 5,000 sq ft min. for
conditional use Yes
Height ~15’ 25’ Yes 20’ nonresidential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front/
Corner ~ 10’ and 8.5’ 15’ min., 25’ max.
for 65% of façade No 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~0.5’ None Yes None Yes
Rear ~7.5’ 10’ No 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. No
Landscape
Buffer None 7’ if abutting
residential district No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Parking
setback None 30’ or behind
structure No Not permitted in
front/corner No
Open Space None None Yes 20% No
868 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions SR-1A Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use Single-family
dwelling Permitted Yes Permitted Yes
Lot Area 5,449 sq ft 5,000 sq ft min. Yes 2,500 sq ft min. for single-
family detached Yes
Lot Width 66’ 50’ Yes 25’ for single-family
detached Yes
Height ~23’ 23’ Yes 35’ residential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front ~7’ Existing Yes 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~45’ and 1.6’ 4’ and 10’ No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Rear ~22’ 25% of lot depth,
15’ min., 30’ max. Yes 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. Yes
Lot Coverage ~25% 40% Yes None Yes
Landscape
Buffer None None No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Open Space 65% None Yes 20% Yes
27
Land use comparison:
Use SR-1A CN R-MU-35
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise
specifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P P
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less
in floor area)
C10,11 C9
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9
Animal, veterinary office C C
Art gallery P P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P24 P3
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P P
Commercial food preparation P P
Community garden C P P
Crematorium C
Daycare center, adult P P
Daycare center, child C22 P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P
Dwelling, accessory unit P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, group home (large)14 C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P
Group home (small) when located above or below
first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the
first story where the unit is not located adjacent to
street frontage18
P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P
28
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P P
Eleemosynary facility C C
Financial institution P P
Funeral home P
Governmental facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features
for security purposes
P
Home occupation P24 P23 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P
Library P C
Mixed use development P P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P
Municipal service use, including City utility use and
police and fire station
C C
Museum P C
Nursing care facility P
Office
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a
residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
C C
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C P C
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P P
Retail goods establishment P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop
with outdoor retail sales area
P P
Retail service establishment P P
Furniture repair shop C
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School, music conservatory C
School, professional and vocational C
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Seasonal farm stand P P
29
Studio, art P P
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23
Theater, live performance C13
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P2 P5
Vehicle, Automobile repair (minor) C
* Uses marked with a footnote have qualifying provisions.
30
ATTACHMENT F: Analysis of Standards
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a
matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard.
In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. 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
with
condition
As discussed in Attachment D, the
proposed rezone is consistent with the
Avenues Master Plan and citywide master
plan, Plan Salt Lake. The proposal would
continue to support residential uses on
the properties while allowing for a
moderate increase in density. This
supports goals for flexible growth and
compatibility. The historic overlay district
also ensures compatibility in the design of
new construction and building
modifications. Staff is recommending a
condition that any redevelopment of the
properties must have a commercial
component at the intersection of 3rd
Avenue and N street to support the
neighborhood node envisioned and
encouraged in both master plans.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The proposed amendment helps to foster
the city’s business and residential
development. It contributes to residential
development because it allows for a
moderate increase in density. It also
fosters businesses by potentially
supporting the redevelopment of the
property with a more attractive and
usable commercial space.
3. The extent to which a proposed
map amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies
The subject properties are surrounded by
residential, including single and two-
family dwellings and some multi-family.
The proposed zoning will allow residential
and nonresidential uses on the properties.
However, it should have similar impacts
to adjacent properties as land uses
allowed by the current zoning. Impacts
created by potential nonresidential uses
on the existing home at 868 E 3rd Avenue
will be limited given the contributory
status of the structure and required HLC
review of physical modifications of the
building. Any new development will also
have comply with landscaped buffer
requirements.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any
Complies
The properties are located within the
Historic Preservation overlay district. The
proposed amendment is consistent with
31
applicable overlay zoning districts
which may impose additional
standards;
the purpose of the overlay district in that
it encourages redevelopment that is
compatible with the character of existing
development patterns, fosters economic
development consistent with historic
preservation, and encourages social,
economic and environmental
sustainability. The proposed zoning
achieves these goals by providing a
moderate increase in density and allowing
for a mix of land uses on the properties.
5. 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
This zoning amendment is not tied to a
specific development proposal.
Nonetheless, no objections were received
from other City departments regarding
this amendment, but Public Utilities
noted that development will likely require
offsite improvements. Any redevelopment
or modifications of the properties will be
reviewed to ensure compliance with all
applicable City codes and policies.
32
ATTACHMENT G: Public Process and Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to this project:
Public Notices:
− Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Greater Avenues
Community Council on October 16, 2020 in order to solicit comments. The 45-day
recognized organization comment period expires on November 30, 2020.
− Early engagement notice was mailed to owners and tenants of properties within 300 feet on
October 30, 2020.
Public Hearing Notice:
− Public hearing notice mailed on November 20, 2020.
− Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on November 20, 2020.
− Sign posted on the property on November 19, 2020.
Public Comments:
− The Community Council Chair did not ask staff to attend a meeting to present the project and
did not provide any public comment.
− At the time of the publication of this staff report, two public comment was received. A
neighboring property owner called on November 12, 2020 to state their opposition to the
rezone because of the impact the new development would cause to the neighborhood given
the allowed density and resulting traffic. Another comment was provided via email in support
of the proposal. The email is attached. Any other comments received after the posting of this
report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
33
34
Fro m:
To:
Subject:
Date:
HiMayara,
Vaafuti Tavana
Lima. Mayara
(EXTERNAL) Resident Letter of Su pport for the 860 E 3rd p roj ect.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:58 :03 PM
As a member o f t he Ave nues commun ity, I wou ld li ke t o f ully support t he zoni ng map
amendment proposed at 860 E 3rd . T he p roposal brings t o l ife an unde r uti lized gas sta t ion
corner w ith single fami ly homes t hat alig n with t he rest of t h e neighborhood . The proposa l
also inc ludes r estoring an d keep ing the historic home instead of demolis hing it. A project of
this na t u re w ill b r ing long-term r esiden t s t hat add value to t he commun ity. Th is deve lopment
w ill be tter t he wa lkabi li ty of 3rd avenue an d add much needed greenery and landscapi ng .
Futi T avan a/ 123 E. 2nd A ve #P3 , SLC . UT 840103
Futi T avana
U SA Men's National V olleyball Team Athlete
A lllllllli BYU 201 2
ATTACHMENT H: Housing Loss Mitigation Report
35
Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Report
Property Located at:
868 E 3rd Avenue
Background
The applicant, Remarc Investments, has submitted a Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss
application on behalf of the property owner, Rose Family Investments, for the property located at 868 E
3rd Avenue. The property is currently zoned SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) and is
the subject of a Zoning Map Amendment application to rezone it to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use).
The proposed zoning map amendment also involves the property at 860 E 3rd Avenue, which is zoned
CN (Neighborhood Commercial), and the purpose of the rezone is to allow for the redevelopment of the
two parcels with multi-family dwellings. While the applicant is anticipating that the existing dwelling on
868 E 3rd Avenue will be maintained, City Code section 18.97.020 requires that 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.
Housing Mitigation Ordinance Requirements
In accordance with the provisions of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance, the Director of
Community & Neighborhoods shall prepare a report justifying the recommended method of housing
mitigation.
The Housing Mitigation Ordinance requires that a housing impact statement includes the following
elements:
1.Identify the essential adverse impacts on the residential character of the area of the
subject petition.
Discussion: Aside from 860 E 3rd Avenue, zoned CN, the surrounding properties are zoned and
used as residential. The property is located within the Avenues Local Historic District and it is listed
as contributing. Demolition of contributing structures must comply with strict historic preservation
standards and receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission. If the subject property at
868 E 3rd Avenue is maintained as a single-family dwelling as anticipated by the applicant, the
rezone will not create any adverse impacts to the character of the area. If the use of the property
changes with the rezone, there may be minor impacts to adjacent uses but should not create
substantial adverse impacts to the character of the area.
2.Identify by address any dwelling units targeted for demolition, following the granting
of the petition.
Discussion: No dwelling units are being targeted for demolition with the proposed rezone. A
demolition of the existing single-family on the subject property would require compliance with strict
historic preservation standards and receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
36
3. State the current fair market value, if that unit were in a reasonable state of repair
and met all applicable building, fire and health codes.
Discussion: The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office lists the market value of the single-family
dwelling on site at $111,200.
4. State the square footage of land zoned for residential use that would be rezoned for
purposes sought by the petition, other than residential housing and appurtenant uses.
Discussion: The subject property is approximately 5,449 square feet in size.
5. Specify a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land, residential
units or residential character. The Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Ordinance outlines
three options for mitigation housing loss:
A. Construction of replacement housing,
B. Payment of a fee based on difference between the existing housing market value and the cost of
replacement, and
C. Payment of a flat mitigation fee if demonstrated that the costs of calculating and analyzing the
various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated
costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation)
Discussion: The options outlined do not address the specific situation with this zoning map
amendment, where no residential building is targeted for demolition. However, the rezone itself
would allow for the elimination of an existing housing unit.
Option A - Staff could recommend to City Council that the rezone be conditioned on prohibiting
nonresidential uses on the property or that the applicant enters a development agreement with the
city to replace the existing housing unit.
Option B - Under this option, the applicant would pay into the City’s Housing Trust Fund an
amount calculated as the difference between the market value of the homes, as determined by the
Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office, and the replacement cost of building a new dwelling unit of
similar size and meeting all existing building, fire and other applicable law (excluding land value).
The Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office shows the market value of the single-family dwelling as
$111,200, which does not include the market value of the land.
The replacement cost is calculated using the Building Valuation Data published by the International
Code Council. The most recent data from the ICC was published in August 2020 and, indicates the
construction cost per square foot for R-3 (One- and Two-family Dwellings) Type VB is $123.68/SF
of finished floor area and $22.45/SF of unfinished floor area. This rate takes into account only the
costs of construction and does not include the land costs. Type VB is the typical construction type
for residential buildings due to the use of the building and the buildings occupant load.
Market value of the property (based on County assessment) = $111,200.00
Replacement cost = $141,920.06
Difference = -$30,720.06
Because replacement costs exceed the market value of the existing single-family homes, the
difference is a negative number and no mitigation fee is required.
37
Findings:
1.The proposed rezone could result in a net loss of one dwelling unit.
2.The proposed housing mitigation option A for the construction of replacement housing if the
existing dwelling unit is eliminated was considered. However, option B shows that the replacement
cost of the existing housing unit is greater than the market value of the structure.
3.The applicant is not required to replace the housing unit nor make a contribution to the City’s
Housing Trust Fund.
Determination of Mitigation
Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Director of Community and Neighborhood, has
determined that the applicant would not be responsible for mitigating the loss of the single dwelling
unit located at 868 E 3rd Avenue.
_______________________
Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Dated: __________________
Attachments
1.Vicinity Maps
2.Salt Lake County Assessor – Evaluation Summaries
3.International Code Council Building Valuation Data – August 2018
4.Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss Applications
Jennifer Mcgrath (Nov 19, 2020 10:12 MST)
11/19/2020
38
ATTACHMENT 1
VICINITY MAP
39
40
Legend
C Subject Prop erty
Parcels
Zoning Districts
CN Neighborhood Commercial
SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential
RM F-35 ModerateDensity Multi-FamHy Residential
" ~ "
2nc!Ave O
ATTACHMENT 2
SALT LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR
EVALUATION SUMMARIES
41
42
111 /9/2020 Untitled Document
SLCo --->Assessor ---> Parcel Sear ch ---> Valuation Summary ---> Printable Ve r s ion
Parcel 09-32-379-002-0000 Value History
Owner ROSE FAMILY INVESTMENTS
Address 868 E TH IRD AV E Re cord I 2020
Land Value Building Value Market Value Tax Rate
i Tota l Acreage 0.12
Above Ground sqft. 1052
Property Type 11 1 -SNGL FAM RES
Tax District 13
Land Record
Record ID 1
Lot Use
Lot Type
RESIDENTIAL
PRIMARY-LOT
Land Class
Income Flag
Seasonal use
lnfiuence Type
Res idence Record
Building Style
Assessment Classification
Exterior Wall Type
Roofing
Central AC
Heating
Owner Occupied
Number of Stories
Tota l Rooms
Bedrooms
CB
p
BR
AS
y
C
y
1.0
5
Influence Effect
Assmt. C lass RES-PRIMARY
Lot Depth
Acres 0.12
Zone 1205
Sewer PUBLIC
Number Lots
Full Baths
3/4 Baths
Half Baths
Number of Kitchens
Finished Fire places
Year Built
1
1904
Effective Year Built 1992
Interior G rade F
Exterior Grade A
Overall Grade F
$ 140,200 $111,200 $ 251 ,400
2019
2018
2017 1
2016 1
2015 1
$ 134,000
$ 134,000
$ 134,000
$ 124,100
$11 4,400
l '1h Ave
w
.; ,;; iii :.:
:c ...
,;; ..,
S 78,600 $ 212,600
S 66,000 $ 200,000
$ 57,000 $191 ,000
$ 54 ,400 $178,500
$ 50,400 $164,800
iii
::.
'
th Ave
E 3rd Ave
E 2nd Ave
E hi Ave
.0129960
.0133450
.014 24 50
.01 50010
.0158260
E'Soull1 TcllpkSI
Lot Shape
Lot Location
Neighborhood
Nbhd Type
Nbhd Effect
Topogra phy
UJ
Interior Condition
Exterior Condition
Overall Condition
V isual Appea I
Maintenance
Conformity
Livability
tJ UJ
REGULAR
INTERIOR
63
STATIC
TYPICAL
LEVEL
F
A
F
A
A
E
A
Primary Kitchen Quality 0
Primary Bath Quality 0
Percent Complete 100
E 1005
u. iii
09-32-379-002-0000
Traffic MEDIU M
Traffic Inf luence NEGATIVE
Street type TWO-WAY
Street F111 1sh PAV ED
Curb Gutter y
Sidewalk y
09-32-379-002-0000
Main Floor Area 1052
Upper Floor Area
Finished Attic Area
Above Ground Area 1052
Basement Area 526
Finished Basement Area
Finished Basement Grade
Carport Surface Area
Attached Garage S. Area
Builtin Garage S. Area
Basement Garage S. Area
Above Grad e Area + Ba sement Area-157 8
Lega l Description 09 -32-379-002-0000
COM AT NE COR LOT 3 BLK 24 PLAT G SLC SUR W 4 RDS S 5 RDS E 4 RDS N 5 RDS TO BEG 7569-1280 7824-01 6 5
C lick here for Classic P.1 rcel Details Page Searc h Again?
This page shows the assessor's CAMA data, as it was, on May 22, 2020.
https://slco.org/assessor/new/Query/valuationinfoPrinl.cfm?parcel_id=0932379002000 0&nbhd=63 1/1
ATTACHMENT 3
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
BUILDING VALUATION DATA –
FEBRUARY 2020
43
44
iL INTERNATIONAL
;iii CODE COUNCI[ People Helping People Build a Safer World"
Building Valuation Data -AUGUST 2020
The International Code Council is pleased to provide the
following Building Valuation Data (BVD) for its members. The
BVD will be updated at six-month intervals, with the next update
in February 2021. ICC strongly recommends that all jurisdictions
and other interested parties actively evaluate and assess the
impact of this BVD table before utilizing it in their current code
enforcement related activities.
The BVD table provides the "average" construction costs per
square foot , which can be used in determining permit fees for a
jurisdiction. Permit fee schedules are addressed in Section
109.2 of the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) whereas
Section 109.3 addresses building permit valuations. The permit
fees can be establ ished by using the BVD table and a Permit
Fee Multiplier, which is based on the total construction value
within the jurisdiction for the past year. The Square Foot
Construction Cost table presents factors that reflect relative
value of one construction classification/occupancy group to
another so that more expensive construction is assessed
greater permit fees than less expensive construction.
ICC has developed this data to aid jurisdictions in determining
permit fees. It is important to note that while this BVD table does
determine an estimated value of a building (i.e., Gross Area x
Square Foot Construction Cost), this data is only intended to
assist jurisdictions in determining their permit fees. This data
table is not intended to be used as an estimating guide because
the data only reflects average costs and is not representative of
specific construction.
This degree of precision is sufficient for the intended purpose,
which is to help establish perm it fees so as to fund code
compliance activities. This BVD table prov ides jurisdictions with
a simplified way to determine the estimated value of a building
that does not rely on the permit applicant to determine the cost
of construction . Therefore, the bidding process for a particular
job and other associated factors do not affect the value of a
building for determining the permit fee. Whether a specific
project is bid at a cost above or below the computed value of
construction does not affect the permit fee because the cost of
related code enforcement activities is not directly affected by the
bid process and results.
Building Valuation
The following building valuation data represents average
valuations for most buildings. In conjunction with IBC Section
109.3, this data is offered as an aid for the building official to
determine if the permit valuation is underestimated. Again it
should be noted that, when using this data, these are "average"
costs based on typical construction methods for each
occupancy group and type of construction . The average costs
include foundation work, structural and nonstruct ural building
components, electrical , plumbing, mechanical and interior fi ni sh
materi al. The data is a national average and does not take into
account any regiona l cost differences. As such, the use of
Regional Cost Modifiers is subject to the authority having
jurisdiction.
Permit Fee Multiplier
Determine the Permit Fee Multiplier:
1. Based on historical records , determine the total annual
construction value which h as occurred within the
jurisdiction for the past year.
2. Determine the percentage (%) of the building
department budget expected to be provided by building
permit revenue.
3.
Bldg. Dept. Budget x (%)
Permit Fee Multiplier =
Total Annual Construction Value
Example
The building department operates on a $300,000 budget , and it
expects to cover 75 percent of that from building permit fees.
The total annual construction value which occurred within the
jurisdiction in the previous year is $30,000,000.
$300,000 X 75%
Permit Fee Multiplier = = 0.0075
$30,000,000
Permit Fee
The permit fee is determined using the building gross area, the
Square Foot Construction Cost and the Perm it Fee Multiplier.
Permit Fee = Gross Area x Square Foot Construction Cost
X Permit Fee Multiplier
Example
Type of Construction: IIB
Area: 1st story = 8,000 sq. ft.
2nd story = 8,000 sq. ft.
Height: 2 stories
Permit Fee Multiplier= 0.0075
Use Group: B
1. Gross area:
Bu sin ess= 2 stories x 8,000 sq. ft.= 16,000 sq. ft.
2. Square Foot Construction Cost:
B/IIB = $179 .1 8/sq. ft.
3. Per mit Fee:
Business= 16,000 sq . ft. x $179.18/sq. ft x 0.0075
= $21,502
45
I
Imp ortant Po ints
• The BVD is not intended to apply to alteration s or
repairs to existing buildi ngs. Because t he scope of
alterations or repa irs to an existing building varies so
greatly , the Square Foot Const ruction Costs table does
not reflect accurate values for that pu rpose. How ever,
the Square Foot Con str uction Costs table can be used
to determine t he cost of an addition t hat is basically a
stand -alon e bu ilding which happens to be attached to
an existing bui ldi ng. In the case o f such additions, the
only a lterati ons t o the existing bu ilding would involve t he
attachment of the addition to the existing building and
the openings between the addition an d t h e existing
bui lding.
• For purposes of establishing t he Permit Fee Multipl ier,
the estimated tot al annual construction value for a given
time period (1 year) i s t he sum of each building's v alue
(Gross A rea x Square Foot Construction Cost) f or that
time period (e.g ., 1 year).
• T he Square Foot Construction Cost does not include
the price of the land on which the building is bu ilt. T he
Square Foot Constru ction Cost takes into account
ev erything f rom foundation work to the roof structure
and coverings b ut does not include the price of the land .
T he cost of t h e land does not affect the cost of related
code enforcement activ ities and is not incl uded in t he
Square Foot Constructi on Cost.
Squa re F oot Co nstruction Co sts •· b , c
Group (2018 International Building Code) IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 250.39 241.91 235.63 226.10 212.32 206.18 218 .83 197.45 190.33
A-1 Assembly, t heaters, without stage 229.42 220.94 2 14 .66 205.12 191.35 185.2 1 197.86 176.48 169.35
A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 196 .1 3 190.29 185 .62 178.02 167.82 163.20 171.70 15 1.89 14 6.71
A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 195 .1 3 189.29 183 .62 177.02 165.82 162.20 170 .70 149.89 14 5.71
A-3 Assembly, ch urches 232.04 223.57 217.29 207.75 194.34 189.19 200.49 179.48 172.35
A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries,
museums 194.1 7 185.69 178.41 169.87 155.09 149.96 162 .61 140.23 134.10
A-4 Assembly, arenas 228.42 219.94 2 12 .66 204.12 189.35 184.21 196.86 174 .48 168.35
B Business 202.30 194.92 188.44 179.18 163.55 157.42 172.13 143.89 137 .46
E Educat ional 212.03 204.70 198.82 190.25 177.27 168.29 183.70 155 .00 150.26
F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 119.53 113.92 107.38 103.45 92.64 88.38 99.02 76 .33 7 1.73
F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 118.53 112.92 107.38 102.45 92.64 87.38 98 .02 76.33 70.73
H-1 High Hazard , explosi ves 111.77 106.15 100.62 95.69 86.11 80.85 91.26 69.81 N.P.
H234 High Hazard 111.77 106.15 100.62 95.69 86.1 1 80 .85 91.26 69 .81 64.20
H-5 HP M 202.30 194 .92 188.44 179.18 163.55 157.42 172.13 143.89 137.46
1-1 Institut ional, supervised environment 199 .8 1 192.96 186 .97 179.69 164.91 160.39 179.84 148 .44 14 3.75
1-2 Institutional, hospitals 338.94 331.56 325.08 3 15.82 299.46 N.P. 308 .77 279.79 N.P.
1-2 Institutional, nursing homes 235.48 228.11 22 1.62 2 12.37 197.49 N.P. 205 .32 177.82 N.P.
1-3 Institut ional, restrained 230.03 222.65 2 16 .17 206.91 192.77 185.64 199 .86 173.11 164.69
1-4 Institutional, day care faci lities 199 .8 1 192.96 186 .97 179.69 164.91 160.39 179.84 148.44 143.75
M Mercantile 146 .21 140.37 134 .70 128.11 117.54 1 13.93 12 1 .78 101.61 97.44
R-1 Reside ntial, hotels 201.71 194 .86 188.87 181 .59 166.56 162 .04 181.74 150.09 14 5 .40
R-2 Reside ntial, multiple family 168 .94 162.09 156 .1 0 148.82 135.0 4 130.52 148 .97 118.57 11-:). AA
R-3 Residential, one-and two-family ' 157.40 153.13 149.31 145.53 140.33 136.62 143.14 131 .341 123.68
R-4 Reside ntial, care/assisted living facil iti es 199 .81 192.96 186 .97 179.69 164.91 160.39 179.84 148.44 14 3 .75
S-1 Storage, moderat e hazard 110.77 105.15 98.62 94.69 84.1 1 79.85 90 .26 67.81 63.20
S-2 S torage, low hazard 109 .77 104.15 98 .62 93.69 84.1 1 78.85 89 .26 67 .81 62.20
U Utility, miscellaneous 85.53 80.63 75.42 72.03 64.67 60.42 68 .74 51.21 4 8 .79
a. Private Garages use Util ity, miscellaneous
b. For shell only buildings deduct 20 percent
d . Unfinished basements (Group R-3) = $22 .4 5 per sq. fl.
I
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION OF RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING LOSS APPLICATION
46
47
Mitigatio n of Residential
Housing Loss
OFFICE USE ONLY
Pre-demolitio n #: Received By: Date Received:
Project Name:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property:
860 & 868 E 3rd A ven ue
Nam e of Applicant: Rem ar c Inves tm ents
Address of Applicant:
770 N 532 E., Orem , U T 84097
E-mail of Applicant: or en @r em arcinves tm en t s.com ;
m ar cu s@r em ar ci n ves tments.com
Applicant's Interest in Subject Property:
0 Owner D Contr actor D Architect
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
Rose Family Inves tments, LLC
E-m ail of Property Owner:
D Other:
Phone:
Cell/Fax:
I Phone:
Zoning:
818-606 -2410
Existing Property Use:
Gas St ation ; A ut o Bod y R epair Sh op ; Vacan t L and; Singl e Family H o m e
Proposed Propert y Use: Res t o r e and m aintai n exi sting singl e family h o m e; RM0-35 for r emammg
p rop er ty fo r pot ent i al t o d evel op additional h o m es
7 Ple ase note that additional infor mation may be requ i red by t he projec t p lanner to ensure adequa te
information is provided for sta ff analys is. All info r mation required for staff ana lys is will be co pied and
made public, includ i ng professional architectu ral or engineering drawings, for the pu r poses of public
review by any interested party.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planni ng Counter
PO Bo x 145471
Sal t Lak e City, UT 84114
In Person:
SIGNATURE
Planni ng Cou nter
451 Sou t h State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (80 1) 535 -770 0
7 If ap plicab le, a notarize d statement of con se nt authorizi ng applican t to ac t as an age nt wi l l be required.
Signature of Owner or Age nt: Date:
11 /7/20
SUBM ITTA L REQUIREMENTS
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
December 2, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-12022020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Izzy South Design Review/Special Exception at approximately 534 East 2100 South - A request
by Ryan McMullen for Design Review and Special Exception approval to develop a 71-unit mixed use
building located at approximately 534 East 2100 South in the Community Business CB zoning
district. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval because the project is over 15,000
square feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional building height. The project
is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385)
315- 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00222 & PLNPCM2020-
00655 (Tabled from 9/23 Planning Commission meeting)
2. Kozo House Design Review at approximately 157, 175 North 600 West, and 613, 621, 625, 633
West 200 North - A request by David Clayton for Design Review approval to develop a 319-unit
mixed use building on six parcels located at 157 North 600 West, 175 North 600 West, 613 West 200
North, 621 West 200 North, 625 West 200 North, and 633 West 200 North. These properties are
located in the TSAUC-T Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow
the proposed building to exceed the maximum street facing façade length and to modify the spacing
of building entrances. The project is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton
(Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315- 8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00258 (Tabled from 10/14 Planning Commission meeting)
3. Learned Ave Alley Vacation at approximately 1025 West North Temple - A request from Jarod
Hall of Di’velept Design, representing the owner of surrounding properties, Riley Rogers, to vacate
the public alley adjacent to the rear property line of 1025 West North Temple that runs mid-block from
east to west. The subject alley is surrounded by the TSA-SP-T (Special Purpose Transit Station,
Transition Area) zoning district and is located within Council District #2, represented by Andrew
Johnston (Staff contact: Aaron Barlow at (385) 386-2764 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00572
4. Greenprint Gateway Apartments Planned Development and Design Review at approximately
592 West 200 South - Mark Eddy of OZ7 Opportunity Fund, has requested Planned Development
and Design Review approval for the Greenprint Gateway Apartments to be located on three (3)
contiguous parcels located at 592 W 200 S, 568 W 200 S and 161 S 600 W respectively. The proposal
is for a 150-unit apartment building on a 0.59 acre (26,000 square feet) consolidated parcel. The
proposed building will be six stories in height and will be approximately 70-feet tall to the top of the
building’s parapet. The apartments will be a mix of micro and studio apartments. The properties are
located in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use zoning district. The G-MU zoning district requires Planned
Development approval for all new principal buildings and uses. In addition, Design Review approval
has been requested to address some design aspects of the building including material choices and
maximum length of a section of blank wall space on the west façade of the building. The proposal is
located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at
(801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00493 &
PLNPCM2020-00749
5. Rezone at approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue - Remarc Investments, representing the
property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and
SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-
listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development
on the lots, however the request is not tied to a development proposal. The properties are located
within the Avenues Local Historic District and any future demolition or new construction must be
approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Although the applicant has requested that the
property be rezoned to R-MU-35, consideration may be given to another zoning district with similar
characteristics. The property is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff
contact: Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00703
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:30:15 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice-Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners Andres Paredes, Carolynn Hoskins, Maurine Bachman, Matt Lyon, Adrienne
Bell, Jon Lee, and Sara Urquhart.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Wayne Mills,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; Aaron Barlow, Principal
Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins,
Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the Salt Lake City Emergency declaration.
8:33:56 PM
Rezone at approximately 860 & 868 East 3rd Avenue – Remarc Investments, representing the property
owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A
(Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-listed
addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development on the
lots, however the request is not tied to a development proposal. The properties are located within the
Avenues Local Historic District and any future demolition or new construction must be approved by the
Historic Landmark Commission. Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to R-
MU-35, consideration may be given to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The property is
located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff contact: Mayara Lima at (385) 377-
7570 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00703
Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Height differences
• Commercial component and whether it’s practical in the long term
• Clarification on why the house is being included in the rezone if it’s going to remain as a house
Marcus Robinson and Kevin Blalock, provided a presentation with further details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Whether the applicant has shared their plans with the community council or the surrounding
neighborhood
PUBLIC HEARING 9:02:03 PM
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Salt Lake City Planning Commission December 2, 2020 Page 2
Beckie Bradshaw – Provided an email comment raising concerns with parking and traffic issues.
Brandy Dominguez – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request.
Jack Galian – Provided an email comment that he was interested in attending the meeting, but staff did
not see him listed in the attendee list.
Nick Gurr – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request.
Zack S – Provided and email comment stating his opposition of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarification on what other zoning districts were considered and how it was settled on the current
proposal
The Commission made the following comments:
• I’m in favor of recommending approval; I’m not in favor of the condition
• I agree, I don’t think that a commercial requirement is appropriate
The Commission and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Whether there’s any off-street parking for the existing home
MOTION 9:17:28 PM
Commissioner Bell stated, Based on the information listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in
petition PLNPCM2020-00703.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, and Paredes voted “Aye”. Commissioners Lyon, and Urquhart voted “Nay”. The motion
passed 6-2.
The meeting adjourned at 9:19:16 PM
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
A. Memorandum
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission
From: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7118 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com
Date: January 7, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00703 – 3rd Avenue Rezone
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue
PARCEL IDs: 09-32-379-001 and 09-32-379-002
MASTER PLAN: Avenues Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: CN Neighborhood Commercial & SR-1A Special Development Pattern
Residential
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Avenues Local Historic Preservation District
REQUEST: Remarc Investments, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map
Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue. The applicant
would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development on the lots, however the
request is not tied to a development proposal.
Figure 1 – Zoning and vicinity map of the subject properties
1
ACTION REQUIRED: Because the subject properties are located in the Avenues Local
Historic District, Planning Staff is asking the Historic Landmark Commission to review the
request and identify any potential concerns as they relate to the integrity of the local historic
district. Any concerns identified by the HLC will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the
City Council on December 2, 2020. The City Council has final decision-making authority on the
matter.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal is to change the zoning designation of the
properties. 860 E 3rd Avenue is currently zoned CN and contain a gas station and auto repair. 868 E
3rd Avenue is currently zoned SR-1A and contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding
properties are predominantly residential, zoned SR-1A, and include single-family, two-family and
some multi-family dwellings.
The gas station and auto repair on 860 E 3rd Avenue date back to 1962 when the property was given a
building permit to operate a service station. The canopy was constructed later, but the use of the
property as commercial has been consistent for almost 60 years. Despite the age, the structures are
not considered contributing to the historic district. The land uses are nonconforming (not permitted
but created prior to the zoning) and the structures noncomplying to the current CN zoning.
The house on 868 E 3rd Avenue was built in 1892 and has always been a single-family dwelling. The
house is listed as contributing to the historic district. The use of the property is permitted in the
current SR-1A zoning district, but the small east side setback renders the existing structure
noncomplying. This property is included in the rezone request because of its lot size, which remains
partially unobstructed by buildings on the west side.
Figure 2 – Photo of the gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue
Figure 3 – Photo of the single-family dwelling at 868 E 3rd Avenue
2
The applicant has submitted a conceptual redevelopment plan for the properties under the proposed
zoning district. The anticipated development would include combining the two lots, preserving the
existing single-family dwelling, demolishing the commercial structures and constructing six attached
single-family dwellings on the properties. Because the two properties are within the Avenues Local
Historic district, any future development would have to be approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Three key considerations were discussed with the Planning Commission:
1. Development plans and rezone request
The existing structures on the properties are considered noncomplying to its current zoning
standards. If the rezone is approved, they will continue to be considered noncomplying to the
proposed zoning district without necessarily increasing the degree of noncompliance. New
development would have to comply with the proposed zoning standards, including landscape
buffers to adjacent parcels, or request modifications to the HLC.
The proposed R-MU-35 zoning district could result in more density within the combined
properties than it is currently attainable because it allows an additional 10 feet in building
height and due to easier siting of a new building. However, when compared to the CN zoning
district, which has no density requirement for mixed-use developments, and the size of the
combined properties, it is unlikely that the rezone would result in a significant increase in
number of units.
The required landscape buffer in a new development would help reduce use impacts and
HLC review could limit impacts related to massing, size and scale of future buildings. As far
as parking goes, the proposed zoning requires one stall per residential unit. Parking for
nonresidential uses vary depending on the intensity of the use. The requirement is considered
adequate for the properties because they are served by sidewalks, bike lanes and two bus
lines.
Figure 4 – Conceptual plan submitted by the applicant.
3
3rd Avenue
~-.-------------
----E ,.. E ,.. E .... .... ....
2 3 4 5 6
N
EB
2. Loss of a commercial use in a neighborhood node
The rezone could potentially result in the loss of commercial use in this node. Historic
research shows that the property at 860 E 3rd Avenue has had commercial uses for over a
century. Sanborn maps show a store siting on the corner of N street and 3rd Avenue between
1911 and 1950. A 1958 aerial photograph and permit records suggest that the store was
maintained until 1962, when the current use was established.
The Avenues Master Plan offers limited opportunities to add commercial zones in the
neighborhood, and the loss of an already designated commercial property could mean a
reduction of services available at the community level and could alter the character of this
neighborhood node. Planning staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the
rezone be conditioned on any new development including a commercial component to
maintain the neighborhood node and support activity on that corner. However, Planning
Commission found that the condition was not appropriate.
Figure 5 – 1911 and 1950 Sanborn maps show a corner store and a dwelling on the property.
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
Figure 6 – Aerial photograph shows that the two structures
existed at least until 1958.
4
31!? AV.
__ J"W-_.__j@4.~P,Z __
p_,.·:wp~,!f' -~--
~i . ~-' "' I ' It '
I
I
~
t i
''I:
~
~ ~
• ,,
" c3 ?. ~ 2
AV.
2
/0
t .t----;,;;;;;r:==;,:;::-=-----,.,k --
...
"
3. Expansion of nonresidential uses into residential area
The rezone would also allow for the conversion of the existing single-family dwelling into a
nonresidential use. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan is not clear on the
vision for the specific property and could be interpreted to accommodate current and
proposed zoning. Nonetheless, when considering the impact of a change of use, staff found
that the contributory status of the structure on 868 E 3rd Avenue hinders demolition and
limits the intensity of the house conversion.
A conversion to another use will likely trigger building improvements for compliance with
building and fire codes. Any exterior modifications to the structure would require a
Certificate of Appropriateness whether issued for minor modifications Administratively or
major modifications by the Historic Landmark Commission. The review would focus on
design elements, however, the limitations on reuse of the building could somewhat limit the
intensity of the house conversion.
Overall, staff finds that the applicable master plans contain city goals and policies that support the
proposed zoning map amendment. The Future Land Use Map of the Avenues Master Plan calls for
Business/Commercial on the corner of the 3rd Avenue and N Street. The proposal is also in line with
the policies related to the preservation of residential character and existing land use patterns found in
the Avenues Master Plan and those related to smart growth and compatibility found in Plan Salt
Lake.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on this information and the applicant’s proposal, Planning Staff is asking the Historic
Landmark Commission to identify any potential concerns with these zoning map and master plan
amendment requests as they relate to the integrity of the Avenues Local Historic District and local
preservation efforts. Discussion points may relate to:
• The compatibility of the proposed uses with the historic character of the area
• The R-MU-35 zoning standards as they relate to historic structures
• The potential new development that could occur as a result of this zoning change.
Any concerns identified by the HLC – if any – will be forwarded to the City Council for review. For
reference, the City Council will look to the following standards to guide their decision (21A.50.050.B):
1. 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;
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance;
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties;
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and
5. 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.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Zoning Map
B. Site Photographs
C. Application Materials
D. Master Plan Policies
E. Existing Conditions & Development Standards
6
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Zoning Map
7
Legend
Su bj ect P rop erty
Pa rcels
Zoning Dis t ric ts
CN Neighborhood Commercial
SR-1 A Sp ecial Deve lopm ent Pattern Re sidential
RM F-35 ModerateD ensity Multi-FamHy Re sidential
Salt l.al:e
-,.\tC ity Cernete,¥
" 2nc!Ave: 0
ATTACHMENT B: Site Photographs
Figure 7 – Properties located to the south of 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 8 – Southwest view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 9 – West view of 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 11 – Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 12 - Gas station and auto repair at 860 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 10 – Properties located west of 860 E 3rd Avenue
8
Figure 13 – House on 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 15 – Properties located north of the 860 E 3rd Avenue. Figure 16 – Properties located north of 868 E 3rd Avenue.
Figure 14 – Northwest view of 860 and 868 E 3rd Avenue.
9
ATTACHMENT C: Application Materials
10
REMARC INVESTMENTS |
BLALOCK & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO
THIRD AVENUE HOMES |
SLC PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
03 SEPTEMBER 2020
11
(REC. S 89°58'59" E 423.92' ) MEAS. 89°58'04" W 424.16'
N 89°59'38" W
51.39'
S
0
0
°
0
2
'
0
0
"
W
44
.
2
1
'
W-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-LW-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-LW-LW-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L W-L
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
COMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMM
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
CO
M
M
W-
L
W-
L
W-L
W-L
W-L
W-L
PARCEL #09-32-379-001
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS LLC
ADDRESS 860 E. THIRD AVE.
PARCEL # 09-32-379-002
OWNER, ROSE FAMILY
INVESTMENTS
ADDRESS 868 E. THIRD AVE.PARCEL # 09-32-379-003
OWNER GALIAN, JOHN
PARCEL # 09-32-379-009
OWNER WILL & ALEX LLC.
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
PA
D
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
ASPHALT
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
CANOPY
PILLAR
PILLAR
CANOPY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS
GRASS GRASS GRASS
3RD AVE.
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
WOOD &
WIRE FENCE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
GASOLINE
VALVE
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBINGCONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
CONCRETE
CURBING
PROJECT BENCHMARK
SEWER MANHOLE
EL.= 4510.00'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4518.49'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4520.76'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4516.14'
SURVEY C.P.
EL.= 4504.04'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
58" REBAR & CAP
SET BY McNEIL ENG.
EL.= 4515.64'
FOUND & ACCEPTED
RIVET SET IN WALKWAY
EL.= 4507.28'
BASIS OF BEARING (N 89°58'00" W 845.17' REC. ) AS PER PLAT G S.L.C. SURVEY
MON. AT M ST. & 3RD TO MON. AT O ST. 3RD AVE..
(R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
4
1
3
.
0
3
4
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
2
2
"
W
8
2
7
.
1
6
'
STREET MON. NOT FOUND AT
INTERSECTION OF 3RD. AVE. & N ST.
S 89°52'38" W 66.00'S 89°52'38" W 99.00'
N
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
E
8
2
.
5
0
'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
N 89°52'38" E 66.00'N 89°52'38" E 99.00'
S
0
0
°
0
0
'
5
3
"
W
8
2
.
5
0
'
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 2ND AVE
FOUND 2.5" FLAT BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION O ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 4 TH AVE.
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION M ST. & 3RD AVE
FOUND 2" ROUND BRASS CAP
AT INTERSECTION OF N ST. & 2 ND AVE.
N.W. COR. BLK. 24
PLAT "G" S.L.C. SUR.
NOT FOUND P.O.B.
1.4'
2.2'
1.6'
CHAIN &
TPOST FENCE
WOOD
FENCE
CHAIN FENCE
ON PROP LINE
CHAIN
FENCE
CHAIN
FENCE
CONCRETE (
R
E
C
.
N
0
°
0
0
'
2
4
"
W
4
1
2
.
9
1
3
'
)
M
E
A
S
.
0
0
°
0
0
'
4
2
"
E
4
1
3
.
1
3
'
EXISTING BUILDING
SIGN
VALVE
BUILDING STARTLES
PROP. LINE
0.4'
CONCRETE
POURCH
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
STORM DRAIN LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
COMMUNICATION LINE
AS PER BLUESTAKE
SEWER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
WATER LINE AS PER
BLUESTAKE
INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT
FILE # 1843610 BK. 1918 PG. 285
S
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
E
7.
0
0
'
S 89°52'38" W
7.00'
N
0
0
°
0
7
'
2
2
"
W
7.
0
0
'
N 89°52'38" E
7.00'
N 89°52'38" E
99.00'
SURVEYINGJOHANSON
SURVEY DESIGN SEPTIC PLANNINGSURVEYINGJOHANSONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSOOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOOOOOOOOSOOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOSOOOOSOOOOOOSOOSSOSOOSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Parcel # 09-32-379-001
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence South 82.5 feet; Thence East 99 feet; Thence N 82.5 feet; Thence West 99 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing +/- Acres
Parcel # 09-32-379-002
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 3 Block 24 Plat G Salt Lake City Survey,
Running thence West 4 Rods; Thence South 5 Rods; Thence East 4 Rods; Thence N 5 Rods to the
point of beginning
Containing 15.89 +/- Acres
SHEET-1
BROCK T. CISNEROS
This drawing is and at all times remains the exclusive property of Johanson
Surveying shall not be used with out complete authorization and written support.
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NO.
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
OVERSEEN BY:SHANE R. JOHANSON P.L.S.
REV #
DESCRIPTION DATE
STAMP
09-28-2020
S-20-118
I, R. Shane Johanson, Do hereby certify that I am a Professional Land Surveyor, holding
certificate No. 7075114, as prescribed under the laws of the State of Utah, and that I have made
a survey of the described tract of land as shown on this plat and that this survey retraces lot
lines and may have adjusted said lot lines to coincide with found evidence and other
interpolations based from ground measurements and found records. Furthermore I recognize
that other unwritten rights of ownership or lines of possession may exist, I do not imply to
certify any of those rights, unless agreed upon by the appropriate parties.
S.W. 1/4 SEC. 32 T.1 N. ; R.1 E.
10
1 inch = 10 ft.( IN FEET )
1050 20
P.O. BOX 18941
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84118
Shane Johanson P.L.S. 801-815-2541
This Survey was performed at the request of Oren Hillel For the purpose to locate
contours and elevations of the ground in relationship to the intended positioning of this lot. Also
for the possible purpose of lot sales, future building and landscaping. During the course of this
survey there was an area of encroachment discovered along the East boundary line of parcel #
09-32-379-002 said encroachment is a wood fence that crosses the bundary line by approx. 1.4'.
It is advised for the client to approach the land owner and resolve this encroachment before land
sales or development.
The basis of bearing was derived from the found local street monumintation and utilized
on this survey as N 89°58'00"W as shown on Plat G Salt Lake City Survey. Survey also coincide
with local property corners found as well as survey S2006-06-0507 on file with the official
records of Salt Lake City. by McNeil Eng.
Shown are Two foot Contours Highlighted at Ten foot Intervals as labeled. Found rebars,
plugs/rivets and street monumentation have been tied, utilized and shown on this survey. The
elevation base is determined by the field G.P.S. Projection Based on Utah North NAD 1983
Projection then rounded off to the nearest 10 foot mark for a more efficient Bench Mark base.
The project bench mark is 4510.00' = Found Sewer manhole at intersection of 3rd Ave. and N
Street as shown.
1. Surveyor has made no investigation or independent search for easements of record
encumbrances restrictive covenants ownership title evidence, or any other facts, conflicts, or
discrepancies which may be disclosed by the details of a currant title insurance policy.
2. See city and county planning, and zoning maps for information regarding setback, side yard,
and rear yard instances as well as other building, use restrictions, and requirements.
3. Utility pipes, wires etc. may not be shown on this map. Utility locations shown heron are as
per Bluestake at the time of this survey. Contractors builders and excavators shall verify the
location of all existing utilities prior to construction, and/or excavation. Contact blue stakes and
refer to utility maps for additional information.
4. It was relayed to this office that the existing structure's on Parcel # 09-32-379-001 were to be
demolished, this survey has taken this into consideration and the accuracies of the
improvements on said lot are not exact.
= STREET MONUMENT
= FOUND PROPERTY MARKER
= REPRESENTS PROPERTY LINE
= EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
= EXISTING WATER METER
= EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
= EXISTING GAS METER
= EXISTING UTILITY POLE
= EXISTING LIGHT POLE
= WOOD/VINYL FENCE
= CHAINLINK/WIRE FENCE
= STORM BOX CURB
= EXISTING WATER VALVE
= EXISTING UTILITY BOX
= EXISTING ROCK RETAINING WALL
S
G M
= SURVEY CONTROL POINT
22
r
-
----=--\ \
------------~
"S..
-I -
\ I
r
-I
/
I
\_
I
I I
I I
I I
I
D 0
◊
_/
-----r ~-r ;•~1
Ir 11
Ir~ L ~~ ..LL L_____/jl
------"'"-. & . . .
t w--,
--/'--------·-. --------------------
ATTACHMENT D: Master Plan Policies
Avenues Master Plan
The subject property is located within the Avenues Master Plan (adopted July 1987) and is designated
in the future land use map as “Business/Commercial".
The land use goal of that master plan is to:
Preserve the residential character and existing land use patterns in the Avenues
Community. Special emphasis should be placed on regulating foothill development and
preserving the historically significant sites and districts.
Relevant land use recommendations to this proposal include a general policy that additional
zoning changes to accommodate higher density multiple-family dwellings in the Avenues are
not desirable or needed, and that no immediate need exists for additional business property.
The plan indicates that additional retail services may eventually be needed. However, it
recommends that changing zoning to accommodate new retail service should not be made
until Avenues residents express the need for additional retail shopping and specific criteria
should be considered in the decision.
The historic preservation goal is also relevant to this proposal:
Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and the
established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic Districts.
Staff Discussion: The proposed rezone will continue to allow residential uses on the two properties
but could alter the existing land use pattern of the neighborhood. The difference between the current
zoning and the proposed is that for 860 E 3rd Avenue multifamily would be allowed without any
commercial component, and for 868 E 3rd Avenue multifamily and commercial uses would be
allowed. Because these properties are located in the Avenues Local Historic District and there are
tools in place for historic preservation, new land uses and new development would not diminish the
character of the area. The overlay district requires compatibility in the design of new buildings and
modifications to existing, which ensures the appropriate scale, size and form of structures.
Plan Salt Lake
This citywide master plan adopted in 2015 provides a vision and policies for the future of
Salt Lake City. The following principles and initiatives are relevant to this project:
Guiding Principle: Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiative:
• Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
Guiding Principle: Growing responsibly, while providing people with choices about
where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
Initiative:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities,
such as transit and transportation corridors.
• Encourage a mix of land uses.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
23
Guiding Principle: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels
throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to
changing demographics.
Initiative:
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that
have the potential to be people-oriented.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm
our past.
Initiative:
• Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
• Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Guiding Principle: A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an
innovative environment for commerce, entrepreneurial local business, and industry to
thrive.
Initiative:
• Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and neighborhood
business nodes.
Additionally, the proposal relates to several sustainable growth & development concepts
outlined in the master plan, including:
• Diverse mix of uses: By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building
types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where
they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and
evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide
will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and
provide people with real choices.
• Density: Density and compact development are important principles of
sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and
creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations,
including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major
transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more
efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to
where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less
automobile dependency and greater mobility.
• Compatibility: Compatibility of development generally refers to how a
development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.
New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development,
taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing
opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place.
Staff Discussion: As discussed above, the rezone would not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood. The proposal would however increase the development potential of the properties,
which could result in a land use that is more compatible with adjacent uses, serviced by existing
infrastructure, and with potential to be people-oriented. The allowance of multifamily uses would
provide a moderate increase in density that is appropriate for the area, especially considering the
HLC authority over the historic district. The historic preservation review required for new
24
construction and modifications of the properties would help to preserve the character of the area,
ensuring compatibility while allowing flexibility for growth. The proposed zoning allows for a mix of
land uses and would help support this neighborhood node and the city’s economy.
25
ATTACHMENT E: Existing Conditions & Development
Standards
860 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions CN Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use
Gas station/
Minor Auto
repair
Prohibited/
Conditional No Prohibited No
Lot Area 8,168 sq ft 16,500 sq ft max. Yes 5,000 sq ft min. for
conditional use Yes
Height ~15’ 25’ Yes 20’ nonresidential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front/
Corner ~ 10’ and 8.5’ 15’ min., 25’ max.
for 65% of façade No 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~0.5’ None Yes None Yes
Rear ~7.5’ 10’ No 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. No
Landscape
Buffer None 7’ if abutting
residential district No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Parking
setback None 30’ or behind
structure No Not permitted in
front/corner No
Open Space None None Yes 20% No
868 E 3rd Avenue
Development
standard
Existing
conditions SR-1A Complies R-MU-35 Complies
Land Use Single-family
dwelling Permitted Yes Permitted Yes
Lot Area 5,449 sq ft 5,000 sq ft min. Yes 2,500 sq ft min. for single-
family detached Yes
Lot Width 66’ 50’ Yes 25’ for single-family
detached Yes
Height ~23’ 23’ Yes 35’ residential Yes
Yard
setback:
Front ~7’ Existing Yes 5’ min., 15’ max. Yes
Interior ~45’ and 1.6’ 4’ and 10’ No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Rear ~22’ 25% of lot depth,
15’ min., 30’ max. Yes 25% of lot depth, 30’ max. Yes
Lot Coverage ~25% 40% Yes None Yes
Landscape
Buffer None None No 10’ if abutting single/two-
family residential district No
Open Space 65% None Yes 20% Yes
26
Land use comparison:
Use SR-1A CN R-MU-35
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise
specifically regulated elsewhere in this title
P P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P P
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less
in floor area)
C10,11 C9
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor
area)
C9
Animal, veterinary office C C
Art gallery P P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in
floor area)
P24 P3
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P P
Commercial food preparation P P
Community garden C P P
Crematorium C
Daycare center, adult P P
Daycare center, child C22 P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P
Dwelling, accessory unit P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, group home (large)14 C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P
Group home (small) when located above or below
first story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the
first story where the unit is not located adjacent to
street frontage18
P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P
27
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P P
Eleemosynary facility C C
Financial institution P P
Funeral home P
Governmental facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features
for security purposes
P
Home occupation P24 P23 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P
Library P C
Mixed use development P P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P
Municipal service use, including City utility use and
police and fire station
C C
Museum P C
Nursing care facility P
Office
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a
residential zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
C C
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C P C
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P P
Retail goods establishment P P
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop
with outdoor retail sales area
P P
Retail service establishment P P
Furniture repair shop C
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School, music conservatory C
School, professional and vocational C
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Seasonal farm stand P P
28
Studio, art P P
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23
Theater, live performance C13
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P2 P5
Vehicle, Automobile repair (minor) C
* Uses marked with a footnote have qualifying provisions.
29
4. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
B. Agenda/Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 7, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that
conducting the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location.
We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can
still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the
Historic Landmark Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide
general comments, email; historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex
at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-01072021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for December 3, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
Public Comments - The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed
on the agenda.
Work Session
1. Rezone at approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue - Remarc Investments,
representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from CN
(Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-
35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone
the properties to allow a multi-family development on the lots, however the request is not tied
to a development proposal. The properties are located within the Avenues Local Historic
District and any future demolition or new construction must be approved by the Historic
Landmark Commission. This is a work session only to solicit Historic Landmark Commission
input. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council on December 2, 2020 and the City Council will make the final decision at a later date.
The property is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact:
Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570 or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00703
2. Saxton-Bartlett Addition at approximately 732 East 200 South - The petitioners Nancy
Saxton and Jan Bartlett are requesting a Major Alteration and Special Exception approval for
the construction of a new rear addition to a contributing structure on the Freeze Mansion
Landmark Site, located at 732 E. 200 S. The subject property is listed on the Salt Lake City
Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark site. The proposed addition is approximately
726 square feet in size and would result in an overall building height of 22'9" feet. The property
is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential) Council
District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist (385) 226-7227
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNHLC2019-01151 & PLNHLC2019-
01088
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2021, unless
a special meeting is scheduled prior to that date.
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will
be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic
Landmark Commission.
Appeal of Historic Landmark Commission Decision
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a
decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer
within ten (10) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal
with the appeals hearing officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of
decision is issued
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Thursday, January 7, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission
meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete
commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Robert Hyde; Vice
Chairperson, Michael Vela; Commissioners, Babs De Lay, Jessica Maw, Kenton Peters, Victoria Petro-
Eschler, and David Richardson.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Molly Robinson,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; and Kelsey Lindquist, Senior
Planner.
Chairperson Robert Hyde read the emergency proclamation.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2020, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Richardson moved to approve the December 3, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Hyde stated he had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Vela stated he had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director, stated Wasatch Community Gardens contacted Planning Staff
stating they are excited about their property and extended an invitation to the Commission for a tour.
Rezone at approximately 860 and 868 East 3rd Avenue - Remarc Investments, representing the
property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and SR-
1A (Special Development Pattern Residential) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) at the above-listed
addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties to allow a multi-family development on the
lots, however the request is not tied to a development proposal. The properties are located within the
Avenues Local Historic District and any future demolition or new construction must be approved by the
Historic Landmark Commission. This is a work session only to solicit Historic Landmark Commission
input. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on
December 2, 2020 and the City Council will make the final decision at a later date. The property is located
within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff contact: Mayara Lima at (385) 377-7570
or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00703
Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file).
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 2
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Current use of the property East of the gas station
• Clarification on whether the existing property will be demolished
• Clarification on conceptual plan
• Whether there has been a study on how removing the gas station would affect the community
Marcus Robinson, Kevin Blalock and Ren Hillel, applicants, provided a presentation along with further
information.
The Commission, Applicants and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether the property will be condo units or rentals
• Clarification on whether the property is a PUD
• Whether the buildings would be zero setback to lot lines
• Landscape area and whether there are any common areas
• Parking
• Distance between the proposed development and the existing contributing structure
• Clarification on the distance to nearest gas station
• Clarification on height of historic house that’s part of the development
• Proposed footprint of the individual six units
• Whether a flat roof will be used
The Commission made the following comments:
• I believe that the proposal has been respectful in two directions to the existing property
• I don’t see any issue with the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
• I don’t think adding retail is necessary
• I think the commercial component is critical to the Avenues
• I think requiring the developer to put in mixed use with commercial residential is unrealistic
The commission were all in favor that they are not opposed to the rezone, but they do have concerns
about height and mass. They intend to address them at their later approval process and hope the Council
will take it into account when making their own decision.
Saxton-Bartlett Addition at approximately 732 East 200 South - The petitioners Nancy Saxton and
Jan Bartlett are requesting a Major Alteration and Special Exception approval for the construction of a
new rear addition to a contributing structure on the Freeze Mansion Landmark Site, located at 732 E.
200 S. The subject property is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark
site. The proposed addition is approximately 726 square feet in size and would result in an overall building
height of 22'9" feet. The property is located within the RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family
Residential) Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist (385)
226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNHLC2019-01151 & PLNHLC2019-
01088
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file).
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on previous work session
Commissioner Maw recused herself due to possible conflict of interest.
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission January 7, 2021 Page 3
Wayne Gordon, applicant, provided a presentation with further details.
Jan Barlett, Nancy Saxton and Angela Dean were also available or questions.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether all structure on landmark sites are considered to be contributing
• Clarification on the rear addition to the structure and whether it has gained historic significance
• Clarification on attachment D
The Commission made the following comments:
• What is being shown now is a lot more respectful to the existing original front structure than what
was proposed in March of 2020
• I’m wondering if it’s not in the Commission’s best interest to give the applicant a little more relief
with setbacks
The Commission and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Height of fence separating the lot line from the condo
The Commission further made the following comments:
• I agree with previous comments; I don’t have an issue with this proposal
• I just want to say thank you to the owners and architects for really taking to heart some hard things
to hear from the previous work session
The meeting adjourned.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Fro m:
To:
Subject:
Date:
HiMayara,
Vaafuti Tavana
Lima. Mayara
(EXTERNAL) Resident Letter of Su pport for the 860 E 3rd p roj ect.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:58 :03 PM
As a member o f t he Ave nues commun ity, I wou ld li ke t o f ully support t he zoni ng map
amendment proposed at 860 E 3rd . T he p roposal brings t o l ife an unde r uti lized gas sta t ion
corner w ith single fami ly homes t hat alig n with t he rest of t h e neighborhood . The proposa l
also inc ludes r estoring an d keep ing the historic home instead of demolis hing it. A project of
this na t u re w ill b r ing long-term r esiden t s t hat add value to t he commun ity. Th is deve lopment
w ill be tter t he wa lkabi li ty of 3rd avenue an d add much needed greenery and landscapi ng .
Futi T avan a/ 123 E. 2nd A ve #P3 , SLC . UT 840103
Futi T avana
U SA Men's National V olleyball Team Athlete
A lllllllli BYU 201 2
From:Amy Davidson
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703 Letter of Support
Date:Wednesday, November 25, 2020 9:14:33 AM
As an Avenues resident, I would like to fully support the zoning map amendment proposed at 860 E
3rd Ave. I walk by this corner on a daily basis and I love the idea of bringing in some homes that fit in with
the neighborhood but in a new and unique way. It would really help this neighborhood thrive. I am also
interesting that there might be some mixed-use added in. Anything we can do to keep our neighborhoods
walkable. I would love to have some new places I can shop and eat and meet with friends. This kind of
friendly environment is an absolute necessity for our community.
Amy Davidson
Avenues Resident since 2005
From:Leo Masic
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 3rd Ave and N St
Date:Sunday, November 29, 2020 12:54:56 PM
Hi Mayara,
I’m an Avenues resident. I’d like to express my support for the proposed rezoning at 3rd Ave
and N Street.
The Avenues has a wonderful location between downtown and the university. This makes it an
appealing place for young professionals like myself who work downtown, and for students
going to the U (which I’m also currently doing.) But the cost of housing up here is pretty high.
Anything that can be done to ameliorate this situation is welcome, including the addition of
housing in the lower Avenues. This proposal is located close to multiple bus lines, and UTA
has plans to increase high-frequency bus routes in the Avenues in their recently adopted five-
year plan (including on 3rd Ave, South Temple, and 6th Ave)—which makes multifamily
even more viable.
Thanks,
Leo Masic
89 C St
From:Tamara Pitman
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) case PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Friday, November 27, 2020 2:49:48 PM
As the owner of a property at the corner of n st, and third ave, and another home only two
blocks away on n st and first ave, I am deeply distressed at the idea of the loss of our gas
station and repair shop which adds so much to the neighborhood.
the last thing we need is another apartment building.
pls note to Chris Warton that i am unable to attend the public hearing meeting but ask that my
objections, as a direct neighbor, be noted.
From:Norris, Nick
To:Planning (All)
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Dec 2nd Meeting
Date:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:03:29 AM
FYI, comments from the same person on each item on the PC agenda tomorrow. If you have one of
these items, please add it to your record.
NICK NORRIS
Director
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6173
CELL 801-641-1728
Email nick.norris@slcgov.com
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.OurNeighborhoodsCAN.com
From: Zachary Dussault
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:26 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Dec 2nd Meeting
Hello,
I am unable to attend the meeting this Wednesday and I just wanted to provide a few comments to
the commission regarding the agenda items. I know individual emails are usually attached to each
proposal, but I just wanted to combine them all into one as I usually speak to all the items.
1. I am in favor of this project and hope it is approved. It is important to remember what is being
requested as a variance to the code and what is allowed by right. The applicant is asking for 3' of
height and a total building size of over 15,000sqft. I understand that parking is the main issue that
neighbors have, and I just wanted to offer a counter to that in saying that I believe that this project
has too much parking. We are building housing today that will hopefully be around 50-60 year from
now at a minimum. If in 50-60 years we still live in a city where every family owns one or more cars,
we have failed. If we care about the things we claim to care about as a community; climate change,
housing affordability, improved public transit, more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, racial
equity, air quality, ect; We need to start taking radical action now. Car-orientated development is
not sustainable. It has done immense damage to our city, our air, and our people. Salt Lake City used
to have a world-class streetcar system, but we ripped up all the rails to make more room for cars.
Dense, human-oriented development not only works, it improves lives by every metric imaginable.
I realize a lot of that last bit got a little manifesto-ish, but I think it's important to realize that city
planning is a science, not a matter of opinion. When you go to your doctor, you don't say to him/her
"I think I need a higher dose of that medication." I think it's time we start listening to the experts
who universally agree that American cities have way too much parking. The leading authority on
parking in cities, Donald Shoup, argues that mandatory parking minimums not only encourage
sprawl, but subsidize cars as a form of transportation by hiding the real costs of providing parking in
the form of higher rents and retail prices. He has many published works on the subject of parking,
and I encourage the commission and those in favor requiring developers to provide more parking to
examine his work.
Sorry for the long winded response to this item, I'm sure I would have gone over my minute here, I'll
try to keep the rest brief.
2. I am in favor of this project, again it appears parking is the main issue. I think I covered my stance
on parking adequately in the previous response.
3.I am in support of this request. I think the planned development would be a welcome addition to
the densifying N Temple Corridor. The current alley does not provide a mid-block walkway, thus I
think the vacation would not negatively affect the public.
4.I love the low parking count. No reason to have excessive parking in this area of downtown with
the proximity of TRAX, Frontrunner, and frequent bus service. However, I think the facade facing
600W is absolutely horrid. I would like to see the commercial space on the corner of 600W and 200S
rotated so the entrance is facing 600W and some of the balconies facing that direction. In this
current design 600W has ZERO street engagement besides the windows of the 1st floor commercial
space facing west. It looks like those window slats facing west are at the end of internal corridors
that no one will ever be looking out. I know the view in that direction is not very pleasant right now,
but we must think long term here. I hate to be against this project because it has so many good
things going for it, and I love nothing more than seeing surface parking lots go away. If these
modifications made the project unviable I would prefer this version over nothing, but I hope these
issues can be addressed easily, and at a minimum have the corner retail space rotated to face 600W.
5.I support this rezone. I also love the condition of requiring a retail space on the corner. I think this
would facilitate great street interaction.
Well I think that's everything. Really bummed I can't make this meeting, looks like a lot of great
projects. I'll see everyone on the next one!
Zachary Dussault
YIMBY
Salt Lake City Resident - District 4
From:Merrilee Morgan
To:Zoning
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Project on 3rd Avenue and N Street/ PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:26:29 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to weigh in on my opinion regarding the above named project. As a real estate
professional, I see a need for this product. I worked to help sell the townhouses at 271 No.
Vine Street for the last 90 days and it consistently surprised me how many potential clients
came from the Avenues area, looking to downsize.
When the upper Avenues area was originally developed, the homes were typically larger than
3000 square feet. Now, those same homeowners, many of whom grew up in the Avenues,
raised their families in the Avenues, are looking to downsize and stay in the Avenues. They
are faced with very few options and often leave the area to accommodate their current lifestyle
needs.
As a long time resident with a history in the Avenues, I'd like to see smaller developments
approved like the one named in an effort to keep the area looking and feeling historic while
providing area residents a smaller home choice. I think the plans presented to the Greater
Avenues Community Council in November are in alignment with the area and are in keeping
with the historic neighborhood.
As a resident of the Avenues, I am fully aware of the rage my neighbors felt when Ivory
Homes presented their plan to develop F Street. I am sensitive to the residents wanting to
preserve the integrity of our community. With that, I feel the proposed project serves the
community well.
Please contact me if you want to know more about me or how I feel about the proposed
development.
Warmest Regards,
Merrilee Morgan
From:mroot89y
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703 LETTER OF SUPPORT
Date:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:24:16 PM
Hi Mayara,
I am an Avenues resident and I wanted to take a moment to express my
support in favor of the proposed zoning amendment for the properties at 860
and 868 E 3rd Avenue. The proposed change will bring vitality and energy to
this corner location, and improve the overall walkability of the
neighborhood. I am in favor of saving the existing historic home, as well, and
welcome single-family home ownership instead of more for-rent apartments.
Matt Ripperton
From:kathia dang
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:19:07 AM
Dear Mayara,
It has been brought to my attention that a zoning map amendment has been proposed for the property
located at 860 East 3rd Ave. My husband and I moved our family to the avenues in 2005. As an Avenues
resident, I would like to fully support the zoning map amendment proposed at 860 E 3rd Ave.
This proposal brings to life an underutilized gas station corner with single family homes that are
intended to align with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposal also includes keeping and
renovating the adjacent historic home instead of demolishing it. A project of this nature will bring
long-term residents that add value to the community. This development will better the walkability of
3rd Avenue and replace expanses of concrete with planting and greenery.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathia Dang
1405 East Penrose Drive
SLC, Utah 84103
Name Address Unit City State ZIP
175 O STREET LLC PO BOX 268 ESCALANTE UT 84726
3RD & M TOWNHOUSES CONDM C 154 N 'M' ST # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALE GICQUEAU 1930 VILLAGE CENTER CIR LAS VEGAS NV 89134
ALEXANDER M MCCOMBS 90 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ANDREA GLOBOKAR 863 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ANNE MARIE L ALFRED; CAROL 122 N N ST #9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BECKIE A BRADSHAW LIVING T 878 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BUSHWEEK, LLC PO BOX 2753 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
COLOMBIA‐WASATCH LLC 535 SW WINTER CIR PULLMAN WA 99163
DANIELLE A ANGLE 122 N N ST #6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID & TAMARA PITMAN FAMI 860 E FIRST AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID E BONE; CAROLYN A BO 874 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID R BEAUFORT; M LINDA 116 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DOMINIC J SMITH; SHALENE A 1820 E SIGGARD DR MILLCREEK UT 84106
DP FAM TRUST 888 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DREW SHARP; SARAH WILLS (J 821 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DRW FAM TR 122 N N ST # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
EDUARDO A VALDEZ; MARTHA T 879 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
FRED J EVANS 133 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
G & A ENTERPRISES LC PO BOX 58493 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84158
GREATER AVENUES APARTMENTS 910 E KINGSMILL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
HAO NGOC EVANS TRUST 12/23 887 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JALEENA A FISCHER‐JESSOP; 859 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JAMES CARRINGTON; PATRICK 933 S 270 E SALEM UT 84653
JAMES EDWARD HUGHES; HA NA 903 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JARED MEADORS PO BOX 541842 HOUSTON TX 77254
JEAN‐JACQUES D GROSSI; SON 124 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JEFFREY A GOSZTYLA 876 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JERRY D GODWIN; LISA L GOD 122 N N ST #7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JO ANN WHIRLEDGE 103 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN C CANDELARIA 1564 W ALMOND LN WEST JORDAN UT 84088
JOHN GALIAN 872 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN SPEED & GINETTE IRENE 124 N M ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JONATHAN E HOLLOWAY 2671 W EDSBROOK PL TUCSON AZ 85741
JULIAN CHAN 4120 BONA VILLA DR OGDEN UT 84403
JUNE B HANSEN 119 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JUSTIN B ROSENGREEN; ALICI 172 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KATHERINE G HOLMSTROM; SCO 879 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KIMBERLY FRAZER MCKINLEY 89 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KIRSTEN E HEPBURN; KIRSTEN 870 E FOURTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LANDWEST LLC; B A W LV TR 2074 E MARYLAND CIR HOLLADAY UT 84124
LESLIE G KELEN; JOYCE A KE 128 N M ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LINDA GAIL KUHN LERUTH; MI 122 N N ST #1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MARY A STONEMAN 865 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MICHAEL G CRANDALL 118 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NATHAN R DUNCAN; STACEY MC 1077 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NOTTING COURT CONDOMINIUMS 1949 E MURRAY HOLLADAY RD HOLLADAY UT 84117
PAIGE M HEYN 122 N N ST #10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICIA OWEN 884 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL J SVENDSEN; MARY L PI 903 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
R&JKFT 827 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RACHEL LEGREE 853 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBERT B LEA; KIMBERLY M L 122 N N ST # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBERT D HANSEN; MARYAN HA 659 N LOMA VISTA CIR MESA AZ 85213
ROGER BORGENICHT; KATHERIN 881 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROSE FAMILY INVESTMENTS LL 2082 E 9060 S SANDY UT 84093
SANDRA KOPANON 859 E THIRD AVE # 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SEBLASER, LLC 1768 S RIDGE POINT DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
SIERRA P HENDRIKSEN 122 N N ST # 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
STEVEN E SWENSON 120 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SUSAN L DICKINSON 818 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TERESA WHARTON; KYLE WHART PO BOX 263 MIDWAY UT 84049
THE VICTORIAN APARTMENTS, 1582 E PARK PLACENORTH HOLLADAY UT 84121
THIRD AVENUE INVESTMENTS, 11113 S OLD ROSEBUD LN SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095
TOTH‐STOESSER LLC 327 N I ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRISTAN KM MOORE; KRISTY L 817 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1791 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 164 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 881 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 111 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 868 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 868 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED; ROBE PO BOX 11959 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147
VICTORIA ALMEIDA 86 N N ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WALTER M WILHELM; NATALIE 871 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WALTER S PALMER; SANDRA K 81 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WILL & ALEX LLC 10799 LAS POSAS RD CAMORILLO CA 93012
WILLIAM THOMAS XANDO NEVIN 118 N O ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ZACHARY E IMEL; KAREN W TA 870 E SECOND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
Current Occupant 167 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 821 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 825 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 827 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 829 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 173 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 182 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 166 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 870 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 874 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 876 E 4TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 175 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 167 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 851 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 859 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 867 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 873 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 3RD AVE #EAST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 881 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 887 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 801 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 818 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 820 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 817 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 823 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 827 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 149 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 127 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 123 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 823 E 2ND AVE #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 109 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 860 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 868 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 872 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 878 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 884 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 886 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 888 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 119 N O ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 128 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 117 N O ST #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 853 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 859 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 863 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 865 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 871 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 879 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 881 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 866 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 870 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 868 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #2 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #3 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #4 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #5 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST #8 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 122 N N ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 903 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 906 E 3RD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 903 E 2ND AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
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: 4/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/2/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Justin Rodriguez as a member
of the Police Civilian Review Board.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
April 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Police Civilian Review
Board:
Justin Rodriguez – to be appointed for a three year term starting the date of City Council advice and
consent and ending on September 2, 2024.
I respectfully ask 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
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 5/18/2021
Date Sent to Council: 5/18/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Raheem Bennett as a member of
the Police Civilian Review Board.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Police Civilian Review
Board:
Raheem Bennett – to be appointed for a three year term ending September 2nd, 2024, starting the
date of City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask 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: 5/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/18/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Tina Padilla as a member of the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City:
Tina Padilla – to be appointed for a term ending in exactly four years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask 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: 5/18/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/18/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/18/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Amy Hawkins as a member of
the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 18, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City:
Amy Hawkins – to be appointed for a term ending in exactly four years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask 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: 5/26/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/26/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/26/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission.
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Brenda Scheer as a member
of the Planning Commission.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 26, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership re-appointment to the Planning
Commission:
Brenda Scheer– to be re-appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of
City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this re-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: 5/27/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/27/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/27/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Board.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Joshua Poppel as a member
of the Bicycle Advisory Board.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 27, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership re-appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Board:
Joshua Poppel – to be re-appointed for a final three year term starting the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this re-appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
•..
•
-~
~
J}
'
,,
,
,
,
~.
;}
,;
,
,
,
_
y
.. s,
.
,
.. <-·
7
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: 5/27/2021
Date Sent to Council: 5/27/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/27/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of SLC.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Re-Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of
SLC.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and re-appoint Cindy Gust-Jenson as a
member of the Housing Authority of SLC.
/
,. ,
I~ il
\ tr,j
\., ... l
,, ,,,,, 11111 ,,~··'
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
May 27, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership re-appointment to the Housing Authority of
SLC:
Cindy Gust-Jenson – to be re-appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this re-appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File