06/08/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 8, 2021 Tuesday 3:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
3:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Limited Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day.
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 13:27:56
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
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period, you may do so through the Webex platform. To learn how to
connect through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options, please visit our website or
call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more.
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/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All
agenda-related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the
Council Members and added to the public meeting record. View comments by visiting the
Council Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19, the March 2020 Earthquake, and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work, projects, and staffing, etc.; and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~ 4:00 p.m.
15 min.
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 Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 860 and 868 East
3rd Avenue ~ 4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about 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.
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
4.Informational: Funding Our Future Recap ~ 4:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Funding Our Future initiative and proposed
allocations for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Funding Our Future is an initiative to address four critical needs: public safety,
affordable housing, improved streets, and better transit options. Voters approved a
general obligation streets reconstruction bond and the Council approved a 0.5% sales tax
increase in 2018. Funding is allocated to each of those needs during the City’s annual
budget process.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Unresolved Issues ~ 4:55 p.m.
120 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Unresolved issues are follow-up items to any questions or
requests that Council Members have raised during the Department budget briefings.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021; Thursday, June 3, 2021; and Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
The Council will pause the briefing for unresolved issues at 5:40 p.m. for
board appointment interviews, dinner and for the limited formal meeting.
They will resume this item after the limited formal meeting.
6.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) –
Justin Rodriguez ~ 5:40 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Justin Rodriguez prior to considering appointment 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
7.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) –
Raheem Bennett ~ 5:45 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Raheem Bennett prior to considering appointment 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
8.Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City – Tina
Padilla ~ 5:50 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Tina Padilla prior to considering appointment 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
9.Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City – Amy
Hawkins ~ 5:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Amy Hawkins prior to considering appointment 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
10.Dinner Break ~ 6:00 p.m.
60 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
11.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Insurance and Risk
Management Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Insurance and Risk
Management fund budget, which accounts for employee insurance plans, for Fiscal Year
2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
14.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, 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.
Administrative Updates
June 8, 2021
COVID -19 update
•No SLC zip codes are above the 191/100,000 crude
positivity rate.
•Last week, Salt Lake County entered the "Low
Transmission"level, according to State guidelines.
•Vaccinations in the Central City and West Side areas are
increasing by 2-3% per week, but still behind the east side,
which is 50-60% fully vaccinated.
Current metrics
COVID -19 update
West Side vaccination rates
May 18 May 25 June 1 June 8
84101 52.81% full
16.52%partial
55.8%full
15.68% partial
58.73%full
13.99% partial
60.80%full
13.11 partial
84104 25.99% full
9.32% partial
28.37%full
9.03% partial
30.31%full
9.03% partial
31.82% full
8.03% partial
84116 29.72% full
9.08% partial
31.05%full
9.06% partial
33.74%full
8.39% partial
35.07%full
8.01% partial
COVID -19 update
May 18 May 25 June 1 June 8
Asian 40.19%42.58%44.53%46.14%
White 38.39%40.55%42.19%43.58%
Black or
African
American
22.79%24.99%27.03%28.58%
American
Indian
25.84%27.96%29.86%31.27%
Native
American or
Pacific Islander
20.51%22.08%23.51%24.74%
Hispanic
ethnicity
21.84%24.21%26.14%27.70%
Non-Hispanic
ethnicity
37.48%39.46%40.99%42.28%
Fully vaccinated demographic totals countywide
COVID -19 vaccination events
Date & Time Location Event
Sunday, June 6, 12-2 p.m.Liberty Park Pride
Monday, June 7, 5-8 p.m.Washington
Square
Pride
Tuesday, June 8, 5-8 p.m.Jordan Park Food Bank Drive
Thru
Friday, June 11, 12-4pm Jordan Park Food Bank Drive Thru
Friday, June 11, 5-8 p.m.Liberty Park Liberty Park Farmer’s Market
Thursday, June 17, 5pm-8pm Sherwood Park
Emergency Responder
Pandemic Leave
•ERPL usage has increased by 9 this past pay period, totaling 1,368
utilizations.
Federal Families First
Coronavirus Act / Emergency
Pandemic Leave (FFCRA/EPL)
•This week EPL usage has increased by 2, totaling 328
utilizations.
Homelessness update
Men's HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total
Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg. number of beds occupied each
night 255 186 174 614
Avg number of beds unoccupied each
night 45 14 26 86
Avg % of beds occupied each night 84.9%93.1%86.8%87.8%
Avg % of beds unoccupied each night 15.1%6.9%13.2%12.2%
Previous week: No data due to Memorial Day
Current week: 5/31 -6/4
Community
Commitment
Program
update
Next resource fair:J une 16th at Cottonwood Park from 9:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m.
The HEART team is working with Advantage Services to place
trash receptacles throughout the City in places that frequently see
abandoned debris.
The following locations have been suggested:
•North Temple from 800-900 W
•800 S from Main to West Temple
•Near Geraldine E. King Center
•Near Gail Miller Resource Center
•Rio Grande Street
•Cottonwood Park/Jordan River Trail
•500 S 500 W
Overflow updates
•Airport Inn (100 guests) is closing on June
15 for renovation and anticipate a
September re-opening.
•Vulnerable populations hotel (100+
guests)plans to close at the end of June.
•Motel Winter Overflow Program (77 women)
was extended until October thanks to some
additional state funding.
SLC Corps
Magnolia Apartments
service project
www.slc.gov/mayor/slc -corps/
2021 Selection Process Analysis
Background Investigations
Unit 1
Applicant
Demographics
06.08.2021
Applicant Demographics 2
Demographics
Applicant Demographics from
January 2021 to June 3, 2021
613 applications received for sworn
positions
96.7% (593) of applications received
were for new hire/entry level positions
3.3% (20) applications received were for
lateral hire positions
06.08.2021
Demographics -Category 3
Demographics
Applicant Demographics from
January 2021 to June 3, 2021
78.7% (483) of applications received
were from Utah residents
21.2% (130) applications received were
from other states or provinces in Canada
06.08.2021
Demographics -Residency 4
New Hire
Statistics
5
New Hire –Utah Residents
468 new hire sworn applicants are residents of Utah. The graphic depicts the composition of this category of applicant.
In Process
Potential future employees
Withdrawn
Applicants withdrew with stated cause, failed to participate, or never
intended to be employed (assumption 1)
Disqualified
Applicants no longer
considered for employment
29%
8%63%
In Process
Disqualified
Withdrawn
06.08.2021
Utah Applicants Status –New Hire 6
New Hire –Non-Residents
125 new hire sworn applicants were not residents of Utah. The graphic depicts the composition of this category of applicant.
In Process
Potential future employees
Withdrawn
Applicants withdrew with stated cause, failed to participate, or never
intended to be employed (assumption 1)
Disqualified
Applicants no longer
considered for employment
24%
3%
73%
In Process
Disqualified
Withdrawn
06.08.2021
Non -Resident Applicants Status –New Hire 7
Lateral Hire
Statistics
8
Lateral Hire –Utah Residents
15 lateral hire sworn applicants are residents of Utah. The graphic depicts the composition of this category of applicant.
* There are no current in-process lateral applicants
Withdrawn
Applicants withdrew with stated cause, failed to participate, or never
intended to be employed (assumption 1)
Disqualified
Applicants no longer
considered for employment
33%
67%
Disqualified
Withdrawn
06.08.2021
Lateral Hire Utah Residents -Status 9
Lateral Analysis
Withdrawn Utah Lateral Applications
4 applicants withdrew to stay with their current
agency
4 applicants stopped communication with the
City and were determined to be self-withdrawn
2 applicants accepted jobs at different agencies
06.08.2021
Lateral Withdrawn Applications -Lateral 10
Lateral Hire –Non-Residents
All 4 lateral applicants have withdrawn from the process. One potential applicant contacted the Background Unit directly for information but did not formally apply. This applicant is counted with an asterisk.
Withdrawn
•Three non-resident lateral applicants were hired by a different
agency
•One non-resident lateral applicant did not engage the City after completing the application process
80%
20%
After Application
Other
06.08.2021
Non -Resident Withdrawals 11
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
REMARC INVESTMENTS |
BLALOCK & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO
THIRD AVENUE HOMES |
SLC PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION
03 SEPTEMBER 2020
12
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
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
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
ATTACHMENT 2
SALT LAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR
EVALUATION SUMMARIES
41
42
ATTACHMENT 3
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
BUILDING VALUATION DATA –
FEBRUARY 2020
43
44
45
ATTACHMENT 4
MITIGATION OF RESIDENTIAL
HOUSING LOSS APPLICATION
46
47
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
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
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
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
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
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
From:Jared M
To:Lima, Mayara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) case number PLNPCM2020-00703
Date:Friday, December 4, 2020 8:59:40 AM
Hello, Maya.
I just picked up my mail from my PO Box here in Houston yesterday and
found a post card in it from the SLC Planning Commission regarding a
proposed / requested change of zoning on a piece of property directly
across the street from me.
Unfortunately the meeting was 2 days ago... and I'm in Houston right now
anyway.
However, two things:
(1) It sure would be nice if these notices were sent out SOONER. My post
card is post-marked Nov 20th... the meeting was Dec 2nd. Let's say it
takes 4 of 5 days even to get into my mailbox--and I happen to check my
mail that day--that's still only a week's notice.
So, unless the city really just doesn't WANT people to show up at these
meetings... which I suspect is the case... then there should be a longer
notice period required--and really, even multiple notices and / or
multiple forms of notices. (This is 2020 for god's sake. Everyone has
a cell phone / text... everyone has email... most people still have a
mailing address... so it probably wouldn't be that difficult to start
and maintain a database with multiple contact forms--particularly for
people who opt in / WANT to stay more informed about what's going on
around them.
I would think at least THIRTY days would be a normal, legal notification
period. A week is simply not respectful or sufficient.
(2) I jumped online and can see that the "decision" of the planning
commission on this particular matter was "a positive recommendation was
forwarded to the City Council". But what I don't know--that I'd like to
know--is what a change in zoning from the current "CN" and "SR-1A" would
mean in terms of not just what COULD be built on those lots... but what
WOULD be built on those lots.
In general, I'm not opposed to reasonable, smart, respectful
re-development. I'm a builder. I've asked for--been granted--and been
denied--variances and permits for various projects in the course of my
own businesses. And sometimes I've been granted them... sometimes not.
But where there is currently a corner gas station and a house--across
the street from me--I certainly don't want a modern, multi-story
apartment building.
This area is a historic district... so I'm sure there will be many more
steps in the process before anything is approved. But I do think it's a
little early in the game to be granting this applicant a blanket change
in zoning--without any specific project or proposal attached. So,
though I wouldn't be opposed to a change in zoning for the right
Page | 3
FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 FY2021-22
(Proposed)
Housing $4,226,161 $5,169,408 $6,371,124 $5,270,622
Public Safety $5,983,187 $13,014,956 $9,401,531 $14,591,429
Streets/Infrastructure $3,150,000 $2,990,581 $2,491,531 $3,823,247
Transit $5,390,653 $7,687,055 $6,408,692 $7,247,149
CIP $3,750,000 $4,780,000 $3,780,000 $3,580,000
Fund Balance*$2,500,000 $900,000 --
TOTALS $25,000,001 $34,542,000 $28,452,878 $34,512,447
*Note Fund Balance is not shown in the line chart above
Overview: FY2021-22 Allocations
The funding recommended for FY2021-22 maintains initial investments in transit, street maintenance, and housing,
with a larger percentage of the full-year revenue allocated to the Public Safety category, in accordance with the
expanded definition to include eight new vehicles for the Fire Department, eight more full time 911 Department
dispatchers, and six more full time social worker mental health responders. Most program descriptions and outcomes
can be found in Attachment 1. In this budget, positions no longer receiving Funding Our Future allocations appear to
continue with funding elsewhere, although perhaps with responsibilities beyond the critical need categories. For
example, a 2020 Census Coordinator FTE has been reclassified to another title with different duties and is now funded
by the General Fund instead of the housing category of Funding Our Future because the census is over.
Notable Housing Changes
Funding proposed for housing programs has decreased by $1,100,502 since last year. This reflects one position
transferred out of Funding Our Future, the elimination of Community Land Trust funding, and reductions to several
programs.
•The Census coordinator position has been
moved to the Mayor’s Office with
expanded/new responsibilities. This is no
longer a Funding Our Future staff position.
•$62,000 increase for the Shared Housing
program.
•$325,380 increase to Service Models for the
Most Vulnerable
•No proposed funding for the Community Land
Trust (prior year funding was not spent and
recaptured for other uses)
•$297,000 reduction to the Expanded Housing
Opportunity (Landlord Insurance) Program
•$228,380 reduction in Incentivized Rent
Assistance
•$450,000 reduction for Mortgage Assistance
Notable Public Safety Changes
Funding to the Public Safety category has increased by $4,839,898 since last year. All increases are for line items
falling within the expanded definition of public safety.
•Emergency Management Phase 2: $236,448
•Fire Vehicle Replacements: $4,000,000
•Mental Health Responders: $450,000
•Public Safety Servers and Infrastructure:
$350,000
•Dispatchers: $153,450
Notable Transit Changes
Funding to the Transit category has increased by $838,457 since year last. Allocations for key routes and mobilization
in previous years have been above what was needed for the contract. The remainder is currently in a Transit holding
account with a balance of $1,879,654 and is proposed to be used for the 600 North corridor transformation project
which will improve the street for 600 North frequent transit bus services, add protected bike lanes and other complete
streets enhancements pending additional public engagement.
•Decrease of $76,198 removing a Civic
Engagement Specialist
•Reduction of $200,000 for Transit Key Routes
(the amount budgeted in previous years
Page | 4
allowed for contract negotiations but was
typically more than needed.)
•Reduction of $1,100,000 for transit route
improvements
•Increase of $1,100,000 for on-demand ride
services Trips to Transit pilot program
•Increase of $1,101,319 for 1000 North
mobilization (mobilization costs are separate
from the bus service, but helps launch the new
routes)
Notable Streets/Infrastructure Changes
The Streets category has increased overall by $1,331,716. It maintains prior year funding for streets maintenance and
crews and adds new funds for equipment and concrete maintenance.
•$100,000 decrease to the allocation for new
infrastructure projects
•$950,916 increase for equipment
•$207,500 increase for concrete road
maintenance
•Increased asphalt budget by $120,000
•Addition of a new FTE for $53,000
$87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond Overview:
When approved by voters, as this one was, a General Obligation Bond is issued by the City and paid with property tax
revenue. A key point in favor of the General Obligation Streets Reconstruction Bond is the accountability legally
embedded in the process – the City is prohibited from spending the funds for any purpose other than those described
on the ballot. After approval, the City has up to ten years to issue bonds and can choose to spread them out over
multiple issuances. Once issued, the City has three years to spend the bond funds, so timing is a key consideration
when planning bond sales. Factors involved in issuance timing can include bond market conditions, impact on property
taxes, staff capacity to utilize funds and labor market conditions.
This bond has seen two of the four planned issuances, for a total of $40 million which is anticipated to fund road
reconstruction projects through 2022. See attachment 3 for more details.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Continuing Four Critical Needs Areas – The Council may wish to discuss whether the critical need areas
of 2018 are still representative of constituent priorities for FY22 and beyond, and whether other needs are
sufficiently narrow or broad to represent public priorities. The 2018 needs were initially identified in a small
survey conducted by a previous administration but have been the subject of robust engagement. A second
resident survey conducted as part of public engagement showed strong support for the four categories. Staff
recommends continued thorough engagement for any planned changes to critical needs.
a. Expansion of Public Safety Category Example – The Council indicated support in previous years to
expand the Public Safety category to include the Fire Department, Emergency Management Division,
and 911 Department. FY22’s proposed allocations reflect the City’s growing understanding of the
complexities of public safety and includes funding for fire apparatus, 911 dispatch, and mental health
responders.
b. Equity and Funding Our Future – In the past year, the City has received an abundance of feedback
indicating that citywide equity is of high importance to Salt Lake City residents. This is a multi-faceted
priority that touches on Housing, Safety, Transit, and even the Council’s original priorities of ensuring
that street maintenance and road reconstruction benefits are distributed throughout all districts. The
Council may wish to discuss whether to formally acknowledge equity advancement as a qualifying
critical need or underlying theme in funding decisions.
c. Future Resident Surveys – The Council may wish to discuss mechanisms to allow the critical needs to
evolve. One option discussed in previous years to ensure this funding serves constituent priorities is to
use feedback from the Biennial Resident Survey (attachment 5) to inform allocations.
2.Funding Contingencies if Sales Tax is Above or Below Projections – The Council may wish to discuss
with the Administration what funding contingencies should be created if sales tax revenues are above or below
projections. In prior years, the Council requested the Administration recommend cuts if revenues are under
budget and set aside funds for CIP road projects if revenues are higher than budgeted.
3.Accountability and Tracking for the Public – The Council may wish to review the public dashboard with
the Administration. The Council approved all Funding Our Future budgets conditioned upon the
Administration “creating and maintaining a publicly available dashboard reflecting revenues received and
Page | 5
actual uses.” The resulting website (www.fundingourfutureslc.com) receives periodic updates for the public to
learn about and stay informed on the Funding Our Future initiative which includes the sales tax revenues and
the voter-authorized $87 million Streets Reconstruction General Obligation Bond.
4.Written Updates – The Council may wish to discuss if the semiannual updates meet the original intent and if
additional information could be provided next fiscal year. The Council approved all Funding Our Future
budgets conditioned upon the Administration providing semiannual updates on sales tax revenues and uses of
funds. Updates in the past year were provided in writing, but the Council has the option to schedule briefings
when these reports are received.
5.Administration Percentage for Housing Pilot Program Funds – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if housing pilot program funds awarded to outside organizations should include a portion
for administration of the program. This approach is like the Federal Housing and Urban Development grants
(CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA) which set a percentage limit from 3% to 20% to cover program
administration costs.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Funding Our Future Year 2, Quarter 4 Update
Attachment 2: Annual Staffing Update for FY20
Attachment 3: Funding Our Future Bond and CIP projects 2020, Quarter 2
Attachment 4: FY22 Funding Our Future Year to Year changes
Attachment 5: Biennial Resident Survey
Glossary
Budget Amendment - BA
Community and Neighborhoods – CAN
Capital Improvement Program – CIP
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year – FY
Full-Time Employee - FTE
Interlocal Agreement – ILA
International Association of Chiefs of Police - IACP
Transit Master Plan - TMP
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Page | 6
Appendix I – Budget Adoption Ordinance Funding Our Future Conditions
The Council approves Funding Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be expended
unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper legal and
financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and outcomes
report on each of the four critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately to ensure
it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the four critical need areas as adopted in the attached
key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the adopted
budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available dashboard
reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items are
funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review along with
the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve the critical
need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a presentation of the
report.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
BLAKE THOMAS
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, of Community & Neighborhoods
________________________
SUBJECT: Funding Our Future Staff Report
STAFF CONTACT: Christianna Johnson, Funding Our Future Engagement Specialist,
christianna.johnson@slcgov.com, 801-599-3323
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: Per Council request, the Administration is providing a report on staff
that manage and support Funding Our Future programs and projects. Staff welcomes any
questions and comments that this information may raise for Council Members.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: There are several programs and projects supported by
Funding Our Future sales tax revenue and the Funding Our Future general obligation bond for
streets reconstruction in the critical need areas of housing, transit, streets, and neighborhood
safety. Correspondingly, there was a need for multiple staff members in each critical need area in
order to manage and support these programs and projects and ultimately achieve the goals of
Funding Our Future. This report is in response to the following Funding Our Future budget
contingency, “For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve the
critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a presentation of
the report.” All Funding Our Future positions continue to serve the critical need areas as
originally defined. While the ongoing COVID pandemic—and resulting economic recession—
have drastically impacted programs and revenue, staff across Salt Lake City (including those
focused on Funding Our Future programs) continue to adapt and support needed programs and
projects in the City. Staff have also responded to 2020’s additional challenges like the March
earthquake and the September wind storm.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 29, 2020 09:00 MDT)
10/29/2020
10/29/2020
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
BLAKE THOMAS
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
Funding Our Future sales tax revenue continues to support Salt Lake City staff members in the
areas of housing, transit, streets, and neighborhood safety:
Housing
•Staff
o The Mayor Office’s Census Coordinator adjusted Census outreach strategy due
to COVID in order to still gain an accurate count of all residents, especially hard-
to-count groups, in Salt Lake City. The Census officially started on March 12th
and concluded on October 15th of 2020, and the City’s 2010 self-response rate (of
68.9%) was actually surpassed with a final 2020 self-response rate of 69.9%. This
is an incredible number, as self-responding online, by phone or by mail produces
better data. The data is currently being processed into a report that details the new
population of each state.
o The Housing and Neighborhood Development’s (HAND) Community
Development Grant Coordination Administrator has overseen administration of
Funding Our Future housing programs.
o The Planning Division’s Additional Planner has focused on housing related
zoning issues (SROs, RMF-30, affordable housing overlay, Adaptive reuse
ordinance).
Transit
•Staff
o The Transportation Division’s Transit Planner launched and has updated an
online transit dashboard featured on the Funding Our Future website. The
Planning Division’s Planner has worked on transit related zoning ordinance
amendments (off-street parking requirements, Fleet Block rezone, Ballpark area
zoning, State Street corridor planning).
o The Transportation Division’s Transportation Engineer and Engineering
Division’s Project Engineer have managed projects related to Funding Our
Future, particularly complete street transformations that combine bond
reconstructions with Frequent Transit Network (FTN) corridor infrastructure,
such as 200 South and 600 North.
o The CAN Civic Engagement Team’s Civic Engagement Specialist has managed
updates and supported engagement for Funding Our Future projects, including the
transit critical need area.
Streets
•Staff
o The Streets Division’s Streets Crew has continued work to increase the number
of lane miles that receive surface treatment each year.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
BLAKE THOMAS
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
o Despite this year’s challenges with COVID, the September windstorm, equipment
breakdowns, and a wet spring, the Streets Division was still able to
complete surface treatments on 140 lane miles (extremely close to the annual goal
of 155 miles).
Neighborhood Safety
•Staff
o The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) has continued to implement
funding in the area of neighborhood safety. The SLCPD hired all 50 New Police
Officers to provide the community policing model that residents originally
requested.
o The Additional Police Personnel, needed civilian personnel related to the
increased police officers, were hired in FY 2018/19. These positions have
provided support in records, crime lab, social work, data analysis, etc.
PUBLIC PROCESS: None
EXHIBITS:
1)Funding Our Future Staff Report
City Council Update
Overview
Budgets:
Funding Our Future Staff
Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3
All Funding Our Future staff positions are listed below along with the adopted budget amount. Positions are either partially or fully funded by Funding Our Future sales tax revenue.
$
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21
Department/Division Position Description Budget FTE Budget FTE Budget FTE
GREATER HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Mayor’s Office Census Coordinator Support 2020 Census outreach to gain accurate count of the community. $80,000 1 $80,000 1 $83,310 1
CAN/Planning Planner Address staff capacity related to housing zoning issues. $101,161 1 $107,333 1 $118,794 1
CAN/HAND Community Development Grant
Administrator
Oversee the administration of Funding Our Future housing programs,
including application, contracting, reporting, and processing payments.
$99,408 1 $98,963 1
TOTAL $181,161 2 $286,741 3 $301,067 3
BETTER TRANSIT SERVICE
CAN/Planning Planner Address staff capacity related to transit zoning issues. $101,161 1 $107,333 1 $90,382 1
CAN/Engineering Project Engineer Manage reconstruction projects related to Funding Our Future.$109,398 1 $132,153 1
CAN/Transportation Transportation Engineer Manage the impacts related to overall infrastructure upgrades.$100,342 1 $120,989 1
CAN/Transportation Transit Planner Create a public dashboard for tracking transit programs. $50,000 1 $103,304 1 $88,974 1
CAN/Civic Engagement Civic Engagement Specialist Support engagement, manage updates on Funding Our Future projects.$66,166 1 $76,197 1
TOTAL $151,161 2 $486,543 5 $508,695 5
IMPROVED STREET CONDITIONS
Public Services/Streets Streets Crew Double the number of lane miles receiving a surface treatment.$2,900,000 19 $1,667,890 19 $2,353,031 19
TOTAL $2,900,000 19 $1,667,890 19 $2,353,031 19
INCREASED NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
Police New Police Officers/Salary (FY 18/19) Provide community policing model that residents originally requested.$4,795,802 27 $3,469,496 27
$8,888,953
27
Police New Police Officers/Salary (FY 19/20) Provide community policing model that residents originally requested.$3,225,659 23 23
Police Police Support - Civilian Staff Provide support in records, crime lab, social work, data analysis, etc. $858,136 13 $858,136 13 13
TOTAL $5,653,938 40 $7,553,291 63 $8,888,953 63
GRAND TOTALS
$8,886,260 63 $9,994,465 90 $12,051,746 90
Funding Our Future Staff:
Overview There are several programs and projects supported by Funding Our Future sales tax revenue and the Funding Our Future GO bond for streets reconstruction in the critical need areas of housing, transit, streets, and neighborhood safety. Correspondingly, there was a need for multiple staff members in each critical need area in order to manage and support these programs and projects and ultimately achieve the goals of Funding Our Future. All positions continue to serve the critical need areas as originally defined. While the ongoing COVID pandemic—and resulting economic recession—have drastically impacted programs and revenue, Salt Lake City staff (including those focused on Funding Our Future programs) continue to adapt and support needed programs and projects in the City. Staff have also responded to 2020’s additional challenges like the March earthquake and the September wind storm.
Housing In the area of greater housing opportunities, Funding Our Future staff include the Census Coordinator, a Planner, and the Community Development Grant Administrator. The Mayor Office’s Census Coordinator continued to implement Census outreach for hard-to-count demographics until the Census ended on October 15th of 2020. The Community Development Grant Administrator continues to oversee administration of Funding Our Future housing programs and the Planning Division’s Additional Planner continues to focus on housing related zoning issues (SROs, RMF-30, affordable housing overlay, Adaptive reuse ordinance).
Transit In the area of better transit service, Funding Our Future staff include a Planner, Transit Planner, Project Engineer, Transportation Engineer, and Civic Engagement Specialist. The Transit Planner launched, and continues to update monthly, an online transit dashboard featured on the Funding Our Future website; additionally, the Transit Planner works to compile and use data and support the inclusion of transit projects in the QTIP (project prioritization) process. The Planning Division’s Planner continues to work on transit related zoning ordinance amendments (off-street parking requirements, Fleet Block rezone, Ballpark area zoning, State Street corridor planning). The Transportation Division’s Transportation Engineer and Engineering Division’s Project Engineer continue to manage projects related to Funding Our Future, particularly complete street transformations that combine bond reconstructions with FTN corridor infrastructure, such as 200 South and 600 North. CAN's Civic Engagement Specialist supports engagement activities, like Facebook Lives, and manages updates of Funding Our Future programs and projects.
Streets In the area of improved street conditions, Funding Our Future staff include the 19 members of the additional Streets Crew created to double the number of lane miles maintained each year. The Crew’s street maintenance work includes chip seals, slurry seals, and inlays. The September wind storm seriously impacted surface treatment work.
Safety In the area of increased neighborhood safety, Funding Our Future staff include the 50 additional Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) officers as well as 13 Civilian Support Staff in records, crime lab, social work, data analysis, etc. SLCPD continues to implement the funding in the area of neighborhood safety allocated for police officers and salary. The majority of officers have completed the police academy and the Field Training Officer Program. The majority of the civilian support positions are filled and the department is working to retain staffing in those positions.
Staff Impact:
The Civic Engagement Specialist manages updates and supports engagement for Funding Our Future projects, including many transit and transportation-focused ones. For instance, in 2019, the Specialist participated in this workshop to gather feedback from clients at the Gail Miller Resource Center about transit access and street amenities along 300 West.
The Census Coordinator updated a bilingual website and focused on direct outreach to gain accurate count of our community. Among many other programs, Census data determines federal affordable housing/community development funding to the City. Adjustments were made to 2020 Census outreach strategies due to COVID, like through outreach at this University Neighborhood “Partners in the Parking Lot” event.
Though the objective of the Streets Crew is to improve the lifespan of City roads, the crew works year-round to support other operations at the Streets Division. The Streets crews are fully immersed in surface treatments during July and August. September 2020's wind storm seriously impacted the crew as they switched to cleaning up debris.
The Community Connection team is comprised of Case Workers and Social Workers that are liaisons between front line police work and the community, which includes service providers and individuals/families that are experiencing homelessness and/or are in crisis.
ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNilY
and NEIGHBORHOODS MARCIA WHITE Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Chris Wharton, Chair
Date Received: --------Date sent to Council: --------
DATE: Apr 16, 2020
FROM: Marcia White, Director of Community & Neighborhoods um-
SUBJECT: Funding Our Future Bond & CIP Quarterly Update
STAFF CONTACT: Christianna Johnson, Funding Our Future Engagement Specialist,
christianna.johnson@slcgov.com, 801-535-7115
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: Per Council request, the Administration is providing an update on
Funding Our Future related activities and a look ahead at next steps. Staff welcomes any
questions and comments that this information may raise for Councilmembers.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City sold the first $20 million installment of the
$87 million streets reconstruction general obligation bond in October 2019. This first block of
funds will be used for projects designed or constructed in 2020-2022. The Engineering Division
identified projects in the Six Year Pavement Plan released in early 2019. The Pavement Plan
includes all proposed street reconstruction projects for the next six years, from different funding
sources. With the understanding that scopes, schedules and budgets are subject to change,
upcoming projects expected to be funded by the Funding Our Future Streets Reconstruction
Bond are:
Construction in Summer of 2020:
•500 East (1700 South to 2100 South)
•2000 East (Parley's Way to city limits)
•700 West (1600 South to 2100 South)
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487
WWW.SLC.GOV
TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
April 20, 2020rachel otto (Apr 20, 2020)
April 20, 2020
ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor
•Local Streets in Districts 1 and 7
Construction in Summer of 2021:
•900 East (Hollywood Drive to 2700 South)
•100 South (North Campus Drive to 900 East)
•900 South (900 West to 900 East)
•Local Streets
Design Using the Current Bond Funds:
•300 West (900 South to 2100 South)
•200 South (400 West to 900 East)
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNilY
and NEIGHBORHOODS MARCIA WHITE Director
Public engagement has started for the reconstruction projects on 500 East, 2000 East, 700 West,
300 West, 900 East, 100 South and the Local Streets in Districts 1 and 7. Transportation and
Engineering staff have tailored the engagement for each project based on the community affected
and the reconstruction's impact. Public engagement for the 900 South project will begin this
year.
There are no changes from the last CIP update. As a reminder, Year One and Two Funding Our
Future sales tax dollars funded Capital Improvement Projects in Salt Lake City. The specific CIP
projects funded with the Funding Our Future sales tax dollars are primarily improvements to the
public way, enhancing other Funding Our Future initiatives in improving transit services and
street conditions.
PUBLIC PROCESS: None
EXHIBITS:
1)Funding Our Future Bond Projects Year 1 and Year 2 Quarter 2 Update
2)Funding Our Future CIP Projects Year 2 Quarter 2 Update
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487
WWW.SLC.GOV
TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
FUNDING OUR FUTURE
In October 2019, Salt Lake City sold the first $20 million installment of the $87 million streets reconstruction general obligation (GO) bond. The first GO bond streets reconstruction projects will
be starting in early spring of 2020. Residents in Salt Lake City District 1 (Rose Park and Jordan Meadows) and District 7 (Sugarhouse) received a mass mailing to inform them of the projects
happening in their communities.
Program Updates:
500 East:
1700 South
to 2100
South
2000 East:
Parley's
Way to
Salt Lake
City Limits
700 West:
1600 South
to 2100
South
This 2020 reconstruction project will repair the sidewalk, drainage,
and gutters. Bus stops will be consolidated and upgraded to meet
ADA requirements; new, raised crosswalks will link bus stops;
and a new striping design will have a northbound bike lane and
southbound shared lane, matching the configuration north of 1700
South. Parking without time restrictions will remain on the west
side of the street.
This 2020 reconstruction project will repair sidewalks, drainage,
& gutters. The open irrigation ditch south of 2700 South will be
piped, with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Road will be narrowed
from Parley's Canyon Blvd to Stratford, with a shared use trail on
the west side. Improvements at Parley's Canyon Blvd /2000 East
intersection will also be considered.
This 2020 reconstruction project will rebuild this industrial
roadway, while improving pedestrian access per West Side
Master Plan. Asphalt pavement, new curb and gutter, and a
new sidewalk on the west side. Driveways will be defined for
properties that currently have parking lots across long sections of
frontage.
Three stages of neighborhood engagement, including
online surveys, door-to-door flyers, and community
council briefings. Conceptual design announced in
August 2019. Design completed in fall 2019 and included
collaboration with UTA, public & private utilities, and
urban forestry. Project sent out to bid.
Bids received in February of 2020. Construction
will begin in early spring 2020.
Two stages of public engagement including Sugar House Project was sent out to bid in late February of
Community Council briefing, door-to door and mailed 2020. Construction will begin in early spring 2020.
outreach, and online surveys. Design completed.
Outreach to adjacent businesses on driveways &
changes to frontages. Business owners have identified
unused driveways that can be eliminated. Community
outreach concluded in fall 2019. Design completed.
Project was sent out to bid in late February of
2020. Construction will begin in early spring 2020.
$1,500,000
$1,300,000
$2,000,000
Program Updates:
300 West:
900 South
to 1300
South
900 East:
Hollywood
Drive to
2700 South
100 South:
North
Campus to
900 East
900 South:
900 West
to 900
East
New pavement, curb and gutter, improved sidewalks, bikeways,
and bus stops upgrades. In addition to safety and mobility
enhancements for people walking, bicycling, and taking transit.
Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement
and bus stops will be upgraded to accommodate bus frequent
transit network route. All sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will
be brought up to current standards, replaced as needed. Other
complete streets elements such as bike lanes will be added or
improved per ordinance.
Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. It will be
reconstructed with reclaimed aggregate and new asphalt. All
sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current
standards. Other complete streets elements such as bike lanes
and bus stops within the project extents will be added or improved
as needed.
Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. It will be
reconstructed with reclaimed aggregate and new asphalt. All
sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current
standards. Other complete streets elements such as bike lanes
and bus stops within the project extents will be added or
improved as needed.
Ballpark & Central 9th Community Councils, and
Granary Business Alliance were briefed in spring 2019.
A consulting firm was selected to help with design and
community outreach efforts. Outreach has included:
in-person surveys, online surveys, business workshops,
pop-up events, and community council updates.
Through fall 2019 and winter 2020, Salt Lake City is
seeking community input for the rebuild of this street.
Engagement events have occurred, like a public walking
tour in October of 2019 and a Game Night Meet-Up in
November of 2019.
In fall 2019, Salt Lake City started seeking community
input for the rebuild of this street.
Salt Lake City will begin seeking community input for
this project mid-summer 2020.
Concept design continues to move forward with
concept complete by May 2020. Reconstruction
over two construction seasons in 2021 and 2022.
Design will conclude in fall 2020. Bid and
construction will occur in 2021.
Design will conclude in fall 2020. Bid and
construction will occur in 2021.
Conceptual design will begin in fall 2020. Bid and
construction will occur in 2021.
I ;;i:.-; m,r.,-l"::J":i �.J..-;"1 $600,000 $2,600,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000
Program Updates:
200 South:
400 West
to 900 East
Local
Streets:
Districts
1, 7
Total:
Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor
pavement and bus stops will be upgraded to accommodate
many bus frequent transit network routes along this main corridor
for bus service in downtown. Design will take into account
recommendations from a Salt Lake County funded study for a
new bus passenger center within the project extents per the
Transit Master Plan. All sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will
be brought up to current standards, replaced as needed. Other
complete streets elements such as bicycle facilities will be added
or improved per ordinance.
Reconstruction of local streets will occur in 2020. Projects will
include slight changes to accommodate future neighborhood
byways. Design will focus on improving pedestrian and bicycle
access and crossings.
Salt Lake City will seek community input for this project
in 2020.
Design has begun. Updates to community councils
started in fall 2019. Community outreach will continue
through early 2020.
Design will conclude in 2021. Bid and construction
will occur from 2021-2023.
Both local street packages (for District 1 and 7)
were sent to bid in early December of 2019 and
bids have been received. Contracts are being
prepared and construction will begin in early spring
2020.
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$20,000,000
FUNDING OUR FUTURE
No changes from last CIP update. See information from last update below.
Program Updates:
Transportation Safety Improvements
Traffic Signal Upgrades
Bridge Maintenance Program
Public Way Concrete Program
1100 East Curb and Gutter
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements
FY 19/20
Safety for all people traveling is the Transportation Division's first priority. This project would provide funding for high priority multi-modal safety
improvements. This funding will better empower Transportation to work quickly to address identified safety needs as part of our efforts to achieve
zero fatalities and reduce injuries within our city. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history, roadway configuration and
characteristics, and with citizen input. Examples of traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted traffic signals or other traffic control
devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues.
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including steel poles, span wire, signal heads,
and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles, new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers,
improved detection, and left turn phasing, as needed. Installation of upgraded signals provides improvements in detection for autos and bicycles, as
well as pedestrian upgrades. This funding is needed to maintain state of good repair for the traffic
signal system.
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these bridges every two years
and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in
the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these
structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance.
Engineering hired a consulting firm to perform bridge evaluations and produce a bridge maintenance plan.
This program addresses deteriorated curb and gutter, retaining walls, crosswalks ADA ramps, and other concrete structures in the public way and in
coordination with Public Utilities.
This project would include the installation of curb and gutter, replacement of all drive approaches, replace deteriorated sidewalk, and install any
missing or non-compliant accessibility curb ramps at this location.
This new program will address uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. There are currently three known locations to be addressed. This
initial request will allow Engineering to improve one to two of the locations and perform a survey of additional locations to address in future years.
Program Updates:
Lrr...•iL!,L�
McClelland Trail and Neighborhood Street
Livability Improvements
McClelland Shared Street Phase 2
Sugar House West Neighborhood Traffic
Calming and 600 East Neighborhood
Byway Improvements
Complete Streets Enhancements
--Lrr...•iL!,L�II ·� .-i 11 1_.tU•ltl
This project, which is highly-supported by the community, desires to increase the livability of streets near homes and businesses and improve the
comfort of the at grade McClelland Trail crossings at six east-west streets (from Harrison to Bryan Avenues, inclusive) between 1100 East and
1300 East. Currently, typical traffic speeds are 10mph above the posted 25 mph speed limits. In addition, the McClelland Trail improvements (2016)
created a comfortable trail experience between avenues, but its budget was not adequate to completely address the speed and visibility issues
at the crossings of those six avenues. Project funding will be used to collect additional data; analyze existing conditions and green infrastructure
feasibility; perform additional community engagement (including a pop-up test period); and design, prepare construction documents for, and
implement the right-of-way elements. Project design will be determined by an analysis of trade-offs, constraints, opportunities, and data collection;
and how to achieve the maximum return on investment.
Salt Lake City Transportation Division is developing options for re-designing McClelland Street between 2100 South and Sugarmont Drive. The
goal is to identify the option that best meets the vision and goals from the Sugar House Master Plan, and which are supported by the Sugar House
Circulation Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, and the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal Trail Implementation Plan.
The funding will be used to develop and implement two projects: 1) a neighborhood-wide traffic calming plan to address vehicle speeding and
excessive cut-through issues in the west Sugar House neighborhood, and 2) improvements to the successful 600 East Neighborhood Byway.
The goal of the neighborhood-wide traffic calming plan is to increase the livability in the West Sugar House neighborhood by slowing traffic and
installing neighborhood gateway and identity features. Slowing traffic will be achieved using traffic calming measures, designed to fit seamlessly
into the existing local roadway network. Reducing the speed of motorists will allow residents to more comfortably walk and bicycle around their
neighborhood, to local shops and restaurants, and to the nearby S Line. The second project is to improve the 600 East Neighborhood Byway
though minor changes that would better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. The 600 East Neighborhood Byway is a successful bicycle and
pedestrian-prioritized travel way from 2700 South to South Tem ple. As Salt Lake City's first neighborhood byway, it has been a success and seen
strong usage from bicyclists and pedestrians. The City has continued to monitor the effects of the 600 East Neighborhood Byway project and has
identified areas where minor changes could significantly improve the usability.
This project proposes to complement roadway projects that have been funded or for which funds are being requested, but which do not include
incorporation of the City's Complete Streets Ordinance and/or recommendations of City master plans. It will include the design and construction of
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit elements within the public way in conjunction with the design and reconstruction of funded roadway projects.
Created: 2020-04-16
By: Katherine Vuong (katherine.vuong@slcgov.com)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAxa-pUfp3je--JMbeg7gihEcSTL 1 F90Ho
2020-04-16 -8:42:42 PM GMT-IP address: 204.124.13.222
2020-04-16 -8:43: 12 PM GMT
2020-04-16 -9:05:42 PM GMT-IP address: 71.195.220.78
Signature Date: 2020-04-16 -9:06:10 PM GMT -Time Source: server-IP address: 71.195.220.78
2020-04-16 -9:06:10 PM GMT
Adobe Sign
MRB MRB
Housing FY2021 FY2022 Change
Planner 118,796 101,160 (17,636)
Census Coordinator 83,310 - (83,310)
Community Development Grant Administrator 98,964 99,408 444
Civic Engagement specialist 80,054 80,054 -
Shared Housing 100,000 162,000 62,000
New House 20 250,000 250,000 -
Build a more equitable City Move to CAN 300,000 388,000 88,000
Community Land Trust 500,000 - (500,000)
Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance Move to CAN 350,000 53,000 (297,000)
Incentivized Rent Assistance Move to CAN 900,000 671,620 (228,380)
Mortgage Assistance Move to CAN 500,000 50,000 (450,000)
Land Discounts and Financing Transfer to RDA 2,590,000 2,590,000 -
Marketing home ownership programs Move to CAN 300,000 300,000 -
Service Models for most vulnerable Move to CAN 200,000 525,380 325,380
TOTAL 6,371,124 5,270,622 (1,100,502)
MRB MRB
Transportation FY2021 FY2022 Change
Transit Planner 88,974 103,304 14,330
Planner 90,446 109,398 18,952
Project Engineer 132,152 112,206 (19,946)
Transportation Engineer 120,922 120,922 -
Civic Engagement Specialist 76,198 - (76,198)
Transit Key Routes 4,700,000 4,500,000 (200,000)
On Demand Ride Services - 1,100,000 1,100,000
Transit Route Improvements 1,100,000 - (1,100,000)
Branding and Outreach 100,000 100,000 -
Bus Service Mobilization for 1000 North - 1,101,319 1,101,319
TOTAL 6,408,692 7,247,149 838,457
MRB MRB
Infrastructure FY2021 FY2022 Change
Streets Crew (includes reclass)1,550,937 1,550,937 -
Streets Crew Supplies (including inflationary adjustment)785,348 785,348 -
Fuel 16,746 16,746 -
Fleet Maintenance 138,500 138,500 -
New Infrastructure Projects 2,400,000 2,300,000 (100,000)
Streets Fleet Equipment 950,916 950,916
Concrete maintenance Equipment 58,000 58,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [Ongoing] 80,000
80,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [One Time] 69,500
69,500
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing] 53,300
53,300
Increase 1/2 Asphalt Budget [Ongoing] 120,000
120,000
TOTAL 4,891,531 6,123,247 1,231,716
MRB MRB
Public Safety FY2021 FY2022 Change
Police Officers 3,922,218 3,922,218 -
Police Support 887,519 887,519 -
Police Officer Equipment 609,720 609,720 -
Police Salary and Enhancements 3,469,496 3,469,496 -
Body Cameras 512,578 512,578 -
Emergency Management Phase 2 236,448 236,448
Fire Apparatus Replacement 4,000,000 4,000,000
Mental Health Responder 450,000 450,000
Public Safety Servers and Infrastructure 350,000
Dispatcher 153,450 153,450
TOTAL 9,401,531 14,591,429 4,839,898
CIP Transfer 1,380,000 1,280,000 (100,000) $6,371,124
Fund Balance -
- $9,401,531
TOTAL FUNDING OUR FUTURE 28,452,878 34,512,447 $4,891,531
$6,408,692
34,512,447 $1,380,000
- 0
Funding Our Future
Page 1 of 25
SALT LAKE CITY 2021 RESIDENT SURVEY
ONLINE AND PHONE INTERVIEWS
MASTER TOPLINE REPORT
METHODOLOGY DETAILS
n=1,214 (814 online, 400 telephone)
Online interviews fielded 14 - 26, April 2021
Phone interviews fielded 14 - 21, April 2021
Margin of error +- 2.8 to 3.4 (for online-only questions)
For this survey 1,214 Salt Lake City residents were sampled from randomly selected households within City boundaries. Survey invitations to
participate online were distributed via mailed letters marked with the Salt Lake City seal, and interviews were completed online and via
live-dial telephone interviews.
Both online and telephone interviews were available in English and Spanish based on respondent preference. The telephone format of the
survey was substantially pared down due to length of interview restraints for live-dial telephone surveys, but still contained the most
pressing questions from the full survey. The percentages reported correspond to the sample size of the surveyed population to which the
question was asked – either the full sample or the online-only sample.
The data were weighted to reflect the demographics of residents in Salt Lake City, specifically in regard to age, gender, ethnicity, home
ownership, and City Council District.
CONTACT
For more information, please contact Scott Riding or Quin Monson at:
Scott Riding, 801-556-3204, scott@y2analytics.com
Quin Monson, 801-367-6588, quin@y2analytics.com
Y2 Analytics
15 West South Temple Ste. 1630
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
801-406-7877
Page 2 of 25
PRELUDE. Thank you for responding to our survey about public policy and services in Salt Lake City. Your time and opinions are
greatly valued. Please note that your participation is voluntary and that all your answers will remain strictly confidential.
This survey takes most people about 15 minutes to complete. If you exit the survey before completion, you will be able to
resume it at a later time.
On the next screen you will be asked to input the six-digit Access Code printed on the invitation letter you received in the
mail.
To begin the survey, click on the “→” button below. During the survey you can use the navigation button on the bottom of
the screen to advance questions. If during the survey you do not see the button, scroll down until you see it.
s_QUALIFY1. Do you currently live in Salt Lake City? (n=1,214)
Yes 100%
n_QUALITY. All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your
overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n=1,207)
Average response
Quality of life 77.8
s_DIRECTION. Overall, would you say Salt Lake City is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? (n=1,166)
Right direction 71%
Wrong direction 29
s_TAXDOLLAR. In general, how do you rate the service you receive from Salt Lake City for your tax dollar? (n=1,205)
Excellent 11%
Good 46
Fair 33
Poor 10
Page 3 of 25
s_SERVICE1. Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following
government services in Salt Lake City? If you have no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable."
1 (Poor) 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Excellent)
Not
applicable
Police department
(n=1,197)
9 6 9 14 15 16 12 19
Fire department/Paramedics
(n=1,198)
1 0 0 4 11 22 25 36
Parks
(n=1,120)
2 1 4 8 24 32 25 5
Street maintenance
(n=1,120)
8 9 12 20 24 15 8 4
Street lighting
(n=800)
4 4 9 19 24 26 12 1
Recycling programs
(n=799)
6 6 7 18 18 25 14 5
Sewers
(n=800)
0 1 4 12 16 26 21 18
Drinking water
(n=800)
2 3 3 12 16 33 29 1
Airport
(n=799)
1 3 3 10 16 27 32 1
Snow removal
(n=800)
2 3 5 13 20 31 24 1
s_SERVICE2. Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following
government services in Salt Lake City? If you have no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable."
1 (Poor) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Excellent) Not
applicable
Garbage
pickup
(n=801)
1 1 3 9 13 30 37 7
Public parking
(n=802)
5 5 15 19 24 18 8 5
Salt Lake City
Library
(n=802)
1 1 2 7 12 24 38 16
City golf
courses
(n=800)
2 1 1 5 7 9 5 70
Public transit
(n=801)
3 5 8 13 22 18 13 18
Page 4 of 25
1 (Poor) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Excellent) Not
applicable
City website
(n=799)
3 3 4 12 19 15 5 40
Bike lane
availability
(n=800)
2 5 11 17 19 16 10 21
Sidewalk
maintenance
(n=801)
7 6 13 19 26 19 6 3
911 and
dispatch
(n=801)
3 1 4 6 9 14 12 50
Homeless
services
(n=802)
27 14 11 11 7 3 2 25
s_COVIDASPECTS. Would you say the coronavirus has had a positive impact, a negative impact, or no impact on your...?
Positive impact Neutral or no
impact
Negative impact
Social life (n=800)
4 20 76
Financial well-being (n=800)
16 61 23
Physical health (n=800)
12 50 38
Mental health (n=800) 4 40 57
s_COVIDRATE. How would you rate the job each of the following is doing responding to the coronavirus pandemic?
Excellent Good Fair Poor
United States federal government
(n=1,187)
11 32 34 23
Utah state government (n=1,193) 11 30 35 23
Salt Lake County government
(n=1,185)
17 45 30 8
Salt Lake City officials/local
government (n=1,183)
22 42 26 10
Page 5 of 25
s_CITYACCESS. To what extent has the coronavirus pandemic impacted your access to City programs or services(i.e., City offices, public
meetings, City utility services, or other programs provided by SLC departments)? (n=1,181)
To a great extent 12%
To a moderate extent 30
To a small extent 33
Not at all 25
s_RESOURCE. Did you or a member of your household utilize any emergency aid or relief resources in the past year in response to
coronavirus-related circumstances?
(These resources include but are not limited to Unemployment Insurance, Pandemic Rental Assistance, SBA Disaster
Loans, Utah Leads Together Small Business Bridge Loans, Utah COVID-19 Commercial Rental Assistance, SNAP Benefits,
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan, emergency food assistance programs, Mortgage Assistance, Rapid Rehousing,
etc.) (n=1,195)
Yes 17%
No 83
s_HOMES1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I am pleased with the way
my neighborhood looks.
(n=1,193)
34 40 10 11 5
My neighborhood gets
enough attention from the
City. (n=1,186)
26 33 17 15 10
My neighborhood is
connected to the rest of the
City. (n=795)
35 37 15 11 3
Things in my neighborhood
have gotten better since I
moved here. (n=795)
10 21 44 16 10
My neighborhood is
walkable. (n=795) 50 33 4 9 3
The schools in my
neighborhood are important
gathering places for the
community. (n=792)
12 21 54 7 6
Page 6 of 25
s_HOMES2. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I do most of my food
shopping in my
neighborhood. (n=794)
43 26 9 14 9
My neighborhood has the
right mix of businesses and
housing. (n=1,186)
35 34 12 13 6
My neighborhood has access
to usable transit. (n=1,183)
44 30 10 10 5
My neighborhood has access
to parks and public lands.
(n=794)
54 33 7 5 2
There is sufficient
convenient, safe parking in
my neighborhood. (n=794)
25 34 14 19 8
s_SAFETY_DAY. How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE DAY?
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe
In your neighborhood
(n=793)
68 23 7 2
In downtown Salt
Lake (n=792)
42 42 12 4
s_SAFETY_NIGHT. How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE NIGHT?
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
In your
neighborhood
(n=794)
33 34 24 8
In downtown
Salt Lake
(n=793)
12 36 34 18
Page 7 of 25
s_IMPORT. Below is a list of current and potential city initiatives. For each initiative, please select whether you would consider it a
high priority issue or a lower priority issue.
High
priority
Lower
priority
Invest in affordable housing programs (n=785)
76 24
Increase the availability of housing in our community (n=783)
59 41
Expand sustainability programs (n=782)
75 25
Attract, retain, or expand businesses (n=788)
46 54
Support local businesses (n=789)
87 13
Invest in public transportation (n=785)
59 41
Support the arts (n=786)
59 41
Increase amount of parks, trails, and open space (n=784)
63 37
Increase investment in the current parks, trails, and open spaces.
(n=785)
71 29
Increase safety in City parks, trails, and open spaces (n=786)
66 34
Improve community policing (n=785)
66 34
Improve City street conditions (n=788) 66 34
Page 8 of 25
r_IMPORT. Rank the items below from highest to lowest priority with the TOP item being the HIGHEST PRIORITY and the BOTTOM item
being the LOWEST PRIORITY.
Average ranking
Invest in affordable housing programs (n=528)
3.27
Increase the availability of housing in our community (n=376)
4.08
Expand sustainability programs (n=518)
4.62
Attract, retain, or expand businesses (n=324)
5.4
Support local businesses (n=610)
4.82
Invest in public transportation (n=448)
4.87
Support the arts (n=434)
5.98
Increase amount of parks, trails, and open space (n=463)
5.32
Increase investment in the current parks, trails, and open spaces. (n=514)
5.56
Increase safety in City parks, trails, and open spaces (n=475)
5.35
Improve community policing (n=480)
4.1
Improve City street conditions (n=477) 4.51
s_IMPACTFEE1. How willing would you be to pay an additional $25 per year if you knew the funding would be used for City infrastructure
projects such as preserving Salt Lake City buildings and amenities, maintaining and improving streets and sidewalks,
and increasing pedestrian accessibility throughout the City? (n=783)
Very willing 51%
Somewhat willing 28
Somewhat unwilling 12
Very unwilling 10
Page 9 of 25
s_GENTRANS. What method of transportation do you most frequently use when traveling around Salt Lake City? (n=782)
Personal vehicle (e.g. car, motorcycle, etc.) 83%
Bicycle 3
Walk 8
Public transit (i.e. bus, train) 4
Rideshare (e.g. Uber, Lyft, etc.) 1
Electric Scooters <1
Other, please specify: 1
s_PUBLTRANS. How often do you take public transportation when traveling around Salt Lake City? (n=781)
Nearly every day 4%
2-3 times a week 3
About once a week 3
2-3 times a month 4
About once a month 4
Several times a year 18
About once or twice a year 21
Less than once a year 16
Never 26
s_TRANS. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about public transportation in Salt Lake City?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not
applicable
Public transportation in Salt
Lake City is affordable.
(n=776)
19 28 17 11 4 21
The trains come too
infrequently for me to use
them. (n=774)
9 13 26 14 8 29
The train routes go where I
need them to go. (n=776)
12 21 14 16 12 24
The buses come often enough
to be convenient. (n=775)
9 23 18 10 7 32
The bus routes go where I need
them to go. (n=776)
10 25 15 13 8 29
Buses and trains operate
during the hours I need them.
(n=775)
17 24 16 13 7 23
Buses and trains do not run
late enough at night. (n=775)
23 19 18 7 3 30
Page 10 of 25
s_COMPST1. How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads in the neighborhood where you live?
Extremely well Very well Moderately well Slightly well Not well at all
Traffic is too
fast (n=766)
12 21 27 22 18
They are safe
for pedestrians
(n=774)
14 31 35 14 6
They are safe
for cyclists
(n=771)
8 25 37 18 12
They are well lit
(n=776)
9 25 35 17 14
They are well
maintained
(n=776)
6 24 33 23 14
s_COMPST2. How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads you use daily around the city?
Extremely well Very well Moderately
well
Slightly well Not well at
all
Traffic is too fast (n=764)
10 20 33 19 19
They are safe for pedestrians (n=774)
6 24 43 20 7
They are safe for cyclists (n=770)
3 13 45 24 15
They are well lit (n=774)
6 28 43 15 8
They are well maintained (n=775) 3 17 40 23 16
Page 11 of 25
s_ENVIRO. Below is a list of current and potential city sustainability initiatives regarding the environment. For each initiative, please
select whether you would consider it a high priority initiative or a lower priority initiative.
High Priority Lower Priority
Improving air quality (n=773)
93 7
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change
(n=772)
81 19
Increasing access to healthy and affordable local food (n=769)
67 33
Creating more community gardens (n=765)
46 54
Increasing solar energy opportunities (n=771)
69 31
Expanding food waste that can be composted in the brown bin
(n=770)
49 51
Installing more electric vehicle charging stations (n=769)
36 64
Improving residential recycling markets and opportunities (n=769)
57 43
Enhancing water conservation (n=769)
88 12
Creating a center for hard-to-recycle materials (n=771)
63 37
Encouraging residents to ensure race and income level are considered in
sustainability policy and plans (n=765)
66 34
Page 12 of 25
r_ENVIRO. Rank the items below from highest to lowest priority with the TOP item being the HIGHEST PRIORITY and the BOTTOM item
being the LOWEST PRIORITY.
Average ranking
Improving air quality (n=653)
2.11
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change (n=569)
3.51
Increasing access to healthy and affordable local food (n=469)
4.51
Creating more community gardens (n=294)
5.92
Increasing solar energy opportunities (n=481)
5.01
Expanding food waste that can be composted in the brown bin (n=331)
6.25
Installing more electric vehicle charging stations (n=266)
6.24
Improving residential recycling markets and opportunities (n=421)
5.82
Enhancing water conservation (n=615)
3.74
Creating a center for hard-to-recycle materials (n=468)
5.74
Encouraging residents to ensure race and income level are considered in sustainability policy and
plans(n=458)
4.7
s_SLC. Within the last 12 months, approximately how many times have you done the following in Salt Lake City?
Weekly or
more
often
2-3 times a
month
About once
a month
Several
times a
year
About once
or twice a
year
Less than
once a
year
Never
Participated in a city public
meeting or open house (e.g.
city council, city advisory
board/committee or community
council) (n=385)
<1 <1 3 6 8 14 69
Attended a cultural event such
as a festival or fair (e.g.
Farmers Market, Arts Festival).
(n=385)
2 8 12 22 17 17 23
Used a public library (n=386)
6 11 9 13 16 12 32
Shopped in the downtown area
(n=386)
14 18 12 20 14 10 12
Page 13 of 25
Shopped in the Sugar House
area (n=386)
28 17 13 19 8 6 8
Visited a city park or natural
lands (n=386)
42 18 10 15 6 4 5
Visited a museum or the
planetarium in the city
(n=386)
<1 2 6 11 19 27 35
Used a bike lane or urban trail
(n=386)
21 11 11 12 5 7 33
Used a city golf course
(n=386) 2 3 2 3 2 7 80
s_SLCPOST. How excited are you to do the following activities in Salt Lake City as soon as it's safe and available?
Very excited Excited Not very
excited
No desire to
do this
Participate in a city public meeting or open house (e.g. city
council, city advisory board/committee or community
council) (n=386)
6 22 39 32
Attend a cultural event such as a festival or fair (e.g.
Farmers Market, Arts Festival). (n=386)
63 25 7 5
Use a public library (n=387)
31 33 21 15
Shop in the downtown area (n=387)
31 33 25 11
Shop in the Sugar House area (n=387)
27 37 25 11
Visit a city park or natural lands (n=387)
59 31 5 5
Visit a museum or the planetarium in the city (n=386)
38 35 17 10
Use a bike lane or urban trail (n=387)
31 32 17 19
Use a city golf course (n=385) 7 9 14 70
Page 14 of 25
s_ECDEV. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about economic development in Salt Lake
City?
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
There are job opportunities in Salt
Lake City for people like me (n=770)
28 35 22 9 7
Salt Lake City should do more to
support local small businesses
(n=771)
33 37 25 3 2
I am interested in career
advancement, vocational training, or
technical certification programs in
the community. (n=771)
17 22 33 11 17
s_WEBSITE1. Have you visited the Salt Lake City website in the past 6 months? (n=774)
Yes 49%
No 51
m_WEBSITE2. Which of the following reasons best describes why you visited the Salt Lake City website? Select all that apply.
To seek information about a City service
(n=232)
23%
To find contact information for a City office (n=130)
14
To get updates on City events (n=65)
5
To pay a City service bill (n=100)
11
To look for a job with the City (n=28)
4
To seek information about the coronavirus or local
health and safety guidelines (n=149)
15
To seek information about coronavirus support
programs and resources (e.g. rental assistance, food
services, employment opportunities, childcare, etc.)
(n=51)
7
Other, please specify: (n=41) 5
Page 15 of 25
s_WEBSITE3. How easy or difficult was it to complete the task that led you to visit the Salt Lake City website?
Extremely easy Somewhat easy Neither easy nor
difficult
Somewhat
difficult
Extremely
difficult
To seek information about a City
service (n=232)
17 47 17 14 5
To find contact information for a
City office (n=130)
20 46 16 13 4
To get updates on City events
(n=65)
21 49 19 7 4
To pay a City service bill (n=100) 53 30 12 4
To look for a job with the City
(n=28)
6 51 16 24 3
To seek information about the
coronavirus or local health and
safety guidelines (n=149)
39 37 13 10 1
To seek information about
coronavirus support programs
and resources (e.g. rental
assistance, food services,
employment opportunities,
childcare, etc.) (n=41)
11 36 18 16 18
Other, please specify: (n=51) 15 40 21 22 2
s_WEBSITE5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
It is difficult to find the
information I need on the City
website. (n=417)
8 20 35 28 10
The City website is well
organized. (n=417)
11 40 35 10 4
I would recommend the City
website to my friends and
neighbors in Salt Lake City as
a resource for information or
city services. (n=417)
15 39 33 7 5
oe_WEBSITE6. What information was difficult to find on the Salt Lake City website? (OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES VERBATIM IN APPENDIX)
Page 16 of 25
s_CITYSTAFF1. During the past year, have you contacted a Salt Lake City government office to get information, file a complaint, or obtain
services? (n=774)
Yes 40%
No 60
s_CITYSTAFF2. Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city's response(s)? (n=358)
Very satisfied 38%
Somewhat satisfied 33
Somewhat dissatisfied 17
Very dissatisfied 12
oe_CITYSTAFF3. If you have any comments you would like to briefly share about your experience with Salt Lake City employees, please
enter them here. (OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES VERBATIM IN APPENDIX)
m_CITYSTAFF4. In the past year, how have you contacted the Salt Lake City government offices? Select all that apply.
In person (n=50) 5%
Over the phone (n=248) 26
Via email (n=123) 13
On the city website (n=149) 14
Through the mail (n=20) 3
Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) (n=10) 1
Through the SLC Mobile app (n=35) 3
Other, please specify: (n=7) 1
s_CITYSTAFF5. How do you prefer to contact the Salt Lake City government offices? (n=770)
In person 6%
Over the phone 33
Via email 27
On the city website 26
Through the mail <1
Via social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) 2
Through the SLC Mobile app 5
Other, please specify: 1
Page 17 of 25
m_NEWS1. From which sources do you currently receive your information about Salt Lake City? Select all that apply
City newsletter inserts in water or other municipal
bill (n=242)
22%
Email(s) from the City (n=252) 26
City website (n=208) 24
Newspaper (n=337) 36
Social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
(n=254)
40
Community council (n=123) 11
Social media livestreams (e.g. Facebook Live,
Instagram Stories, etc.) (n=91)
12
City-hosted virtual events (n=25) 3
Other (please specify) (n=85) 10
s_NEWS2. From which source would you prefer to receive most of your information about Salt Lake City? (n=761)
City newsletter inserts in water or other municipal
bill
10%
Email(s) from the City 38
City website 10
Newspaper 12
Social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) 18
Social media livestreams (e.g. Facebook Live,
Instagram Stories, etc.)
3
City-hosted virtual events 1
Community council 3
Other (please specify) 6
m_SOCIALMEDIA. Which, if any, of the following social media platforms (i.e. websites or apps) do you use or visit? Select
all that apply.
Facebook (n=367) 48%
Twitter (n=152) 21
Instagram (n=309) 46
Nextdoor (n=205) 21
Linkedin (n=167) 22
None of the above (n=189) 19
Page 18 of 25
s_CITYONLINE. Do you happen to see or read Salt Lake City's content or posts on any of the following social media platforms?
Yes No Not sure
Facebook (n=364)
43 43 14
Twitter (n=151)
57 35 8
Instagram (n=307)
37 51 11
Nextdoor (n=205)
57 26 17
LinkedIn (n=166)
5 82 13
Reddit (n=122)
40 48 12
None of the above 0 0 0
s_SOCIALSAT. How useful are the posts or updates you currently receive from Salt Lake City’s social media accounts for you, personally?
(n=331)
Extremely useful 6%
Very useful 39
Somewhat useful 48
Not very useful 4
Not at all useful 2
attributes. Below are different words that people could use to describe the police in your area. For each pair, please select the
option that you think best describes Salt Lake City Police. Even if you don't completely agree with either option, select the
one option of each pairing that comes closest to your opinion.
s_attr1. (n=1,080)
Trustworthy 67%
Untrustworthy 33
s_attr2. (n=1,076)
Fair to all 36%
Unfair to some groups 64
Page 19 of 25
s_attr3. (n=1,080)
Peaceful 63%
Aggressive 37
s_attr4. (n=1,067)
Patient 57%
Impatient 43
s_attr5. (n=1,082)
Caring 67%
Uncaring 33
s_attr6. (n=1,091)
Respectful 73%
Disrespectful 27
s_attr7. (n=1,114)
Approachable 66%
Unapproachable 34
s_attr8. (n=1,056)
Kind 70%
Rude 30
s_attr9. (n=1,075)
Engaged with the community 54%
Disengaged from the community 46
s_attr10. (n=728)
Helpful 72%
Unhelpful 28
Page 20 of 25
s_TRUST. How much do you trust Salt Lake City Police? (n=763)
A great deal 25%
A moderate amount 41
A small amount 23
Not at all 11
s_MESSAGES. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about local law enforcement?
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Decreasing the law enforcement budget will
make my community less safe. (n=641)
30 16 16 16 21
Law enforcement agencies should build
relationships with the community to develop
strategies that reduce crime and disorder.
(n=678)
62 27 8 2 2
Police officers in my community primarily
focus on enforcement and keeping things
under control. (n=350)
22 34 29 9 6
It would be valuable for the community if
local officers interacted with the public
outside of enforcing the law. (n=522)
47 36 12 2 2
Racial profiling is very prevalent within law
enforcement in my community. (n=464)
30 25 25 9 11
Providing more funding to police will improve
law enforcement in my community. (n=561)
20 20 22 14 23
Local law enforcement officers should attend
community events, give public presentations,
and participate in community service
projects. (n=528)
48 32 15 3 2
Local law enforcement officers need to do a
better job working with community members
to identify problems and solutions. (n=497)
49 29 14 4 3
Page 21 of 25
DEMOINTRO. And now just a few more questions that will help us ensure we have a representative sample and to group and categorize
responses.
s_GENDER. Which of the following best describes how you think of yourself? (n=1,154)
Male 49%
Female 47
Non-binary/third gender 1
Prefer to self-describe -- please specify if you wish <1
Prefer not to say 3
AgeRange. What year were you born? (coded into age ranges) (n=1,118)
18-34 42%
35-44 18
45-54 13
55-64 13
65 and older 15
s_TIMELIVED. How many years have you lived in Salt Lake City? (n=1,159)
Less than one year 1%
1 - 5 years 20
5 - 10 years 15
11 - 15 years 11
15 - 20 years 9
20 - 40 years 26
40 - 60 years 11
60 - 80 years 4
80 years or more 2
s_OWNRENT. Which of the following best describes where you are currently living? (n=1157)
Own or buying my own home 50%
Rent my home or apartment 45
College or university housing 1
Live with parents 2
Other 2
Page 22 of 25
m_LANG. Which, if any, of the following languages are frequently spoken in your home? Select all that apply.
English (n=749) 85%
Spanish (n=45) 10
Chinese (n=6) 1
Korean (n=2) <1
Portuguese (n=5) <1
Arabic (n=1) <1
French (n=11) 1
Tongan (n=1) 1
Other, please specify: (n=33) 5
s_EDOFR. What is the last year of school you completed? (n=1,151)
Some high school or less 3%
High school graduate 9
Some college 19
College graduate 39
Post graduate degree (e.g. MA, MBA, LLD, PhD) 28
Vocational school or technical school 2
s_EMPLOY. What is your employment status? (n=757)
Self-employed 10%
Employed by someone else 66
Unemployed 3
Homemaker 2
Retired 15
Student 4
m_COVIDEMPLOY. In which of the following ways, if any, has Covid-19 impacted your employment? Select all that apply.
Change in employment status (laid-off, furloughed,
etc.) (n=124)
11%
Started working from home (n=392) 36
Managing children’s remote learning (n=134) 11
Postpone promotion or jeopardized future career
prospects (n=109)
12
Decreased shifts/hours per week (n=126) 12
Loss of motivation or productivity (n=248) 26
Deemed an essential worker (n=243) 24
Other, please specify: (n=70) 5
None of the above (n=373) 24
Page 23 of 25
s_STUDENT. Are you currently enrolled at a college or university? (n=758)
Yes, full time 7%
Yes, part time 4
No 89
s_COLLEGE. At which college or university are you currently enrolled? (n=51)
University of Utah 60%
Salt Lake Community College 9
Ensign College 3
Westminster 9
Other, please specify: 19
s_LGBTQ. Do you identify as LGBTQ? (n=1,133)
Yes 13%
No 83
Prefer not to say 4
s_MARRIAGE. Are you currently... (n=1,143)
Married 46%
Divorced 7
Widowed 5
Living with partner 13
Single 29
s_CHILDREN. How many children under the age of 18 live in your home? (n=755)
None (0) 77%
One (1) 12
Two (2) 6
Three (3) 3
Four (4) 2
Five (5) <1
Six (6) or more 0
Page 24 of 25
m_RACE. Are you:
American Indian/Native American (n=11) 2%
Asian (n=32) 6
Black (n=14) 2
Hispanic/Latino (n=86) 21
White/Caucasian (n=987) 63
Pacific Islander (n=10) 2
Other, please specify: 4
s_RELIGION. What, if any, is your religious preference? (n=1,156)
Protestant 6%
Catholic 10
Latter-day Saint/Mormon 21
Jewish 1
Eastern Orthodox 1
Muslim 1
Other religion, please specify: 7
No preference / No religious affiliation 48
Prefer not to say 6
s_INCOME. What do you expect your 2021 family income to be? (n=1,109)
Under $25,000 11%
$25,000 - 39,999 13
$40,000 - 49,999 8
$50,000 - 74,999 17
$75,000 - 99,999 15
$100,000 - 124,999 12
$125,000 - 149,999 5
Over $150,000 12
Prefer not to say 7
s_QUALITY. Finally, for quality control purposes, please rate your experience taking this poll. Would you consider the experience:
(n=758)
Excellent 20%
Good 54
Fair 21
Poor 3
Don’t know 1
Page 25 of 25
oe_COMMENTS. Thank you for completing the survey. If you have any comments about this survey or Salt Lake City in
general, please enter them here: (OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES VERBATIM IN APPENDIX)
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver
Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, Sylvia Richards and Libby Stockstill
DATE:June 8, 2021
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES
The Council reviewed this information on Tuesday, June 1st, received additional information
from the Administration an indicated initial items of interest. On Thursday, June 3, the
Council conducted preliminary straw polls for a few initial items. See attached for the
spreadsheet reflecting straw polls as of the end of that discussion. The Tuesday, June 8
discussion will give the Council an opportunity to determine which of the funding requests
have the support of a majority of the Council. As on June 3, staff will record the Council’s
preferences and update a ‘balancing spreadsheet’ in real time so that the Council and public
can see the impacts of the tentative decisions. There may be additional information based
on ongoing compensation discussions.
Additional information:
1.Revenue
a. Property Tax
i. Judgement levy – Council Staff may have updated information on June 8th
about the exact amount the Council can budget for a judgement levy. (Note:
By state law the tax commission is not required to transmit this information
until June 8th.)
ii. Property Tax New Growth – Council Staff may have updated information
on June 8th regarding the exact amount of “Property Tax New Growth” the
Council can budget. If it is higher than the Mayor’s recommended budget,
the Council will be able to use those dollars in budget deliberations. If it is
lower the Council will need to re-balance the budget or consider revenue
increases. (Note: By state law the tax commission is not required to transmit
this information until June 8th.)
b.Impact Fee Reimbursement: The General Fund fronted investments in capital
projects for police. The City’s Impact Fee Plan recognizes this past investment of
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 8, 2021
Budget Hearing: May 18, June
1, 2021
Potential Action: June 15, 2021
2
$1.8 million. The proposal is to reimburse the General Fund for those past
investments with existing police impact fees. This approach is contemplated in the
City’s Impact Fee Plan and allowed by state law.
2.Expenses
a. Additional information on labor negotiations may be available at the June 8th
meeting.
b. The Council may wish to continue evaluating line items in the unresolved issues
attachments for adjustments, pending other revenue/expense conversations.
Proposed New Legislative Intents, Fiscal Year 2022
a.Update Boarded-Building Fee. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
update the boarded-building fee, taking into account the costs of monitoring and
responding by Police and Fire Departments at these properties.
b.Trips-to-Transit Expansion Evaluation. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration provide their strategy for evaluating whether to expand the Trips-to-
Transit program, which will begin to serve west side neighborhoods in late 2021, to other
areas of the City. This would include both the methodology and the metrics for topics such
as accessibility, cost-effectiveness, total ridership, and cost per rider.
c.Golf Fund Update. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide
information on the following items in anticipation of a work session briefing to review
and discuss options for the Golf Fund.
o Golf Fund Financial Sustainability: Trends in revenues, expenditures,
o Long-term CIP Plans. Based on current projections and the recently-completed
short-term CIP plan.
o Golf Food and Beverage Options. A review of the specific open space zoning
ordinances, with the goal of removing barriers to providing additional food and
beverage options in golf courses. To the extent that barriers exist in State law the
Council requests an analysis of those, and that changing them be identified as a
future legislative priority.
d.Ongoing Expenses for Maintenance at City-Owned Parcels. It is the intent of the
Council that the Administration shift funding for ongoing maintenance provided on
unused City-owned parcels to the base budget of either the Public Services Department or
the Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN) rather than continuing to use one-
time revenue from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the Administration
analyze actual expenses for several previous years to estimate the amount necessary for
Fiscal Year 2023.
e.Expanded Funding Our Future Definition. It is the intent of the Council that the
definition of “public safety” for allocation of Funding Our Future revenue include not only
the Police Department, Fire Department, and 911 Dispatch, but also any social workers
and non-emergency traffic enforcement programs which are designed to expand the
City’s public safety alternative response model. (Note: The current definition included Fire
and 911 Dispatch since FY2020.)
3
The following information was provided for the Council’s June 1st and 3rd discussions. It is
provided again for reference.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Staff has kept a list of items that one or more Council Members have raised as potential changes to the Mayor’s
Recommended budget. It should be noted that this is a staff-generated draft, reflecting Council questions and
discussions as of the date of its printing. It may be updated prior to the work session discussion, and Council
Members may have changes or corrections to individual items.
If a budget impact is apparent, that amount has been listed, or noted as “to be determined.” Depending on
Council feedback, adjustments can be made to the overall key changes document, so that the Council can track
the net effect of these decisions on the overall budget.
Changes to the budget may cause it to be out of balance (increase or decrease expenses and revenues). As these
changes occur, the Council would need to identify offsetting revenue enhancements or expense reductions to
bring the budget back in balance. Staff can research and provide other revenue generation or expense cutting
options if the Council is interested.
(Note: this list is not comprehensive – please let staff know if there are other items to add)
General Follow-up Items/Themes
1.ARPA funding guidance - After receiving guidance from the US Treasury, the Administration
has advised that the funds are much more restrictive than what is proposed in the Mayor’s
recommended budget. In general all funds have to be specifically tied to recovering from the
effects of the pandemic. The Administration provided information about which of the proposed
uses are eligible, which are eligible with adjustments, and which are not eligible. Each of these
is noted in the attached spreadsheet.
a. In the absence of clear alternative uses for ARPA dollars, the Council could place the
remaining unspent dollars in a holding account for future allocation once eligible
uses are identified. The Council may also ask the Administration to review all CIP
projects for ARPA eligibility.
b. The Council may wish to hold a policy discussion with the Administration about policy
goals for potential future federal funding (ARPA dollars or potential future
infrastructure dollars), and if there are specific areas of the City budget the Council
would like to target.
c. Staff is checking with the Attorney’s office and Administration about using ARPA
dollars for issues the Council has identified as a priority.
d.Position by position review:
i.The Council may wish to review the positions that are not eligible and decide
whether to include them in the general fund (if revenues permit).
ii.The Council may wish to review the positions/programs that are eligible if
changes to the scope of the positions/programs are made, and decide whether
those changes are consistent with Council goals and are practical to implement.
iii.The Council may wish to review the positions that are eligible and identify
support.
4
iv. For the positions that the Council supports, the Council may wish to specify
whether their expectation is that those be recorded in the City’s financial system
as temporary grant positions, or as regular employees.
2.Public Safety service delivery – the Council has supported a variety of ideas that go along
with diversifying public safety response and enhancing accountability and transparency in
policing. It should be noted that all of these ideas are subject to identifying available resources.
The detailed ideas are listed in the attached spreadsheet, but in general this includes:
•Support for more social workers
•Support for a civilian community service office (holding account with details TBD)
•Support for increasing mental health resources for first responders, including dispatch
•Support for equipment and/or staff to enhance transparency with body cameras.
3.Investment in Capital Improvements for constituents – The Council has expressed an
interest in increasing funding for the CIP fund so that additional constituent projects that are
not currently recommended for funding, can be addressed. Council Members have indicated
that their interest is particularly due to the City not accepting constituent projects in FY 21.
This idea is subject to identifying available resources.
a.Council Members have asked about increasing the CIP fund to the traditional 7% level.
If the Council wanted to increase the funding for CIP to 7% level, it would need to
identify $2,775,049 in revenue. (Depending on eventual usage in CIP, sources could
include General Fund, Funding our Future, County transportation funds, Transportation
holding account)
b.An alternative idea is to allocate specific amounts sufficient to fund specific projects.
4.Compensation – some Council Members have expressed an interest in increasing
compensation for employees beyond the Administration's proposed 1% increase. This idea is
subject to identifying available resources.
a. If the Council wanted to increase compensation for employees by 1% across the board,
it would require identifying $1.7 million in the general fund ($1.1million for
represented units) and $1.1 million in other funds.
b. This would not necessarily adjust the City’s general approach to compensate to “95% of
market” – the Council could adjust that pending available resources.
c. Staff can provide amounts for specific employee units of the City if the Council is
interested.
d.Council Members also discussed adjusting the City’s policy of compensating at 95% of
market.
5.New Positions – some Council Members expressed an interest in considering proposed new
positions in more detail. Each new position is listed in the attached spreadsheet under the
proposed department. Note: While most positions are funded for less than a full year to reflect
5
the time it takes to actually hire an employee, there are a few that are proposed for a full year
of funding. The Council could consider adjusting those budget amounts to reflect the realities
of the hiring process. Alternately, the Council could authorize advertising for new positions to
begin before the fiscal year begins.
6.Department Reorganizations – some Council Members expressed an interest in taking more
time to consider department reorganizations. To the extent that any new FTEs are proposed
either as a part of reorganizations or in general, those are in the attached spreadsheet.
7.Funding source options - Staff has identified the following potential funding sources for
Council discussion/consideration, potentially to address some of the above ideas (these are
included on the attached spreadsheet):
a.Potential additional revenue (pending information from Tax Commission and follow up
from the Administration)
i.Actual New Growth
ii.Actual Judgement levy
iii.Revenue loss replacement from ARPA - (potentially more than $10m is eligible)
b. Funds included in the MRB that are not needed
i. Election expenses - $187k
ii. Interest expense (not doing a tax anticipation note this year) - $350k
iii. Body cam one-time dollars - $93k
c. Fund balances available
i. Funding our future fund balance available - $200k from FY 20, $1.9m from FY
21 (above 14%) - note: this is one-time $
ii. General fund balance available if BA #9 ARPA dollars are adopted - $1.2m -
note: this is one-time $
iii. North Temple Viaduct CRA debt service overage – TBD - note: this is one-time
$
d. Holding accounts available
i. Transportation holding account - $1.8m - note: this is one-time $
ii. Holding account for underserved communities (CIP?) - $669,138 - note: this is
one-time $
Potential conditional appropriations
1. Diversification of public safety response – Set aside $_______ from _______ in a holding
account for later appropriation, pending discussion with the Administration about the feasibility
of establishing community enforcement and support approaches that enhance community safety
and reduce the dependence on sworn police officers for duties that fall outside of their scope.
2. Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails – condition any current or
future budget for trails that no dollars are spent until the public review period is over and the
Council has been briefed/approves of future plans
3.Continued Contingency for All Funding Our Future -- Sales Tax Funds (this has been
adopted each year since the City implemented the sales tax). The Council approves Funding
Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be
expended unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
6
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper
legal and financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and
outcomes report on each of the four critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately
to ensure it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the four critical need areas as adopted in the
attached key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the
adopted budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available
dashboard reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items
are funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve
the critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a
presentation of the report.
Potential legislative intents
1.Update Boarded Building Fee.
2. Golf Fund Update. To include:
a.Golf Fund Financial Sustainability.
b.Long-term CIP Plans.
c. Golf Food and Beverage Options
3. Ongoing Expenses for Maintenance at City-Owned Parcels
4.Energy Efficiency as a Condition of RDA Project Loans and Investments.
5.RDA Structure of Accounts, including Fund Balances and Previous Capital Projects.
6. Trips to transit – evaluating for expansion in future areas. The Administration has provided
some additional information:
Measuring success: The Transit Master Plan identifies accessibility and cost effectiveness as the two
key goals for this program. The specific metrics to determine if we are meeting those goals could be
total ridership, as well as cost per rider. Here are the metrics being used by UTA for their Southwest
Salt Lake County Service:
Timeline: We anticipate that this service will launch between August and the end of 2021. After one
year, we will be able to do some initial evaluations, but it may take 2-3 years to fully understand the
7
impact and benefits of the service.
6/8/2021 **DRAFT - Representing Council Straw Polls on 6-3 ** 12:28 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
A B C D E F G H I J K
Net (9,649)$ 1,608$ 1,583,500$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue TBD
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater than the
proposed budget)TBD
Confirm property tax stabilization 1,000,000$
Capture funds not expended/encumbered from FY 2020 Funding
our Future 200,000$ 200,000$
Funding our future fund balance dollars over 14%1,929,483$ 1,929,483$
Capture funds swapped in BA #9 for ARPA dollars
(would increase usage of fund balance from $4.9 million to $6.1
milion)1,193,000$ 1,193,000$
Revenue replacement for ARPA
(potential to increase from MRB)1,432,646$ 1,432,646$
Use overage funds from North Temple Viaduct CDA account for
debt service - Transfer to RDA for N. Temple Strategic
Intervention 1,000,000$
Carry forward CIP dollars set aside for underserved communities
- Transfer to RDA for N. Temple Strategic Intervention 669,138$
CIP recapture 155,709$ 155,709$
Completed Class C funds 208,981$ 208,981$
Old CDBG projects 73,444$
Recapture Public Safety Impact Fees for future capacity needs
already built $ 1,898,497 1,898,497$
Expense Items
Total ARPA Expenses proposed in MRB 4,198,794$
Attorney's Office
NEW - City Prosecutors (10 months) - $89,350 each, 10 months
(Council question - reclassification?) $ 268,050
Community and Neighborhoods
NEW - CAN Deputy (10 months)158,750$
NEW - HAND office facilitator (revenue offset)
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - Special projects assistant focused on Community
Commitment Program (CCP)93,829$
Not eligible - Associate Planners (Funding for 3 - $78,333 each)235,000$ (235,000)$
Not eligible - Transportation Right of Way Utilization Mgr 160,000$ (160,000)$
Eligible - Youth and Family Community Program Mgr 90,633$
Eligible - Youth and Family Programming continuation 711,350$
Response to Council question re: enhancing ability to do long
term planning (not in MRB unless straw polled by Council)-
funding is for 10 months
Planning Manager 113,458$
3 Senior Planners 275,248$
3 Principal Planners 263,865$
1 Administrative Support Position 61,999$
operational budget 30,000$
Economic Development
ARPA Funded:
Not Eligible - 3 FTE - Arts Council Staffing $ 350,000 (350,000)$
Not Eligible - 1 FTE -Business & Cultural Districts $ 150,000 (150,000)$
Eligible - Economic Dev Strategic Plan (if focused on covid
recovery programs - more info needed) $ 50,000
Eligble - Economic Development Staff (if focused on recovery
efforts - more info needed) $ 290,000
Not Eligible - Tech Lake City $ 45,000 (45,000)$
Not Eligible - Construction Mitigation (need more info if
focused on small business recovery loans) $ 200,000 (200,000)$
Finance
NEW - 1 FTE - Deputy Director (10 months) $ 143,603
NEW - 1 FTE - Business Analyst (full year) $ 89,500
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - 1 FTE Grant Administrator $ 101,020
Eligible - 1 FTE Grant Manager $ 95,000
Not Eligible - Amex Cart Merchant Fees $ 40,000 40,000$ (40,000)$
Not Eligible - Business Analyst $ 89,500 (89,500)$
Fire
Emergency Management "Phase 2" Positions
NEW - 1 Fire Captain $ 136,865
NEW - 1 Accountant $ 63,517
ARPA Funded:
Eligible -4 FTE - MRT Expansion (6 months) $ 136,762
Eligible - MRT Expansion Equipment (one-time) $ 46,700
Human Resources
NEW - HR Analyst to support ERP $ 111,075
NEW - HR Supervisor (10 Months) $ 136,865
NEW - 2 FTEs - HR Tech (10 Months) - $54,475 each/10 months $ 108,950
Police
NEW - staff to track legislated issues (10 months)60,833$
NEW - internal mental health resource (10 months) $ 100,000
NEW - 6 social workers (see non-dept for funding) - 3 @ 10
months, 3 @ 6 months
Additional social workers (SEE NON-DEPT)
Alternative response models (SEE NON-DEPT)
Body Camera technology (SEE NON-DEPT)
Public Services
Public Lands Department TBD
NEW - 1 FTE Deputy Director (10 months)134,316$
NEW - 1 FTE Community Partnership Coordinator (10 months)84,113$
NEW - 1 FTE Public Land Planner (10 months)95,327$
NEW - 1 FTE Finance Manager II (10 months)117,877$
NEW - 1 FTE Groundskeeper (10 months)convert from seasonal
NEW - 1 FTE Recreational Trail Manager (10 months)64,734$
NEW - 1 FTE Recreational Signage Coordinator (10 months)51,847$
NEW - 1 FTE Trails and Natural Lands Technician (10 months)41,419$
Maintenance of new amenities 338,413$
Recapture 2 months of funding from any FTEs added TBD
ARPA Funded:
Not Eligible - Forest Preservation and Growth - 1 FTE and
ongoing equipment 219,000$ straw polled - no (219,000)$
Not Eligible - Forest Preservation and growth one-time 95,000$ straw polled - no (95,000)$
Recature Fireworks funding due to drought conditions 25,000$ (25,000)$
Additional help with special events permitting
Public Services Department
NEW - Engineer (9 Months)92,255$
NEW - 2 FTES - Landscape Architect (9 months)169,833$
NEW - 1 FTE Architect (9 months)88,477$
NEW - Engineering Informaton and Records Specialist (9
months)42,375$
NEW - 1 FTE Streets Response Team (FOF)53,300$
911 Communications (rename department)
NEW - 8 FTE Dispatchers (6 months) to implement 32 hr
workweek pilot (FOF) - increase to 10 months 153,450$ 127,875$
Council idea - add internal mental health FTE (10 months) $ 100,000
Non Departmental
recapture funds based on actual election expenses 183,327$ (183,327)$
recapture interest expense 350,000$ (350,000)$
Additional CIP dollars - funding sources are general fund, FOF,
County Transportation fund, Class B&C
to 7% level 2,775,049$ 2,775,049$
for specific community applications TBD
to CIP from Funding our Future - would have to be for FOF
eligible projects
Compensation holding amount 1,505,068$ 1,505,068$
recapture $1.8 million from transportation holding account to
fund street improvements on 600 North Corridor
Transformation 1,879,654$ 1,879,654$ 1,879,654$
ULCT - additional funding for ARPA assistance (one-time -TBD)20,000$ 20,000$
Legislative non-departmental - Citywide lobbyist 60,000$ 60,000$
Correct Arts Council Allocation 37,500$ 37,500$
Adjustments related to police reform and/or alternative
response models - only in budget if straw polled by Council:
Additional social workers (cost per month per social worker FTE
- Staff is confirming amount)9,375$
3 more social workers for 6 months 168,750$
6 more socail workers for 10 months *flexibility to adjust via
budget amendment* - using data to determine when co-
response is needed 562,500$ 562,500$
Allocation for potential lease expense or repair/remodel for
CCC space 200,000$ 200,000$
Civilian response model (TBD) - potential holding account for
further discussion with the Administration - including traffic
enforcement 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
fund additional axon body camera services 349,692$ 349,692$
potential FTE or contract position to review body camera
footage and/or use of force incidents, support to PCRB - maybe
in HR
other FTEs as recommended that could be implemented from
Matrix audit
remove funding for body camera equipment from FY 21 (only
needed one-time)93,000$ (93,000)$
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - Apprenticeship Program (if focused on re-
employment)1,000,000$
Holding account for ARPA dollars pending further evaluatation
for eligibility in BA #1 whatever is unspent ARPA
Other funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund Funding our Future ARPA Funding
CIP Funding (pending
need to track separately)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Deputy Director
DATE:June 8, 2021
RE: Fiscal Year 2022 – Proposed Insurance and Risk Management Budget
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The budget for the Insurance and Risk Management Fund accounts for costs associated with employee health
insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and unemployment compensation as well as
property insurance, workers’ compensation, excess liability, cyber liability, crime and dishonesty coverage, and
public official bonds.
There are primarily two General Fund departments that interface with the Insurance and Risk Management
Fund. The Department of Human Resources oversees employee participation in health, dental, life, accidental
death & dismemberment, and disability insurance programs. The City Attorney’s Office oversees the placement
of property insurance, excess workers’ compensation insurance, excess liability insurance, cyber liability, crime
and dishonesty coverage and public official bonds. It also oversees the third-party administration of the City’s
self-insured workers’ compensation program and provides risk assessments, loss mitigation recommendations
and safety training resources.
City staff time that is spent on these activities can be charged to the Insurance and Risk Management Fund.
There are a total of 7.75 FTEs charged to this fund between Human Resources, Attorney’s Office, and Finance.
This is an increase of 1.65FTEs from the FY 21 budget and represents the addition of a .15 FTE HR deputy
director (approved in BA #4), a 1 FTE HR supervisory, and a .5 FTE admin/assistant.
The budget includes total revenues of $51.5 million and total expenses of $52.9 million (using $1.4 million from
the Insurance and Risk Mgmt fund balance to cover the premium holiday).
•The majority of projected revenue for the Insurance and Risk Management Fund comes from health
insurance premiums, which accounts for seventy-nine (79) percent of the FY 22 Fund expenses.
•Revenue and expense budgets are based on the expected premiums collected and paid. Actual General
Fund budgets for the City’s share of the premiums reside in departmental budgets.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 8 , 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 15 (tbd)
Page | 2
•The Fund will continue to contribute the up-front contribution to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or
Flex for enrolled employees on July 1st ($750 for individual, $1500 for double or family).
ADDITIONAL/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.Insurance Policies – for the Council’s information, the Administration provided an overview of the
City’s current coverage, both purchased and self-insured, overseen by the Attorney’s Office (see
Attachment 2). More information on actual claims experience and state code provisions for a property
tax levy to pay for this coverage if the Council wanted to pursue that, can be found in the Governmental
Immunity staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Expenditure Detail
Attachment 2 – Summary of purchased and self-insured coverage
Page | 3
ATTACHMENT 1
Adopted Budget
FY 2019-20
Adopted Budget
FY 2020-21
Proposed Budget
FY 2021-22 Difference
Percent
Change Additional Information
Health Insurance Trust 34,824,784$ 40,339,304$ 41,474,898$ 1,135,594$ 3.4%transfer out of fund balance for premium holiday
Dental Insurance Trust 2,888,071$ 2,888,071$ 2,888,071$ -$ 0.0%
Life/Accidental Death Premiums 1,608,817$ 1,608,817$ 1,608,817$ -$ 0.0%
Long Term Disability 1,309,875$ 1,313,665$ 1,091,666$ (221,999)$ -17.1%Includes Long Term Disability for Public Safety
Workers' Compensation 2,225,323$ 2,236,429$ 2,325,227$ 88,798$ 4.0%reflects actual experience in workers comp claims
Unemployment Compensation 241,300$ 241,300$ 241,300$ -$ 0.0%
Loss Control/Safety Program 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ 0.0%
Administrative Costs and Fees 2,698,192$ 2,761,439$ 3,067,511$ 306,072$ 11.8%
Total 45,816,362$ 51,409,025$ 52,717,490$ 1,472,810$ 3.3%
Insurance and Risk Management Fund
Proposed Expenditures FY 2021-22
Revised 2/24/2021
Salt Lake City Corporation
Purchased Insurance and Self-Insured Risk
The following summary is provided for illustrative purposes. For specific information on terms, conditions, coverages,
limitations and exclusions, please refer to the policy contracts, available through the Risk Management Division.
Purchased Insurance:
Property Insurance
Policy limit: $500,000,000 for any one loss and in the aggregate for “covered causes of loss.” Sublimits and
exclusions apply. Deductibles apply per occurrence except as otherwise specified. Premium: $902,400
Description Coverage Limit Deductible Covered causes of loss: Fire $500,000,000 $100,000 Earth Movement $125,000,000 1% per location; subject to $100,000 min. and $5,000,000 max. per location Flood $100,000,000 $250,000 or $500,000, based on location Wind $500,000,000 $100,000 Boiler and Machinery $500,000,000 $100,000 Errors and Omissions $100,000,000 $100,000 Service Interruption and Extra Expense $10,000,000 Same as covered cause of loss Certified Acts of Terrorism $5,000,000 $100,000
Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Coverage sits above the City’s self-insured retention of $750,000 per occurrence for Workers’ Compensation
claims. It protects against catastrophic claims or other serious claims. Premium: $266,538
Description Limit Self-Insured Retention Coverage A: Statutory Workers’ Compensation $30,000,000 $1,000,000 per occurrence Police and Fire $750,000 per occurrence All other positions Coverage B: Employers’ Liability $1,000,000 $1,000,000 per occurrence Police and Fire $750,000 per occurrence All other positions
Government Crime Policy
Employee dishonesty coverage for Salt Lake City Corporation and Redevelopment Agency of SLC. Premium: $9,913
Description Limit Deductible Employee Theft $1,000,000 $20,000 Computer Fraud $1,000,000 $20,000 Funds Transfer Fraud $1,000,000 $20,000 Theft of Money and Securities $50,000 $2,500 Money Orders and Counterfeit Money $50,000 $2,500 Forgery or Alteration $25,000 $1,000
Note: Premiums shown are for 7/1/2020 – 7/1/2021 policy period.
2
Purchased Insurance (continued):
Public Entity Excess Liability Insurance
Provides coverage in excess of the City’s self-insured retention. Premium: $267,278
Description Limit Self-Insured Retention
• General Liability
• Automobile Liability
• Law Enforcement Liability
• Employment Practices Liability
• Public Officials’ Liability
$2,000,000/$4,000,000 General Liability $2,000,000/$2,000,000 All other lines
$1,000,000 per occurrence
Cyber and Technology Liability
Provides data breach response and crisis management and all other coverages listed below. Premium: $45,490
Description Limit Self-Insured Retention
• Third-Party Liability - Data Breach Response and Crisis Mgmt. - Privacy and Cyber Security - Privacy Regulatory Defense, Awards, Fines - Media
• First-Party Coverages - Business Interruption and Extra Expense - Data Recovery - Cyber Extortion and Ransomware
$5,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate $50,000 per claim
Public Official Bonds
Fidelity bonds required under SLC Code § 2.42.020. All other employees, including elected officials, are covered by
the Government Crime Policy, which acts as an Employee Blanket Bond. Premium: $30,846
Description Limit Deductible Bond of City Treasurer $10,000,000 $50,000 Bond of Deputy City Treasurer $10,000,000 $50,000 Bond of Finance Director $10,000,000 $50,000
Note: Premiums shown are for 7/1/2020 – 7/1/2021 policy period.
3
Self-Insured Coverage:
Liability
Liability claims are administered by the Risk Management Division of the City Attorney’s Office. The City maintains
a reserve fund, the Governmental Immunity Fund, from which the City’s claims and damages are paid.
In the event of a “claim, settlement, or judgment” exceeding the current budget and reserve, the City may levy
an annual property tax to pay it. UCA § 63G-7-704.
Description Comments Tort Claims Claims against Salt Lake City are subject to provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah § 63G-7-101 et seq. Judgments for bodily injury are currently limited to $779,600 per person and $3,138,300 aggregate amount of individual awards in relation to a single occurrence. Judgments for property damage are limited to $307,700 in any one occurrence.1 Commercial Auto Liability Per SLC Code § 2.54.030(C), Salt Lake City provides auto liability coverage of $200,000 per incident in addition to that required by Utah Code §§ 31A-22-304 and 63G-7-802. Utah’s current minimum auto insurance limits are $25,000/$65,000 for bodily injury or death and $15,000 for property damage. Federal Court Cases Governmental Immunity does not generally apply to Federal cases. Examples include alleged civil rights violations, discrimination, or wrongful termination. If the claims are based on Federal law, there is no immunity or judgment limitation on provable damages.
Workers’ Compensation
Salt Lake City Corporation’s Workers’ Compensation program has a Self-Insured Retention (SIR) of $1M per
occurrence for Police and Fire employees; $750,000 per occurrence for all other employees. The Excess Workers’
Compensation policy covers claims above the SIR.
To purchase Workers’ Compensation insurance where all of the risk is transferred to the insurance company
would be substantially more expensive for the City.
Description Comments Statutory Coverage - Workers’ Compensation Employees and City volunteers are covered in accordance with the Utah Labor Code, § 34A-2 et seq. Claims in excess of self-insured retention are covered by excess policy (retention amount varies depending on policy period).
1 Judgment limitations as of 7/1/2020. Adjustments are made pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-7-604 and Utah Administrative Code Rule R37-4.
1
7
1
0
3
City Council Announcements
June 8, 2021
Information Needed By Staff
A. Salt Lake Chamber Giant in our City honoring Katharine and the late Robert
Garff
The Mayor’s office has purchased a table at the Giant in Our City Event being held Thursday,
June 24, at 6:00 pm, and has invited any interested Council Members to join. Event details are
provided below.
➢If you are interested in attending, please let staff know by 3 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 9th.
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021
Time: 6:00 p.m. Reception, 7:00 p.m. Dinner, and Program
Location: Grand America Grand Ballroom, (555 South Main Street, SLC, UT)
Dress: Masquerade Theme/Black Tie Invited
Event Website: www.slchamber.com/giant
project... I would oppose granting them essentially a blank check. So,
IF I am given ample notice and opportunity for the next meeting /
hearing about this proposed re-zoning, I would likely appear and that
would be my input: "First tell me what you want to build here--then
we'll tell you if we'll let you build it--if it does not meet the
current zoning guidelines for this parcel."
We have zoning for a reason. And though I don't always agree with all
zoning classifications... I also don't agree with just granting most
developers any changes to the zoning that they ask for. In this
particular case, they aren't asking for a specific reason--the owner /
seller is essentially asking for the change in zoning simply to make
more money on the sale of their property... which shouldn't really be
the concern of the city / planning / zoning commission. Right?
So, lastly, is there any way--now that there is a specific proposal /
case number attached to this thing--to be automatically and digitally
notified of any and all future hearings, filings, decisions, etc
regarding this proposal? Aside from snail mail... which is not very
reliable these days.
Thank you.
Jared Meadors
Owner, 851 / 855 E 3rd Ave, SLC 84103 (the property directly across the
street from the subject property)
7. MAILING LIST
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
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
https://fundingourfutureslc.com/
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Kira Luke and Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analysts
DATE: June 8, 2021
RE: FUNDING OUR FUTURE: Recap and Overview for FY22
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the City identified street conditions, affordable housing, public transit, and neighborhood safety as important
City services in need of additional ongoing funding. To fund these service needs, the Council increased the sales tax by
0.5%, and placed an $87 million Streets Reconstruction General Obligation bond on the 2018 ballot, which City voters
approved. The bond works in tandem with the sales tax funding by reconstructing the worst streets first while the sales
tax revenue keeps streets in good condition longer.
The formal votes to place the bond on the 2018 ballot and to authorize the 0.5% sales tax increase was preceded by
extensive online and in-person public engagement on the four critical need areas. One of the commitments made to the
public throughout the engagement process was an enhanced level of transparency on how this revenue stream is used,
in addition to the City’s typical high transparency in the budget process.
Current transparency resources include:
The City maintains FundingOurFutureSLC.com: year by year breakdowns of the budget allocations for the
critical need areas, as well as updates on the projects funded.
Quarterly (now semiannual) updates on projects funded and expenditures to date (Attachment 1: Year two, 4th
Quarter report)
Annual report on staff funded via Funding Our Future and how roles fall within critical need scopes
(Attachment 2: Annual staffing report)
For internal tracking, all Funding Our Future revenues are tracked, and all expenses are flagged as Funding
Our Future programs. When funds allocated for Funding Our Future need areas aren’t able to be used in a
fiscal year (for example, if a contract negotiation falls through), instead of falling into the unallocated General
Fund Balance (the City’s rainy day fund / savings account), those funds are also tracked separately and
available to be reallocated to relevant programs.
Note: specific allocations are discussed within each Department’s budget. In early years, legislative intents relating to
Funding Our Future were created to aid in transparency and reporting for these funds. Most of those intents are now
codified within the budget adoption ordinance (Appendix I, below). Some prior year Funding Our Future-related
discussions have taken place as part of the larger Legislative Intents discussion. Some proposals for the Funding Our
Future fund balance are also under consideration within the Unresolved Issues discussion.
Page | 2
Recap: Prior Year Allocations
Funding Our Future provides a new ongoing
revenue stream for previously underfunded
critical needs and enhance or add new programs
identified as priorities. However, sales tax is one
of the most volatile revenue streams. Note that in
the chart to the right the first year of 2018-2019
was a partial revenue year because the new sales
tax percentage was implemented partway into
the fiscal year and it takes several weeks for all
retailers to update their systems and actually
charge the higher rate. FY20 was the first full
year of sales tax revenue under the higher rate.
Revenues dipped significantly in FY21, as most
City budgets compressed in response to the
global pandemic. FY22 revenues are anticipated
to recover to near FY20 levels.
Chart by Julie Norman
The line chart below breaks out funding for the four critical need areas plus the amount transferred to the Capital
Improvement Program or CIP. Note that the amount going to CIP is mostly for new street infrastructure projects but a
smaller amount is for any CIP project because this contributes to the City’s goal of having at least 7% of all ongoing
General Fund revenues (including Funding Our Future) be available for capital projects.
Chart by Julie Norman
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and
Public Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
City CouncilAmy Fowler 06/08/2021
4
4
44
advice of Counsel
Amy Fowler (Nov 16, 2021 21:23 MST)Nov 16, 2021
Closed Session - Sworn Statement - June 8,
2021
Final Audit Report 2021-11-17
Created:2021-11-11
By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAANgmWcW0br4E2esbiF8omxQbU_NOSk261
"Closed Session - Sworn Statement - June 8, 2021" History
Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
2021-11-11 - 10:05:18 PM GMT
Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature
2021-11-11 - 10:06:20 PM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2021-11-17 - 4:23:15 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2021-11-17 - 4:23:26 AM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2021-11-17 - 4:23:26 AM GMT