06/15/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 15, 2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(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: 15:39:10
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 ~ 2:00 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.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~ 2:30 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up 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; Tuesday, June 8, 2021;
Thursday, June 10, 2021; and Tuesday, June 15, 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 - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
3.Ordinance: Rezone at Approximately 860 and 868 East
3rd Avenue ~ 3:30 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 15, 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.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 850 and
870 East 2100 South ~ 3:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the zoning of
properties at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South. The proposal would rezone
the properties from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House
Business District) and would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House
Master Plan from "Mixed Use - Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-Use -
Neighborhood Scale." The intent of the request is to allow more flexibility to develop a
future multi-family residential, office, or mixed-use development. Consideration may be
given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
5.Tentative Break ~ 4:10 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~ 4:30 p.m.
30 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, including:
◦A presentation of an additional recommendation relating to School Safety;
and,
◦A presentation of recommendations relating to Policies and Practices; 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
7.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 810 East
800 South ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the zoning map
for a parcel of property at 810 East 800 South. The proposal would rezone the parcel
from R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business District) and
would amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant submitted preliminary
development plans for a two-story building that would have commercial space on the first
floor, residential units on the second floor, and parking located to the rear. Consideration
may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar
characteristics.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 20, 2021
8.Informational: Mosquito Abatement District Briefing ~ 5:20 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Mosquito Abatement District’s proposed
property tax increase for fiscal year 2022, as well as information about the District’s
abatement activity in the City. The District is a taxing entity separate from the City and
has its own ability to propose property tax changes within certain parameters.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
9.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Meggie Troili ~ 5:50 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Meggie Troili prior to considering appointment to the Art
Design Board for a term ending June 15, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
10.Board Appointment: Art Design Board – Tiffini Porter ~ 5:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Tiffini Porter prior to considering appointment to the Art
Design Board for a term ending June 15, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
11.Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City –
William Davis ~ 6:00 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview William Davis prior to considering appointment to the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for a term ending June 15, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
12.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) –
Justin Rodriguez ~ 6:05 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 15, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Standing Items
13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
15.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, 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 15, 2021
COVID-19 update
•No SLC zip codes are above the 191/100,000 crude
positivity rate.
•Vaccinations in the Central City and West Side areas are
still behind the east side, which is 50-62% fully vaccinated.
•52.4% of the eligible population in SLCO is vaccinated.
•Slight uptick in positive test results post-Memorial Day
weekend.
Current metrics
COVID-19 update
West Side vaccination rates
May 25 June 1 June 8 June 15
84101 55.8%full
15.68% partial
58.73%full
13.99% partial
60.80%full
13.11 partial
63.68% full
12.38% partial
84104 28.37%full
9.03% partial
30.31%full
9.03% partial
31.82% full
8.03% partial
33.57% full
7.34% partial
84116 31.05%full
9.06% partial
33.74%full
8.39% partial
35.07%full
8.01% partial
37.19% full
7.28% partial
COVID-19 update
May 25 June 1 June 8 June 15
Asian 42.58%44.53%46.14%49.14%
White 40.55%42.19%43.58%45.82%
Black or
African
American
24.99%27.03%28.58%31.05%
American
Indian
27.96%29.86%31.27%33.36%
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
22.08%23.51%24.74%26.61%
Hispanic
ethnicity
24.21%26.14%27.70%30.20%
Non-Hispanic
ethnicity
39.46%40.99%42.28%44.36%
Fully vaccinated demographic totals countywide
City Hall building re-opening
Many departments are returning to the building in
a hybrid model.
Some departments are accepting the public by
appointments.
Emergency Responder
Pandemic Leave
•ERPL usage has increased by 12 this past pay period, totaling 1,380
utilizations.
Federal Families First
Coronavirus Act / Emergency
Pandemic Leave (FFCRA/EPL)
•This week EPL usage has increased by 1, totaling 330
utilizations.
Homelessness update
Previous Week: 5/31-6/4
Current week: 6/7-6/11
Men's HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total
Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current
Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg. number of beds occupied
each night 255 251 186 192 174 171 614 614
Avg number of beds
unoccupied each night 45 49 14 8 26 29 86 86
Avg % of beds occupied each
night 84.9%83.7%93.1%96%86.8%85.7%87.8%87.8%
Avg % of beds unoccupied each
night 15.1%16.3%6.9%4%13.2%14.3%12.2%12.2%
Community
Commitment
Program
update
Next resource fair is June 16th at Cottonwood Park
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Kayak Court: The second Kayak Court will be held on
June 23rd. HEART and the Courts are working together
to establish monthly dates through early fall.
Other Activities:
•Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill
•Downtown Ambassador expansion pilot program
expiration
Cooling centers
•SL County is organizing information on Cooling Centers that will be in operation throughout the summer. These are public buildings that will be open for people to use to escape the heat of these hot days.
•More detailed information will be available next week about the services offered at those centers, like shower and drinking water access, as well as further details on participating City buildings.
Sworn Staffing Levels
Total Dept
SLC
Divisions
Airport
Division
589 523 66
-20 -20 0
-46 -40 -6
-20 -18 -2
-10 -10 0
-32 -32 0
461 403 58
22%23%12%
Police Department
Sworn Staffing Levels
6/7/2021
*This does not include leave time for
Training, Court Time, SDI, Workers
Compensation, Administrative Leave,
Unpaid Leave, Bereavement Leave,
Personal Leave, Holiday, Vacation, Parental
Leave, etc.
Total Dept
SLC
Divisions
Airport
Division
S 589 523 66
-20 -20 0
-46 -40 -6
-18 -16 -2
-10 -10 0
-32 -32 0
T 463 405 58
21%23%12%
Police Department
Sworn Staffing Levels
6/1/2021
*This does not include leave time for
Training, Court Time, SDI, Workers
Compensation, Administrative Leave,
Unpaid Leave, Bereavement Leave,
Personal Leave, Holiday, Vacation,
Parental Leave, etc.
Total
Dept
SLC
Divisions
Airport
Division
Sworn Authorized 589 523 66
Less Unfunded Vacant -20 -20 0
Less Funded Vacant -49 -45 -4
Less Pending Vacancies -18 -16 -2
Less Active Military -12 -12 0
Training / Recruits not available -32 -32 0
Total Available for response 458 398 60
% Unavailable*22%24%9%
Police Department
Sworn Staffing Levels
6/15/2021
*This does not include leave time for Training, Court Time, SDI, Workers
Compensation, Administrative Leave, Unpaid Leave, Bereavement Leave,
Personal Leave, Holiday, Vacation, Parental Leave, etc. (Leaves - 12)
Sworn Staffing Levels
2 2 2
4
3 3
2
4 4
2
1 1
3
2
4
2
4
8
4
2
4 4
3
7
5
1
6
5
6
1
4
6
3
8
6
9
1
4
1
2 2
3
2
1
2
4
6
11
4
10
17
4
7
6
4
3
6
5
13
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
J
u
l
-
1
6
A
u
g
-
1
6
S
e
p
-
1
6
O
c
t
-
1
6
N
o
v
-
1
6
D
e
c
-
1
6
J
a
n
-
1
7
F
e
b
-
1
7
M
a
r
-
1
7
A
p
r
-
1
7
M
a
y
-
1
7
J
u
l
-
1
7
A
u
g
-
1
7
S
e
p
-
1
7
O
c
t
-
1
7
N
o
v
-
1
7
D
e
c
-
1
7
J
a
n
-
1
8
F
e
b
-
1
8
M
a
r
-
1
8
A
p
r
-
1
8
M
a
y
-
1
8
J
u
n
-
1
8
J
u
l
-
1
8
A
u
g
-
1
8
S
e
p
-
1
8
O
c
t
-
1
8
N
o
v
-
1
8
D
e
c
-
1
8
J
a
n
-
1
9
F
e
b
-
1
9
M
a
r
-
1
9
A
p
r
-
1
9
M
a
y
-
1
9
J
u
n
-
1
9
J
u
l
-
1
9
A
u
g
-
1
9
S
e
p
-
1
9
O
c
t
-
1
9
N
o
v
-
1
9
D
e
c
-
1
9
J
a
n
-
2
0
F
e
b
-
2
0
M
a
r
-
2
0
A
p
r
-
2
0
M
a
y
-
2
0
J
u
n
-
2
0
J
u
l
-
2
0
A
u
g
-
2
0
S
e
p
-
2
0
O
c
t
-
2
0
N
o
v
-
2
0
D
e
c
-
2
0
J
a
n
-
2
1
F
e
b
-
2
1
M
a
r
-
2
1
A
p
r
-
2
1
M
a
y
-
2
1
J
u
n
-
2
1
J
u
l
-
2
1
A
x
i
s
T
i
t
l
e
60 Month Trendline July 2016 to July 2021
2021 5-yr
Avg Chg % Chg 2021 5-yr
Avg Chg % Chg 2021 Recent
Chg
Recent
% Chg 2021 2020 % Chg Avg**% Chg
Criminal Homicide 1 0.0 1.0 /0 3 0.8 2.2 275.0%2 1 50.0%7 4 75.0%4.00 75.0%
Forcible Rape 5 7.0 -2.0 -28.6%21 22.8 -1.8 -7.9%25 -4 -16.0%113 97 16.5%107 5.2%
Robbery - Business 0 1.8 -1.8 -100.0%6 12.6 -6.6 -52.4%4 2 50.0%40 46 -13.0%61.80 -35.3%
Robbery - All Other 7 9.0 -2.0 -22.2%29 30.0 -1.0 -3.3%24 5 20.8%131 122 7.4%138 -5.1%
Agg. Assault - Family 7 3.6 3.4 94.4%24 16.6 7.4 44.6%20 4 20.0%110 108 1.9%82.20 33.8%
Agg. Assault - NonFamily 21 15.0 6.0 40.0%60 51.0 9.0 17.7%55 5 9.1%306 233 31.3%236 29.9%
TOTAL VIOLENT CRIMES 41 36.4 4.6 12.6%143 134 9.2 6.9%130 13 10.0%707 610 15.9%629 12.4%
Burglary - Residential 15 14.6 0.4 2.7%66 64.6 1.4 2.2%53 13 24.5%316 237 33.3%347 -8.9%
Burglary - All Other 13 14.2 -1.2 -8.5%70 65.2 4.8 7.4%61 9 14.8%389 287 35.5%334 16.6%
Larceny - Vehicle Burglary 72 71.2 0.8 1.1%366 299 66.8 22.3%448 -82 -18.3%2,517 1,907 32.0%1,825 37.9%
Larceny - All Other 106 142 -35.8 -25.3%406 535 -129 -24.2%385 21 5.5%2,246 2,252 -0.3%2,870 -21.8%
Motor Vehicle Theft 21 31.4 -10.4 -33.1%145 128 17.2 13.5%172 -27 -15.7%983 697 41.0%744 32.1%
TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 227 273 -46.2 -16.9%1,053 1,092 -39.2 -3.6%1,119 -66 -5.9%6,451 5,380 19.9%6,120 5.4%
GRAND TOTAL 268 310 -41.6 -13.4%1,196 1,226 -30.0 -2.5%1,249 -53 -4.2%7,158 5,990 19.5%6,749 6.1%
Drugs 59 90.2 -31.2 -34.6%223 425 -202 -47.6%248 -25 -10.1%1,366 1,591 -14.1%2,530 -46.0%
Weapons 14 8.4 5.6 66.7%57 36.4 20.6 56.6%44 13 29.5%294 230 27.8%204 44.0%
Vandalism 82 66.0 16.0 24.2%344 263 81.0 30.8%296 48 16.2%1,687 1,383 22.0%1,434 17.6%
May 10-May 16May 17-May 23May 24-May 30May 31-Jun 062015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Homicide 0 1 1 1 4 5 2 2 7 4 7
Sex Assault 6 5 5 5 103 120 127 92 101 97 113
Robbery - Business 1 2 3 0 58 78 74 53 58 46 40
Robbery - All Other 4 10 8 7 122 155 157 129 127 122 131
Aggravated Assault - Family 8 4 5 7 86 87 60 76 80 108 110
Aggravated Assault - All Other 9 17 13 21 215 261 262 201 221 233 306
Violent Crimes 28 39 35 41 588 706 682 553 594 610 707
Burglary - Residential 17 16 18 15 495 394 432 395 277 237 316
Burglary - All Other 21 21 15 13 346 367 404 343 267 287 389
Larceny - Vehicle Burglary 95 117 82 72 2201 2314 1999 1415 1488 1907 2517
Larceny - All Other 108 101 91 106 3526 3544 3497 2592 2467 2252 2246
Vehicle Theft 40 46 38 21 982 886 883 663 592 697 983
Property Crimes 281 301 244 227 7550 7505 7215 5408 5091 5380 6451
GRAND TOTALS 28 340 279 268 8138 8211 7897 5961 5685 5990 7158 Year-to-Date Totals (Jan 1 through Jun 7)
Drugs 50 57 57 59 2430 3338 3853 2232 1637 1591 1366
Weapons 16 17 10 14 236 221 200 174 196 230 294
Vandalism 83 97 82 82 1662 1566 1536 1400 1286 1383 1687
Salt Lake City PD – CompStat Report
Volume 7 – Number 22
Report Covering the Week 05/31/2021 Through 06/06/2021 (Mon-Sun)
**Averages greater than or equal to 100 are rounded to a whole digit to maintain a consistent column size.
***Charts may erroneously show an apparent drop in the most current data due to some cases not yet having been reported and/or recorded.
Last 7 Days*Last 28 Days*Previous 28 Days*
(Prior to Last 28 Days)Year to Date (YTD)*5-Year YTD
Average*
Vi
o
l
e
n
t
C
r
i
m
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
r
i
m
e
Mi
s
c
The figures included in this report are preliminary figures for general situational awareness and trend purposes only. They do not represent the official figures of the Salt Lake City Police Department and are subject to further analysis and revision. Due to the statute-driven, changing
nature of crime classification and area boundaries over time, be advised that the figures contained may not fully coincide with SLCPD statistical sources. Differences are reflective of the departmental procedures or policies that were in place at the time the events occurred and the
date the data was compiled. In addition, data may be approximate in relation to indicated areas. Additionally, they are not Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) or "crime rate" numbers and are not intended to be used as such. Rather, they are a breakdown of every offense within every
case that occurred during the given time periods. Although every reasonable effort is made to verify their accuracy, the accuracy of any data is subject to the constraints of the report generation process as well as the manner, format, and point in time of any query.
*The above CompStat figures were generated on Tuesday, 2 day(s) after the closing date, which is indicated in the title. The figures are current as of the date generated.
0
5
10
15
20
25
May 10-May 16 May 17-May 23 May 24-May 30 May 31-Jun 06
4-Week Breakdown -Violent Offenses
Homicide
Sex
Assault
Robbery-
Bus.
Robbery-
Other
Agg Aslt-
Family
Agg Aslt-
NonFam
8,138 8,211 7,897
5,961 5,685 5,990
7,158
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year-to-Date Totals (Jan 1 through Jun 7)
Property Crimes
Violent Crimes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
May 10-May 16 May 17-May 23 May 24-May 30 May 31-Jun 06
4-Week Breakdown -Property Offenses
Vehicle
Burglary
Other
Larceny
Vehicle
Theft
Burg-Res
Burg-All
Other
Vandalism
Citywide Data
All Offenses
Page 1 of 10
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 15, 2021
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES
The Council reviewed this information on Tuesday, June 1st, June 3rd, 8th, and 10th, and
received additional information from the Administration. The Council indicated items of
interest and conducted straw polls. See attached for the spreadsheet reflecting straw polls
as of the end of the discussion on June 10th, and final property tax information which was
received on the morning of June 11th.
The attached spreadsheet reflects a budget that is balanced. Key components include:
- Fund balance level is as recommended in the Mayor’s budget, 13.89%
- Additional funding to CIP, bringing that amount over 7%
- Expands the City’s co-responder/social worker program, enhances Dispatch resources,
and adds an additional Medical Response Team in the Fire Department.
- $2 million is set aside for future conversations with the Administration and REP
commission to fund alternative response models
- Funds additional FTEs and resources across departments as proposed in the budget to
enhance/expand their activities, and adds additional resources to the Planning Division
- Changes the employee compensation increase to 2% and funds recently offered union
compensation
- Uses Federal American Rescue Plan (ARPA) dollars to aid recovery efforts and programs
like the enhanced Youth and Family program and apprenticeship program, and places
$1.5million to allocate at a future budget amendment once final treasury guidelines are
released.
Some Council Members asked for a list of one-time revenue sources and positions funded with
one-time dollars in the proposed budget. See chart below:
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 15, 2021
Budget Hearing: May 18, June
1, 2021
Potential Action: June 15, 2021
2
*The following information was provided for the June 10th discussion. It is provided again
for reference.*
Additional information:
1.Revenue
a. Property Tax
i. Judgement levy – County information clarified that the Council can adopt
an additional $43,697.
ii. Property Tax New Growth – As of the printing of this staff report, Council
Staff does not have updated information on the exact amount of property
tax new growth. 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 required to transmit this
information by June 8th.) Currently expenses exceed revenue by
$413,461.
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
$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. While this is one-time money, it
provided the Council additional flexibility that was not available when the Mayor
transmitted the budget.
c. Fund balance – This assumes a starting point as recommended in the Mayor’s
Recommended budget, appropriating $4.9 million from fund balance which leaves
it at 13.89%. It is a Council legislative intent/goal to keep 14% fund balance,
although that was an increase from the previous year of 13%. There is no legal
3
stipulation that you should stay above 13% although bond counsel has advised
that it’s a good idea not to continually erode fund balance (rating agencies could
penalize the city for that).
i. Straw polls include allocating fund balance freed up by Council adoption of
Budget Amendment Number 9 (reimbursing bonuses with ARPA dollars
instead of General Fund dollars). This freed up $1.2 million for the Council
to spend without impacting the fund balance level proposed by the Mayor.
While this is one-time money, it provided the Council additional flexibility
that was not available when the Mayor transmitted the budget.
ii.Previously staff was advised that 10% was the level at which rating
agencies noted. Staff note: the higher the City’s credit rating is, the lower
the cost is for the City to borrow.
2.Expenses
a. Additional information on labor negotiations may be available at the June 10th
meeting.
b. Clarification on Mayor’s Equity Office structure: The proposed budget includes moving
three positions from other Departments into the Mayor's office to focus on Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion work. The new team will work under the Equity Officer and
include four existing positions. If the Council is supportive, the staffing document
would change the names of these various positions to Equity Team Member while the
Mayor’s Office sorts out the organizational structure of the Equity Office. Straw poll:
Would the Council be supportive of the proposed changes? Would the Council also
support the positions being posted prior to July 1?
c. The Economic Development Department provided more information in writing
about the Tech Lake City initiative which was forwarded to Council Member
separately.
d. The Council may wish to evaluate expense items once property tax numbers are
final and the amount out of balance is more certain. Currently expenses exceed
revenue by $413,461.
Proposed Contingent Appropriations (these would appear in the ordinance)
1.Diversification of public safety response – Set aside $2 million from Funding our Future,
public safety category, 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.Conditional appropriation for ARPA dollars – set aside $1,583,500 million in a holding
account in non-departmental for future appropriation once federal guidelines are officially
finalized and programs/proposals can be tailored to meet those guidelines, including for
potential future CIP discussions and reimbursements for eligible expenses the City already
incurred
4
4.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:
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.
5.New Contingent Appropriation - Small Business Outreach and Support. Allocation of
$100,000 from the general fund to the Department of Economic Development’s small business
outreach and support program during the City’s major capital projects [OR major road
projects] is contingent on the Administration determining by August 31, 2021 whether the
program is eligible for ARPA funding. If the program does qualify for ARPA, those Federal
funds would replace a total of $200,000 general fund dollars, including the additional $100,000
which was approved in this budget to ensure that the program could begin its work
immediately.
Proposed New Legislative Intents, Fiscal Year 2022
a.Update Boarded-Building Fee. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
propose a boarded building fee that includes the full city costs of monitoring and
responding by police, fire and other city 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.
5
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.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.)
e.Public Lands Maintenance. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide
an estimate of the funding that would be needed to adequately maintain all of the City's
public lands. This estimate should include the number of FTEs, as well as supplies,
equipment, and appropriate signage.
f.Small Business Support. It is the intent of the Council to include funding for a small
business support program within all major road projects.
OR
It is the intent of the Council to include funding for a small business support program
within all major capital projects that have the potential to impact businesses.
RDA RELATED LEGISLATIVE INTENTS:
g.Energy Efficiency as a Condition of any RDA Project Loans and Investments. It is the
intent of the Council/Board that all RDA project loans and investments require certain
energy efficiency standards be met as a condition of funding by January 1, 2022. The
Council/Board may wish to designate specific energy efficiency or sustainability
standards, such as those set out by LEED and other accrediting organizations. (See
examples at https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/green-building-standards.)
h.Structure of Accounts within RDA, including Fund Balances and Previous Capital
Projects. It is the intent of the Council/Board to review the full structure of RDA accounts
with RDA and Finance Staff, including fund balances and capital projects funded in
previous years. The Board may wish to discuss with the RDA and Finance staff the best
way to get this information on a real-time basis. Staff note: The City’s Enterprise Resource
6
Planning (ERP) effort will help in tracking/providing this information in a less labor-
intensive way, although the horizon for full implementation could be a year or longer.
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.
7
iii.The Council may wish to review the positions that are eligible and identify
support.
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.
8
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
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 fry 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
6. 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.
7. 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
9
8.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:
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
10
impact and benefits of the service.
6/11/2021 **DRAFT - Representing Council Straw Polls on 6-3 ** 10:49 AM
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
126
127
A B C D E F G H I J K
Net -$ -$ -$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB - $1,324,297)364,464$ ($959,833)
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater than the
proposed budget)43,697$ $43,697
Confirm property tax stabilization 1,000,000$
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
Straw poll - One new prosecutor ($89,350), reclassify others
($75k). Victim advocate matching funds remain funded. $ (103,700)(103,700)$
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$ 113,458$
3 Senior Planners 275,248$ 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) - $100k available if no
ARPA dollars available $ 200,000 200,000$ (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 department or keep in Public Services (estimated difference
between Department and Division is $45-$50k)
NEW - 1 FTE Deputy Director (10 months)134,316$
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$ (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$ (133,327)$
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$ 1,366,105$
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$ 2,001,608$
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 1,583,500$
Other funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund Funding our Future ARPA Funding
CIP Funding (pending
need to track separately)
Trails Contingency
Existing and new funds for the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails
built under the Foothills Trail System Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on
hold contingent on the Administration’s review in collaboration with a broad spectrum
of community stakeholders of:
i. the implementation to date of the master plan;
ii. identification of adjustments or additional engagement as
warranted; and
iii. the Council’s authorization to move forward after the
Council evaluates the results of the process.
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more
outside experts who can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of
the trail changes and additions completed to date and anticipated in the master plan.
That written evaluation should focus on, but not be limited to, the extent to which trail
planning and development have been consistent with the vision, goals and principles in
the Master Plan, including: best practices; strategies for the preservation and
stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In addition, the written
evaluation should include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to better
meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such
funds are not used for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new
funds for maintenance or repair of existing trails will be on hold but may be released
incrementally by the Council as information about adherence to best practices and
progress on community feedback is received.
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
Revenue and Other Sources 293,332,497 32,797,506 326,130,003
Changes to FY21 Base Revenue
Sales and Use Tax 5,956,884
Sales Tax Option (1/2 Percent) 2,802,494
RDA Property Tax 594,707
Property Tax Adjustment (628,442)
Franchise Tax 890,000
PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) 53,148 Business/Regulatory Licenses (1,600,684)
Permits 4,702,006
Intergovernmental revenue 199,618
Charges for Service (518,238)
Fines and Forfeitures (464,391)
Parking Meter revenue (660,000)
Interest income (629,528)
Miscellaneous revenue (641,771)
Interfund reimbursement 1,409,938
Transfers 365,000
CPI Adjustment 377,633
Inland Port Tax Increment 983,242
Inland Port Tax Increment - Contra Revenue (983,242)
Convention Hotel Tax Increment 10,116
Convention Hotel Tax Increment - Contra Revenue (10,116)
Total Base Changes 9,405,880 2,802,494 12,208,374 - - - - - -
Proposed Changes in Revenue Resulting from Policy and Ordinance Changes
Judgment Levy (66,835) 43,697
Estimated Property Tax for New Growth 1,324,297 (959,833)
Property Tax Stabilization 1,000,000
Total Revenue Changes from Policy and Ordinance Changes 2,257,462 - 2,257,462 (916,136) - - - (916,136) -
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
One-Time Revenues
Remove Airport Building Permits (2,300,000)
Remove Health Insurance Premium Holiday (1,830,389)
Remove CDBG Transfer for CARES/Misc Grants (423,332)
Remove Transfer from Debt Service for North Temple Viaduct (996,159)
Remove Transfer from CIP (City Daycare Project) (250,000)
Remove Transfer from CIP (Recapture Completed Projects) (422,979)
Remove Airport Reimbursement for Body Cameras (129,000)
Remove Budgeted Use of Fund Balance (4,885,620)
ARPA Revenue Loss 10,000,000 1,432,646
One Time Use of General Fund Balance 4,900,000 1,193,000
REP Funding from FY2021 (remaining) 2,300,000 314,899
One Time Use of Fund Balance from Underserved Neighborhood Holding Account 1,000,000
Use of remaining balance of Investments in Underserved Neighborhoods Holding
Account 669,138
Fire Reimbursement for Deployments 515,000
Reallocated prior year Housing Plan funding 750,000
Health Insurance Premium Holiday 915,195
Use of Funding Our Future Fund Balance 2,129,483
Police Impact Fee Reimbursement to General Fund 1,898,497
Use of Funding Our Future Transit Key Routes Holding Account 1,879,654
Total One-Time Revenue 8,392,716 750,000 9,142,716 5,508,180 - 4,009,137 - 9,517,317 -
Grand Total Revenue Changes 20,056,058 3,552,494 23,608,552 4,592,044 - 4,009,137 - 8,601,181 -
Grand Total Revenue 313,388,555 36,350,000 349,738,555 4,592,044 4,009,137 8,601,181 -
City Council:
FY21 Beginning Balance 4,226,075 35.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 243,979
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 35,759
Insurance rate changes 13,172
Living Wage Adjustment 910
1% Salary Increase 31,264
Total City Council 4,551,159 35.00 - - 4,551,159 35.00 - - - - - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Legislative Non-Departmental
FY21 Beginning Balance 290,100 - - -
No Changes
Total City Council 290,100 - - - 290,100 - - - - - - -
Mayor:
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,799,755 25.00 83,310 1.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 283,148
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 166,145
Insurance rate changes 8,744
Living Wage Adjustment 3,795
1% Salary Increase 30,241
Reclassify Census Coordinator to Citywide Volunteer Coordinator 83,310 1.00 (83,310) (1.00)
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator positions from CAN 288,576 2.00
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst position from Finance 83,216 1.00
REP Commission Senior Staff Position (Funding is in Non Departmental) 1.00
Sponsorship Awards 5,000
Cultural Ambassador pilot program 9,850
Total Mayor 4,761,780 30.00 - - 4,761,780 30.00 - - - - - -
Attorneys Office:
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,123,638 50.25
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 66,603
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 31,843
Insurance rate changes 19,984
1% Salary Increase 55,480
BA#5 - New - Sr City Attorney 173,978 1.00
BA#5 - New - Sr City Attorney 173,978 1.00
BA#5 - New - Legal Secretary 87,748 1.00
BA#5 - New - Assistant City Recorder 97,612 1.00
Social Media Retention 15,588
Office Victim Advocate - Grant Funding Match 18,500
Associate City Prosecutors (10 Months) 268,050 3.00 (178,700) (2.00)
Increase Pay Grade for 10 Associate City Prosecutors 75,000
Total Attorney 8,133,002 57.25 - - 8,133,002 57.25 (103,700) (2.00) - - (103,700) (2.00)
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Community and Neighborhood Development
FY21 Beginning Balance 23,242,118 197.00 1,076,452 7.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (101,089)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 658,084
Insurance rate changes 77,552
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 107,553
Merit Changes 58,448
1% Salary Increase 179,963
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Mgr (105,920) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (80,054) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (83,930) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (90,916) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget (53,400)
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst (106,458) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst (108,646) (1.00)
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator positions to Mayor's Office (288,576) (2.00)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods
Department (Personnel Costs) 1,812,153 18.00
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods
Department (Operational Costs) 251,345
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department
(Personnel Costs) (4,864,910) (44.00)
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department
(Operational Costs) (178,402)
CAN Deputy Director of Community Services [10 Months] 158,750 1.00
HAND Office Facilitator [Revenue Offset] 79,836 1.00
HAND Operational Costs [Revenue Offset] 40,164
Planning Manager (10 Months) 113,458 1.00
Senior Planners (10 Months) 275,248 3.00
Homeless Services
Homeless Cut #1 - CCC/Green Team Reductions (6 Months) (115,000) -
Sales Tax Option - Transit
No change in Can (see Non Departmental)
Sales Tax Option - Housing Plan
Build A More Equitable City (from Non-Departmental) 388,000
Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance (from Non-
Departmental) 53,000
Incentivized Rent Assistance (from Non-Departmental) 671,620
Mortgage Assistance (from Non-Departmental) 50,000
Housing Plan - Marketing home ownership programs (from Non-
Departmental$300,000) 300,000
Housing Plan - Service Models for most vulnerable (from Non-
Departmental $535,380) 525,380
Shared Housing 62,000
Total Community and Neighborhood 20,568,719 166.00 3,046,398 6.00 23,615,117 172.00 388,706 4.00 - - 388,706 4.00
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Economic Development
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,388,562 18.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (8,383)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 104,634
Insurance rate changes 6,812
Merit Changes 5,792
1% Salary Increase 17,498
Small Business Construction Mitigation (One-time) 200,000
Total Economic Development 2,514,915 18.00 - - 2,514,915 18.00 200,000 - - - 200,000 -
Finance:
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,387,673 69.70
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (29,493)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 62,676
Insurance rate changes 29,916
Merit Changes 17,138
1% Salary Increase 64,316
BA#5 - New - Consumer Protection Analyst 45,644 1.00
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst position to Mayor's Office (83,216) (1.00)
Deputy Director [10 Months] 143,603 1.00
Business Analyst 89,500 1.00
Amex Card Merchant Fees 40,000
Total Finance 8,727,757 71.70 - - 8,727,757 71.70 40,000 - - - 40,000 -
Fire:
FY21 Beginning Balance 42,737,520 366.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (306,333)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 272,562
Insurance rate changes 164,636
Plan A Payout [One-Time] 161,243
Merit Changes 346,049
1% Salary Increase 340,686
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - Battalion Chief (Changed from EM Manager) 142,920 1.00
BA#7 - New - Fire Captain 124,776 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Training Program Specialist 114,849 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Community Preparedness Coordinator 88,924 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Multi Language Media Coordinator 98,918 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Critical Infrastructure Liaison 89,608 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Operational Costs 107,294
Airport Rescue Firefighting Expenses (ARFF) 352,300
Fire Department Deployment Expense Reimbursement [One-Time] 515,000
Emergency Management Phase 2 236,448 2.00
Total Fire 45,350,952 372.00 236,448 2.00 45,587,400 374.00 - - - - - -
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Human Resources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,629,008 21.20
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 33,586
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 97,183
Insurance rate changes 10,088
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 3,502
1% Salary Increase 25,266
BA#4 - New - Deputy HR Director (.85) 147,991 0.85
Human Resources Analyst - ERP 111,075 1.00
HR Supervisor - Recruitment [10 Months] 101,020 1.00
Human Resources Technician [10 Months] 108,950 2.00
Total Human Resources 3,267,669 26.05 - - 3,267,669 26.05 - - - - - -
Justice Courts
FY21 Beginning Balance 4,726,866 42.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (14,055)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 73,500
Insurance rate changes 16,876
Merit Changes 12,292
1% Salary Increase 35,427
Total Justice Courts 4,850,906 42.00 - - 4,850,906 42.00 - - - - - -
Police:
FY21 Beginning Balance 70,347,769 648.00 8,749,563 63.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (1,745,264)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 270,501
Insurance rate changes 253,328
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 43,645
Merit Changes 865,184
1% Salary Increase 657,270
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - Emergency Manager (134,122) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Training Program Specialist (114,849) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Community Preparedness Coordinator (88,924) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Multi Language Media Coordinator (98,918) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Critical Infrastructure Liaison (89,608) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Operational Costs (107,294)
BA#7 - Social Worker Change 841,997
BA#7 - Encampment Cleanup 650,000
Versaterm contractual changes 39,391
Legislated Action Requiring Budget [10 Months] 60,833 1.00
Police Officer Mental Health Responder [10 Months] 100,000 1.00
Increased Public Mental Health Responders (Funding in Non Departmental)
[9@10 Months and 3@6 Months] 450,000 6.00 6.00
Street Racing Initiative 70,000 (450,000)
Police Staffing from the 2021 Holding Account (from Non Departmental) 2,800,000
Total Police 74,620,939 645.00 8,749,563 69.00 83,370,502 714.00 - 6.00 - - - 6.00
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Public Lands:
FY21 Beginning Balance - -
Living Wage Adjustment 21,230
Transfer Public Lands Division from Public Services Department (Personnel
Costs) 10,956,781 110.35
Transfer Public Lands Division from Public Services Department (Operational
Costs) 6,415,644
Public Lands Department Development [Ongoing] 536,583 4.00
Public Lands Department Development [One Time] 14,400
North Temple Grounds Keeper - 1.00
Public Lands New Properties/Amenities [Ongoing] 338,413 1.00
New Recreational Trail System [Ongoing] 304,167 2.00 (51,847) (1.00)
Contractual Increases 79,000
Utilities Increases 162,500
Total Public Lands 18,828,718 118.35 - - 18,828,718 118.35 (51,847) (1.00) - - (51,847) (1.00)
Public Services:
FY21 Beginning Balance 44,302,195 310.35 2,353,031 19.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (57,548)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 808,235
Insurance rate changes 124,784
Living Wage Adjustment 1,290
Merit Changes 260,156
1% Salary Increase 228,013
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Deputy Director (176,436) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager (100,714) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget (30,200)
Transfer Public Lands Division to Public Lands Department (Personnel Costs) (10,956,781) (110.35)
Transfer Public Lands Division to Public Lands Department (Operational Costs) (6,415,644)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods
Department (Personnel Costs) (1,812,153) (18.00)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods
Department (Operational Costs) (251,345)
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department
(Personnel Costs) 4,864,910 44.00
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department
(Operational Costs) 178,402
Engineer [9 Months] 92,255 1.00
Landscape Architect [9 Months] 169,833 2.00
Licensed Architect [9 Months] 88,477 1.00
Engineering Information and Records Specialist [9 Months] 42,375 1.00
Engineering New Position Increases 9,593
Contractual Increases 115,100
Utilities Increases 128,500
Budget and Management Analysis [Ongoing] 52,800
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [Ongoing] 80,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [One Time] 69,500
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing] 53,300 1.00
Increase 1/2 Asphalt Budget [Ongoing] 120,000
Two Public Fireworks Shows - removed due to extreme drought [One-time] (25,000)
Total Public Services 31,666,097 229.00 2,675,831 20.00 34,341,928 249.00 (25,000) - - - (25,000) -
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
911 Communications Bureau
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,260,571 100.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 104,461
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 171,250
Insurance rate changes 37,768
Merit Changes 98,566
1% Salary Increase 62,439
32 Hour Work Week Pilot Program [Extending Pilot Program from Six to 11
Months] 153,450 8.00 127,875
Total 911 Dispatch Bureau 8,735,055 100.00 153,450 8.00 8,888,505 108.00 - - 127,875 - 127,875 -
Non Departmental: Original Budget Changes Original Budget Changes
FY21 Beginning Balance
Governmental Transactions
Airport Trail Reimbursement 103,887 103,887
Fire SCBA 197,000 197,000
Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 780,422 512,578 1,293,000 (93,000)
Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement 349,692
City Resident Bus Pass (HIVE) 1,260,000 1,260,000
Contract for Animal Services [BA#5 Contractual Adjustment $44,192] 1,866,295 44,192 1,910,487
Demographic Contract 50,000 50,000
Interest Expense for TRANS Bonding/Note 350,000 350,000 (350,000)
Jazz Festival - -
Jordan River Commission (Membership) 14,000 14,000
Municipal Elections - 275,000 275,000 (183,327)
2021 Ranked Choice Voting Public Awareness and Education Outreach (One-
time) 50,000
Retirement Payouts 635,000 61,000 696,000
Sorenson Center with County 1,014,800 1,014,800
Tuition Aid program 300,000 300,000
Washington D. C. Lobbyist 75,000 75,000
City Council Legislative Portion of Citywide Lobbyist 60,000
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Inter-Governmental Transfers
Capital Improvement Fund:
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service on Bonds 8,731,712 (1,089,332) 7,642,380
Debt Service on ESCO and Crime Lab Lease 877,105 19,395 896,500
Bond for ESCO Debt (55,399) 55,399 -
Debt Service Transfer to LBA for Fire Station Debt Service - -
Ongoing Commitments
Transfer to CIP for ongoing commitments 498,133 1,027,474 1,525,607
Facilities Capital Replacement 350,000 350,000
Parks Capital Replacement 250,000 250,000
New Projects 3,907,824 (446,842) 3,460,982 1,001,415
Capital Maintenance Fund (TBD)
Capital Improvement Projects Fund (TBD)
CIP Projects (TBD) 1,380,000 (100,000) 1,280,000
Infrastructure Projects (TBD) 2,400,000 (100,000) 2,300,000
Transit Plan - FTN Improvements (TBD) 1,100,000 (1,100,000) -
Council Identified - Underserved Neighborhoods & Communities of Color
[Remove One-Time] 1,669,138 (1,669,138) -
Triggered CIP from new growth - -
Transfer Out to CIP Fund Funding Our Future Transit Key Routes
Holding Account (One-time) 1,879,654
Fleet Fund:
Fleet - Replacement Fund 5,165,600 (65,600) 5,100,000
Streets Fleet Equipment Replacement 950,916 950,916
Fire Apparatus Replacement 4,000,000 4,000,000
Fire Emergency Management Vehicles 105,000 105,000
Public Service Concrete Maintenance Equipment 58,000 58,000
Public Services Engineering Position Increases Vehicles (2) 55,800 55,800
Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance 6,303,103 315,600 138,500 6,757,203
Golf Fund:
Golf (Living Wage and CCAC Salary Adjustments Transfer) 246,000 124,100 370,100
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] FY2021 460,585 (460,585) -
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] FY2022 484,000 484,000
Golf ESCO Bonding Savings (34,601) 34,601 -
Golf Admin Fee Transfer 306,582 9,197 315,779
Golf IMS Fee Transfer 200,000 200,000
Golf Fund Balance Deficit Transfer [One Time] 500,000 500,000
Governmental Immunity Fund 2,767,963 2,767,963
Information Management Services Fund:
IMS Services 11,396,867 11,396,867
Budget Amendment Changes 715,729 80,054 795,783
Contractual Changes 577,803 577,803
Technical & Inflationary Increases 152,392 152,392
Initiatives 1,030,250 350,000 1,380,250
New positions 467,652 467,652
Insurance and Risk Management Fund 2,164,883 82,734 2,247,617
Public Utilities Funds:
Public Utilities (HIVE - Pass through expense) 61,000 61,000
Public Utilities - Land Swap payment - 200,000 200,000
GF Costs for Street lighting 50,000 50,000
GF Costs for Street Lighting in Enhanced Service Areas 54,420 54,420
SAA Street Lighting 20,000 20,000
Redevelopment Agency Fund 13,501,935 594,707 14,096,642
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support
Mayor - Receptions/Employee Appreciation 20,000 20,000
ACE Fund 200,000 200,000
Board and Commissions honoraria [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] 26,000 26,000
Diversity Outreach (CoCs, etc.) 3,000 3,000
Fair Park Public Market from Underserved Neighborhoods Holding Account 1,000,000 1,000,000
Housing Authority Transitional Housing 85,000 85,000
Legal Defenders 1,292,774 1,292,774
Local Business Marketing Grants 20,000 20,000
Local First 20,000 20,000
Music Licensing Fees 7,000 7,000
National League of Cities and Towns 11,535 11,535
Rape Recovery Center 30,000 30,000
Sister Cities 10,000 10,000
Salary Contingency 1,613,986 1,613,986 1,505,068
Salt Lake City Arts Council (transferred to ED for PT Employees) 612,500 612,500 37,500
Salt Lake City Foundation - 3,000 3,000
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 50,000 50,000
Sugar House Park Authority 218,891 5,904 224,795
Tracy Aviary 674,922 674,922
US Conference of Mayors Membership 12,242 12,242
Utah Economic Development Corporation (Remove $30,000 Study [One-
Time]) 108,000 108,000
Utah Foundation Membership 10,000 10,000
Utah League of Cities and Towns Membership 160,684 160,684
ULCT ARPA Assistance (One-time) 20,000
World Trade Center Membership [BA#7 Addition] - 50,000 50,000
YWCA - FJC Wrap around services 45,000 45,000
Inn Between [One-Time] [Remove in FY2022] 30,000 (30,000) -
Transfer Out to RDA North Temple Project Area the remaining balance of
Investments in Underserved Neighborhoods Holding Account (One-time) 669,138
Police Department and Racial Equity In Policing Funding
Police Officer Training [One-Time $150,400] 322,800 (117,400) 205,400
Social Worker Program [BA#7 - Correct Accounting Error] 2,411,727 (1,589,008) 139,390 962,109
Increased Mental Health Responders (Funding in Non Departmental) [9@10
Months and 3@6 Months] 450,000 450,000 562,500
Community Connections Center Lease and/or Repairs and Remodel (One-
time) 200,000
Diversifying Public Safety Civilian Response Models Holding Account 2,001,608
Racial Equity in Policing [moved to Police Department $] 2,800,000 (2,800,000) -
Commission of Racial Equity & Policing 100,000 20,000 120,000
REP Commission Senior Staff Position [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] 190,000 190,000
REP Commission Peer Court Support [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] 20,000 20,000
REP FY2021 Holding Account [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] 1,970,000 1,970,000 314,899
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
ISSUE
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Council Changes to MRB
General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
Sales Tax Option - Housing Plan
Housing Plan - Build a more equitable City (move to CAN-HAND $388,000) 300,000 (300,000) -
Housing Plan - Community Land Trust (Eliminated) 500,000 (500,000) -
Housing Plan - Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance
(move to CAN-HAND $53,000) 350,000 (350,000) -
Housing Plan - Incentivized Rent Assistance (move to CAN-HAND $671,620) 900,000 (900,000) -
Housing Plan - Mortgage Assistance (move to CAN-HAND $50,000) 500,000 (500,000) -
Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to RDA) 2,590,000 2,590,000
Housing Plan - Marketing home ownership programs (move to CAN_HAND
$300,000) 300,000 (300,000) -
Housing Plan - Service Models for most vulnerable (move to CAN-HAND
$525,380) 200,000 (200,000) -
Sales Tax Option - Transit Plan
Transit Plan - Key Routes 4,700,000 (200,000) 4,500,000
Transit Plan - On Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area) - 1,100,000 1,100,000
Transit Plan - Bus Service Mobilization for 1000 North bus route - 1,101,319 1,101,319
Transit Plan - UTA Outreach 100,000 100,000
Total Non Departmental 75,295,329 3,063,010 16,110,468 3,540,289 98,009,096 4,143,885 - 3,881,262 - 8,025,147 -
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
General Fund Total Expenses and Other Uses Budget 315,226,108 1,910.35 34,512,447 105.00 349,738,555 1,897.00 4,592,044 7.00 4,009,137 - 8,601,181 7.00
Balanced budget (1,837,553) 1,837,553 (0) - - -
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
CIP Fund (FC 83)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 24,420,242
Eliminate FY2021 GF funding (Including Funding Our Future, less Debt Service and LBA Transfer)(15,782,971)
Eliminate FY2021 Class C funding (3,000,000)
Eliminate FY2021 Impact fee funding (5,058,011)
Eliminate FY2021 funding from additional sources (579,260)
Transfer In from General Fund Nondepartmental Funding Our Future
Transit Key Routes Holding Account (One-time)1,879,654
FY2022 GF Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service;
includes one-time $155,709 recaptured General Fund dollars from
completed projects)14,125,469 1,157,124
FY2022 General Fund Funding our Future 3,580,000
FY2022 Less amount transferred directly to debt service including
LBA (8,538,880)
FY2022 Class C Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service;
includes one-time $208,981 recaptured funding from completed
projects)3,021,706 208,981
FY2022 Impact Fee Funding (Excluding transfer directly to LBA Debt
Service)8,276,103
FY2022 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 4,900,000
FY2022 Community Development Block Grant 322,000
FY2022 Funding from additional sources 571,059
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,837,215 26,257,457 5,082,974 31,340,431
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 25,093,221
Eliminate FY2021 Ongoing Commitment Funding (1,522,687)
Eliminate FY2021 Maintenance Funding (2,948,507)
Eliminate FY2021 Capital Projects Funding (11,472,697)
Eliminate FY2021 Class C Funding (2,046,329)
Eliminate FY2021 Streets Impact Fee Funding (4,177,733)
Eliminate FY2021 Cost Overrun and Percent for Art (263,634)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service (154,706)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service - Class C (953,671)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service/LBA - Impact Fees Fire (880,278)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to General Fund (Completed CIP Project
Funding)(422,979)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer Out from City Daycare Project to GF (250,000)
FY2022 Ongoing Commitment Funding 1,583,423
FY2022 Maintenance Funding GF, Funding our Future 300,000
FY2022 Maintenance Funding ¼¢ Sales Tax 400,000
600 North Corridor Transformation (One-time)1,879,654
FY2022 Capital Projects Funding 7,425,520 1,157,124
FY2022 Class C Funding 2,046,329 208,981
FY2022 Streets Impact Fees Funding 491,520
FY2022 Parks Impact Fees Funding 6,800,450
FY2022 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 4,500,000
FY2022 Community Development Block Grant 322,000
Cost Overrun and Percent for art 280,200
Transfer to Debt Service - General Fund 148,505
Transfer to Debt Service - Class C 975,377
Transfer to Debt Service/LBA Impact Fees Fire 984,133
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,164,236 26,257,457 4,409,995 30,667,452
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0 672,979
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,000
Change in Special Assessment Fees 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 3,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 3,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Misc. Special Service Districts (FC 46)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 1,550,000
Change in revenue from New Assessment 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 1,550,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 1,550,000
Change in expense from New Assessment 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 1,550,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Street Lighting Enterprise Fund (FC 48)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance-base lighting 4,286,798
Street lighting fees (126,729)
Reduction in interest income 32,500
Reduction in other revenues (1,800)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (96,029)4,190,769
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance-base lighting 5,379,697 1.52
Personnel services 1.20 133,223
Charges for service 185,040
Debt services 1,703
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2.72 319,966 5,699,663
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,508,894)
Water Utility (FC 51)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 120,657,632
Metered water sales 15,850,038
Interest income (317,896)
Other revenue (36,486)
Impact fees 600,000
Aid to construction from development (22,020)
Sale of equipment (94,760)
Bond proceeds (16,089,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (110,124)120,547,508
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 126,333,193 270.22
Personnel services 6.51 2,753,856
Operating & maintenance 50,128
Charges for service 3,770,278
Capital outlay 906,945
Capital improvements (8,330,000)
Cost of bond issuance (89,000)
Debt services 1,970,155
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 276.73 1,032,362 127,365,555
Budgeted revenues and other sources over (6,818,047)
(under) expenditures and other uses
Sewer (FC 52)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 199,230,301
Sewer utility service revenue 7,819,937
Interest income (821,301)
Other revenues 0
Impact fees 0
Aid to construction from development (583,177)
Other sources 0
WIFIA Loan 680,000
Bond Proceeds 72,402,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 79,497,459 278,727,760
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 212,638,399 122.01
Personnel services 4.54 209,462
Operating & maintenance 76,074
Charges for service 1,072,403
Capital outlay 655,164
Capital improvements 49,793,413
Cost of bond issuance 402,000
Debt services 3,366,881
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 126.55 55,575,397 268,213,796
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 10,513,964
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Storm Water Utility (FC 53)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 10,746,170
Stormwater utility service revenue 974,050
Interest income (80,470)
Other operating revenues 3,000
Sale of equipment (4,000)
Bond Proceeds 6,160,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 7,052,580 17,798,750
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 17,961,860 34.82
Personnel services 4.75 586,853
Operating & maintenance 3,600
Charges for service (59,570)
Capital outlay (164,000)
Capital improvements 587,500
Cost of bond issuance 34,200
Debt Service 250,570
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 39.57 1,239,153 19,201,013
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,402,263)
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 274,891,999
Change in operating revenues 1,506,500
Change in passenger facility charges 0
Change in grants and reimbursements (377,000)
Change in customer facility charges (618,000)
Change in airport general revenue bonds 0
Change in interest income (17,413,900)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (16,902,400)257,989,599
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 302,311,600 610.80
Increase in operating expenses 24,361,800
Decrease in Passenger Incentive Rebate (5,702,200)
Increase in interest expense 12,244,600
Increase in capital equipment 4,093,700
Increase in capital improvements projects 369,483,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 610.80 404,480,900 706,792,500
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (448,802,901)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Refuse (FC 57)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,601,294
Refuse Collection Revenues 0
Other Misc. Revenues (6,484)
Recycling Proceeds 0
Landfill (SLVSWMF) dividends (42,500)
Sale of equipment and vehicles 85,000
Principal & Interest for CIK Loan Repayment (0)
Finance Proceeds for Equip Purchases (see corresponding expense) 5,676,289
FY22 Waste & Recycling Can Collection 8% Fee Increase 1,189,716
FY22 Transfer from GF to Refuse Fund E&E to cover revenue shortfall 440,000
FY22 C‐REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds 275,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 7,617,021 20,218,315
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 16,515,438 63.00
Financed vehicle purchases (see corresponding revenue) 5,708,289
Lease payments for equipment purchases 826,383
Fleet maintenance 246,000
Fleet fuel (5,000)
Tipping fees (482,288)
Personal services base to base changes 92,151
Personal services salary increase 54,530
Personal services insurance, pension changes 34,152
Personal services overtime/other 4,092
IMS Network & Admin Costs 232,530
PUBS Billing Allocation Costs 52,124
Misc operational expenses 337,432
Remove FY21 One-time Sustainability Projects Budget (175,000)
FY22 C-REP SLC Anchor City Contractual Participation Expense 275,000
FY22 Sustainability Projects New Requests 655,000
FY22 Waste & Recycling Call-to-Haul Program Enhancement 30,000
FY22 Waste & Recycling Delong Yard Facility Improvements (Asphalt $85K, Modular Dock $210K) 295,000
FY22 Sustainability Ongoing Hourly Position 1040 Hours 17,672
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 63.00 8,198,067 24,713,505
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (4,495,190)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Golf Fund - Operations (FC 59)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,307,092
Green Fees 213,562
Driving Range 4,780
Cart Rental 5,300
Retail Sales (33,455)
Other 15,708
General Fund Transfer (IMS, Admin Fees)205,693
Debt Proceeds - Lease Capital 768,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,179,588 9,486,680
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,687,696 34.65
Eliminate Assistant Professional Position (1.00) (74,720)
Personal Services adjustments from organizational changes 3,127
Personal Services (COLA, Living Wage Increases)170,932
Retail Merchandise 6,088
Operating Supplies 36,180
Increase for Utilities 62,950
Charges and Services 106,680
City Charges (IMS, Admin Fees)16,593
Debt Service Payments (Carts)(58,153)
Operating Equipment Cash Purchases 257,575
Equipment Lease Capital 768,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 33.65 1,295,252 8,982,948
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 503,732
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Golf Fund - CIP Dedicated (FC 59)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 732,264
Green Fees 5,720
Green Fees ($1 per 9 hole increase)124,800
Transfer from GF for ESCO 50,649
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 181,169 913,433
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 797,201
Debt Service Payments (ESCO)50,649
Capital Expenditures (133,381)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget - (82,732)714,469
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 198,964
Emergency 911 (FC 60)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,925,000
No Change 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 3,925,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,789,270
Remove CAD to CAD One-Time Funding from FY2021 (117,145)
Remove Emergency Notifications System One-Time Funding for FY2021 (22,125)
CAD-to-CAD Sharing 85,010
Versaterm Data Sharing Hub 26,200
NICE Radio Logger Upgrade - Vesta 30,765
Motorola NICE Redundant GP Server 63,218
APCO IntelliComm Software 201,663
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 267,586 4,056,856
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (131,856)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Fleet Management (FC 61) - Maintenance
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,616,184
Car Wash billing increase 6,000
Fuel revenue impact 100,382
Work Order billings 501,183
Loaner pool budget moved to Maintenance budget 2,400
Other revenue - now must pay to discard recycled oil and adj scrap metal sales (41,411)
Adding back operational cut 246,580
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 815,134 13,431,318
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,596,994 45.00
FY21 Base personal service adjustments (101,061)
Salary Increase and Merit changes 37,825
Increase in health insurance 49,676
Annual fuel calibrations on fuel dispensing equipment 7,500
Annual fuel upgrades 50,000
Fuel impact 108,282
Increase for IMS charges 99,125
Increase for utilities 10,185
Increase in City charges (IMS, Admin Fees)15,134
Loaner pool budget moved from Replacement budget 27,069
Miscellaneous (41,490)
Moved GPS expense to Fleet from GF 179,600
Parts 3% increase 133,467
Adding back operational cut 246,580
Total Expenses and Other Uses Budget 45.00 821,892 13,418,886
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 12,432
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Fleet Management (FC 61) - Replacement
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 6,461,809
Increased leased purchases to stay under $4M debt service cap 2,000,000
Transfer from GF for Debt Service (292,654)
Transfer from GF for Replacement of Vehicles 5,504,370
Streets Funding our Future purchases 58,000
Vehicle sales at auctions 212,975
Estimated VW Grant Revenue & Expense 564,589
Loaner pool moved to Fleet Maintenance (2,400)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 8,044,880 14,506,689
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 6,612,277
Capital outlay with cash, including UC cars 599,696
Debt Service - Current year lease purchases reduced $2.3M to stay under $4M debt service limit 250,139
Debt Service - Prior Years (542,792)
New vehicle prep, parts, outsourced labor & admin 205,934
Funding our Future - Public Safety vehicles 4,000,000
Funding our Future - Streets vehicles 950,916
Streets Funding our Future purchases 58,000
Increased leased purchases to stay under $4M debt service cap 2,000,000
Estimated VW Grant Revenue & Expense 564,589
Loaner pool moved to Fleet Maintenance fund (27,069)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget - 8,059,413 14,671,690
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (165,001)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Information Management Services (FC 65)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 17,345,710
Change in Transfer from General Fund 3,373,880
Change in Transfer from Transportation 215,869
Change in Transfer from Public Utilities 1,251,699
Change in Transfer from Airport Fund 2,295,374
Change in Payment from Redevelopment Agency 25,839
Change in Transfer from Sustainability Fund 223,554
Change in Transfer from Golf Fund (195,967)
Change in Transfer from Fleet Fund 139,161
Change in Transfer from Risk Fund (33,506)
Change in Transfer from Governmental Immunity Fund 3,511
Change in Payment from Library (340,884)
One-Time Fund Balance Transfer from GF (54,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 6,904,530 24,250,240
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 18,289,687 69.00
Change in Personnel Expense 206,788
Budget Amendment Changes
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Mgr 1.00 105,920
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 80,054
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 83,930
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 90,916
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Deputy Director 1.00 176,436
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager 1.00 100,714
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager 1.00 100,714
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget 30,200
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget 53,400
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst 1.00 106,458
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst 1.00 108,646
Contractual Changes
- ERP Software Subscription 750,000
- Microsoft Additional Licensing 54,855
- Various Software Contracts 324,536
Technical & Inflationary Increases
- Administrative Fees 95,000
- Software Support Services 24,449
- ESRI Advantage Program 65,000
- Penetration Testing 50,000
Initiatives
- ERP Software Implementation 2,000,000
- Website Enhancements 125,000
- Server Infrastructure 180,000
- PSB Network Infrastructure (FOF)350,000
New Positions
- ERP Conversion Manager 1.00 164,756
- Network Engineer - Cyber Security 1.00 122,236
- Network Engineer - Unified Communications [10 Months] 1.00 122,236
- Software Services - Data Engineer [9 Months] 1.00 127,404
- Network Engineer - Enterprise Backup and Wireless [10 Months] 1.00 122,236
- Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 90,916
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 84.00 6,012,800 24,302,487
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (52,247)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC69)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,571,945
Remove Appropriation of Fund Balance (3,104,945)
Change in revenue 1,033,000
County local option sales tax from State FY21 1,100,000
County local option sales tax from State FY22 1,100,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 128,055 7,700,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,571,945
Personnel Changes 7,142
Remove Appropriation of Fund Balance (3,104,945)
Remove FY2021 One Time Project Funding (4,067,000)
Transfer to CIP 4,900,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (2,264,803)5,307,142
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 2,392,858
CDBG Operating (FC 71)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,509,164
Change in Federal Funds 1,832,168
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,832,168 5,341,332
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,509,164
Change in Federal Funds 582,168
Transfer to Housing 1,250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,832,168 5,341,332
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Misc. Grants Operating (FC 72)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,261,044
Change in Federal Grant Revenue (21,851)
Change in Program Income 0
Change in Appropriation of Cash (5,186,016)
American Rescue Plan 13,884,794
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 8,676,927 16,937,971
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,261,044
Change in Approved Grant Expenditures (5,207,867)
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant
- Revenue Replacement [Transfer Out to General Fund] 10,000,000 1,432,646
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN) 1.00 93,829
- Associate Planners 3.00 235,000 (3.00) (235,000)
- Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager 1.00 160,000 (1.00) (160,000)
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN) 1.00 90,633
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN) 711,350
- Arts Council Staffing & Operational Costs (Economic Development) 3.00 350,000 (3.00) (350,000)
- Business & Cultural Districts (Economic Development) 1.00 150,000 (1.00) (150,000)
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development) 50,000
- Economic Development Staff (Economic Development) 2.00 290,000
- TechLakeCity (Economic Development)45,000 (45,000)
- Construction Mitigation 200,000 (200,000)
- American Express Card Merchant Fees (Finance) 40,000 (40,000)
- Grant Administrator (Finance) 1.00 101,020
- Grant Manager (Finance)1.00 95,000
- Business Analyst (Finance)1.00 89,500 (1.00) (89,500)
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire) 4.00 136,762
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700
- Forest Preservation and Growth Program 1.00 219,000 (1.00) (219,000)
- Forest Preservation and Growth [One-Time]95,000 (95,000)
ARPA Holding Account (One-time)1,583,500
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 8,676,927 16,937,971 (10.00) 1,432,646.00
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Other Special Revenue Fund (FC73)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 0
Appropriation of Cash 273,797
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 273,797 273,797
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 0
Change in Expenditures 273,797
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 273,797 273,797
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Donation Fund (FC 77)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,380,172
Change in Revenue 500,000
Change in Revenue from GUCOA (127,607)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 372,393 2,752,565
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,380,172
Change in Transfer to GF 500,000
Change in GUCOA Expense (127,607)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 372,393 2,752,565
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Housing (FC 78)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 20,339,000
Change in Transfer from GF 0
Change in Transfer from GF for FOF (5,640,000)
Change in Transfer from CDBG 250,000
Change in Federal Grant Income 0
Change in Program Income 390,000
Change in Interest Income (616,700)
Change in Miscellaneous Income/Sale of Property 42,000
Change in Appropriation of Cash (479,300)
Change in Loan Principal and Escrow Payments (1,156,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (7,210,000)13,129,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 23,248,016
Change in Loan Disbursements and Associated Expenses (5,996,016)
Change in Funding Our Futures Expenses (5,640,000)
Change in Other Expenses (100,000)
Change in Interest Expense (40,000)
Change in Note Payable & T&I Payments 59,000
Change in Transfer to General Fund 750,000
Change in Transfer to RDA Fund 2,590,000
Change in Transfer to CDBG Fund 1,250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (7,127,016)16,121,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (2,992,000)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Debt Service (FC 81)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 35,118,583 35,118,583
Change in G. O Property Tax (3,880,797) (3,880,797)
Change in Debt Service from RDA 44,213 44,213
Change in Debt Service from Internal Transfers 0 0
Change in Transfer from General Fund (1,011,168) (1,011,168)
Change in Transfer from CIP (154,750) (154,750)
Change in Transfer from Refuse (340)(340)
Change in Transfer from Fleet (318)(318)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (5,003,160)30,115,423 (5,003,160)30,115,423
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 37,519,401 37,519,401
Change in Debt Service Payments and related expenses (6,668,978) (6,668,978)
Transfer Out from North Temple Viaduct Bond RDA Reimbursement
to North Temple Project Area 1,000,000 1,000,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (6,668,978)30,850,423 (5,668,978)31,850,423
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (735,000) (1,735,000)
Government Immunity (FC 85)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,787,963
Change in transfers in
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 2,787,963
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,855,203 8.50 78,710
Change in Personnel Expense 0.50 0
Change in Other Expense 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 9.00 78,710 2,933,913
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (145,950)
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
COUNCIL CHANGES
Insurance and Risk Management (FC 87)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 48,432,623
Change in transfers in 416,347
Insurance Changes 2,573,614
Change in transfer from the General Fund 82,734
Premium Holiday (One-time)1,438,025
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 3,072,695 51,505,318
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 51,409,025 6.10
Change in Personnel Expense 20,716
BA#4 HR Director (.15)0.15 26,615
HR Supervisor - Insurance [10 months] 1.00 108,950
Claims/Admin Assistant [10 Months] 0.50 61,987
Change in Health Insurance 2,573,614
Change in Property Insurance Premium & Excess Premium 166,280
Change in Brokerage Fee 25,000
Change in Comm Crime Bonds & Cyber Liability 18,927
Change in SDI Admin Fee 5,124
Change in Overhead Expenses (38,724)
Remove Fund Balance Transfer for FY2021 (2,876,049)
Transfer out of Fund Balance for Premium Holiday FY2022 1,438,025
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 7.75 1,530,464 52,939,489
Budgeted revenues and other sources over (1,434,171)
(under) expenditures and other uses
Total Revenue Budget 1,327,017,931
Total Expense Budget 1,729,140,012
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
Central Business District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 25,066,500 2,506,650 27,573,150
Interest Income 300,000 50,000 350,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 25,366,500 2,556,650 27,923,150 25,366,500 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Taxing Entity Payment (60%) 15,039,900 1,503,990 16,543,890
Eccles Debt Service Block 70 RDA Match 2,638,112 469,628 3,107,740
Transfer to Administration 2,506,650 250,665 2,757,315
Commercial Development Loan Program 250,000 (250,000) -
Miscellaneous Property Expense 800,000 175,000 975,000
TI Reimbursement Jazz Arena 700,000 107,710 807,710
Gallivan Maintenance 528,543 (5,405) 523,138
TI Reimbursement 222 South Main 500,000 169,688 669,688
Gallivan Programming 200,000 50,000 250,000
Gallivan Administration 351,492 (11,010) 340,482
Eccles Debt Service Reserve 1,537,449 262,551 1,800,000
Parking Ramp Leases 64,355 - 64,355
Capital Expenditures - Japantown
-{Holding Account}-250,000 (250,000) -
Capital Expenditures - Storefront Revitalization
-{Holding Account}-- 83,832 83,832
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 25,366,500 2,556,650 27,923,150 25,366,500 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
West Capitol Hill
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 100,000 50,000 150,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 100,000 50,000 150,000 100,000 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Administration 100,000 50,000 150,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 100,000 50,000 150,000 100,000 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
West Temple Gateway
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 50,000 - 50,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Administration 50,000 - 50,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
Depot District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 3,844,278 76,886 3,921,164
Interest Income 180,000 20,000 200,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,024,278 96,886 4,121,164 4,024,278 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement Gateway 1,200,000 65,520 1,265,520
Primary Housing Fund 768,856 15,377 784,233
Capital Expenditures - 100 S Utilities
-{Holding Account}-388,981 (388,981) -
Capital Expenditures - Station Center Infrastructure
-{Holding Account}-- 332,179 332,179
Transfer to Administration 576,642 11,533 588,175
Grant Tower Debt Service 275,800 (200) 275,600
TI Reimbursement Alta Gateway 260,000 119,960 379,960
TI Reimbursement Homewood Suites 110,000 (4,064) 105,936
Miscellaneous Property Expense 100,000 20,000 120,000
TI Reimbursement Cowboy Partners Liberty Gateway 94,000 (24,439) 69,561
TI Reimbursement Cicero 50,000 (50,000) -
Capital Expenditures - Environmental Remediation Sites 3 & 4
-{Holding Account}-200,000 - 200,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 4,024,278 96,885 4,121,163 4,024,278 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0 -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Granary District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 608,945 12,179 621,124
Interest Income 40,000 5,000 45,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 648,945 17,179 666,124 648,945 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Adaptive Reuse loan program
-{Holding Account}-396,814 (396,814) -
Capital Expenditures - Community/Cultural Initiative
-{Holding Account}-- 443,731 443,731
Primary Housing Fund 121,789 2,436 124,225
Transfer to Administration 91,342 1,827 93,169
TI Reimbursement Artspace Commons 34,000 (34,000) -
Miscellaneous Property Expense 5,000 - 5,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 648,945 17,180 666,124 648,945 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (0) -
North Temple
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 426,810 8,536 435,346
Interest Income 14,000 1,000 15,000
Transfer In from Primary Housing Fund (One-time)1,000,000 1,000,000
Transfer In from Debt Service Fund Class 81 North Temple Viaduct
Bond RDA Reimbursement (One-time)1,000,000 1,000,000
Transfer In from General Fund Investments in Underserved
Neighborhoods Holding Account (One-time)669,138 669,138
Transfer In from Program Income Fund North Temple Catalytic
Project Holding Account (One-time)255,215 255,215
Use of North Temple Catalytic Project Holding Account (One-time)788,037 788,037
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 440,810 9,536 450,346 440,810 3,712,390 3,712,390
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Catalytic Project
-{Holding Account}-270,086 19,182 289,268 (289,268) (289,268)
Primary Housing Fund 85,362 1,707 87,069
Capital Expenditures - 10% School Construction Fund
-{Holding Account}-42,681 (12,207) 30,474
Transfer to Administration 42,681 854 43,535
North Temple Strategic Intervention Fund
-{Holding Account}-4,001,658 4,001,658
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 440,810 9,536 450,346 440,810 3,712,390 3,712,390
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (0) -
Block 70
Revenue and Other Sources
Private Fundraising 800,000 (800,000) -
Transfer From CBD Taxing Entity Payments 4,043,171 66,029 4,109,200
Transfer From CBD Eccles Debt Service RDA match 2,638,112 469,628 3,107,740
Transfer from CBD Eccles Debt Service Reserve Account 1,537,449 262,551 1,800,000
Tax Increment 1,884,631 37,693 1,922,323
Interest Income 50,000 (50,000) -
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 10,953,363 (14,099) 10,939,263 10,953,363 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Eccles Theater Debt Service 8,070,927 (2,718) 8,068,209
Reserve for Eccles Debt Service 480,959 (390,342) 90,617
Regent Street Bond Debt Service 981,087 467,653 1,448,740
Taxing Entity Payments (30%) 565,390 11,307 576,697
Fundraising Fulfillment 150,000 (50,000) 100,000
Eccles Theater- Operating Reserve for Ancillary Spaces 475,000 - 475,000
Property and Liability Insurance 50,000 (50,000) -
Regent Street Parking Structure Capital Reserves
-{Holding Account}-100,000 - 100,000
Regent Street Maintenance 80,000 - 80,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 10,953,363 (14,100) 10,939,263 10,953,363 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0 -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
North Temple Viaduct
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 1,158,313 23,166 1,181,479
Interest Income 1,500 6,000 7,500
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,159,813 29,166 1,188,979 1,159,813 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Debt Service Payment to Salt Lake City 1,142,438 28,819 1,171,257
Transfer to Admin 17,375 347 17,722
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,159,813 29,166 1,188,979 1,159,813 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment - 1,500,000 1,500,000 -
Interest Income - - - - - -
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget - 1,500,000 1,500,000 - - -
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement NWQ Phase I - 500,000 500,000 -
Transfer to Secondary Housing - 350,000 350,000 -
Shared Costs
-{Holding Account}-- 350,000 350,000 -
Transfer to Primary Housing - 150,000 150,000 -
Transfer to Admin - 150,000 150,000 -
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget - 1,500,000 1,500,000 - - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Stadler Rail
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment - 71,000 71,000 -
Interest Income - - - - - -
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget - 71,000 71,000 - - -
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement - 56,800 56,800 -
Transfer to Primary Housing - 7,100 7,100 -
Transfer to Admin - 7,100 7,100 -
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget - 71,000 71,000 - - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
FY17 Beginning Balance
Interest on Investment 470,000 - 470,000
Principal Payments 275,000 (220,000) 55,000
Interest on Loans 107,000 (82,000) 25,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 852,000 (302,000) 550,000 852,000 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Available to Lend 852,000 (302,000) 550,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 852,000 (302,000) 550,000 852,000 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Program Income Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Parking Structure Income 1,242,335 - 1,242,335
Rents 315,000 (99,300) 215,700
Interest Income 250,000 - 250,000
Loan Repayments 88,000 (60,000) 28,000
Interest on Loans 10,500 (4,000) 6,500
Use of North Temple Catalytic Project Holding Account (One-time)255,215 255,215
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,905,835 (163,300) 1,742,535 1,905,835 255,215 255,215
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Commercial Revitalization Program
-{Holding Account}-- 667,535 667,535
Professional Services 299,009 991 300,000
Miscellaneous Property Expense 300,000 - 300,000
Capital Expenditures - Sustainability Technical Assistance Program
-{Holding Account}-- 200,000 200,000
Transfer to Administration 176,611 (176,611) -
Marketing and Sales 25,000 - 25,000
Project Area Seed Funds 505,215 (505,215) -
Capital Expenditures - Gallivan Repairs
-{Holding Account}-250,000 - 250,000
Capital Expenditures - Project Area Art
-{Holding Account}-250,000 (250,000) -
Project Area Creation 100,000 (100,000) -
Transfer Out to North Temple Project Area (One-time)255,215 255,215
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,905,835 (163,300) 1,742,535 1,905,835 255,215 255,215
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Secondary Housing Fund (formerly Project Area Housing Fund)
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 44,000 - 44,000
Transfer from NWQ - 350,000 350,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 44,000 350,000 394,000 44,000 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Housing Development Loan Program
-{Holding Account}-394,000 (394,000)
Infill Housing Development 44,000 (44,000) -
Capital Expenditures - Accessory Dwelling Unit Program
-{Holding Account}-394,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 44,000 (44,000) 394,000 44,000 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
Primary Housing Fund (formerly Citywide Housing Fund)
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer from Depot 768,856 15,377 784,233
Interest Income 225,000 - 225,000
Transfer from NWQ - - 150,000
Transfer from Granary 121,789 2,436 124,225
Loan Repayments 82,547 (31,547) 51,000
Interest on Loans 80,225 (10,225) 70,000
Transfer from Stadler Rail - 7,100 7,100
Transfer from North Temple 85,362 1,707 87,069
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,363,779 (15,152) 1,498,627 1,363,779 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Housing NOFA 1,363,779 (1,363,779) -
Housing Development Loan Program
-{Holding Account}-- 498,627 498,627
Strategic Site Acquisition
-{Holding Account}-- 1,000,000 1,000,000 (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Transfer Out to North Temple Project Area (One-time)1,000,000 1,000,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,363,779 134,848 1,498,627 1,363,779 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (0) -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
NWQ Housing Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
UIPA Housing Allocation - 250,000 250,000 -
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget - 250,000 250,000 -
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Accessory Dwelling Unit Program
-{Holding Account}-- 250,000 250,000 - (250,000) (250,000)
Westside Urban Land Fund -{Holding Account}-250,000 250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget - 250,000 250,000 - - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
Housing Development Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Funding Our Future Land Discounts and Financing 2,590,000 - 2,590,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,590,000 - 2,590,000 2,590,000 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
Housing Development Loan Program
-{Holding Account}-2,590,000 - 2,590,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2,590,000 - 2,590,000 2,590,000 - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses - -
FUND
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Recommended
Budget
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES BOARD CHANGES
Administration
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer from Central Business District 2,506,650 250,665 2,757,315
Transfer from Depot District 576,642 11,533 588,175
Transfer from West Capitol Hill 100,000 50,000 150,000
Transfer from Granary District 91,342 1,827 93,169
Transfer from West Temple Gateway 50,000 - 50,000
Transfer from North Temple 42,681 854 43,535
Transfer From Program Income Fund 176,610 (176,610) -
Transfer from North Temple Viaduct 17,375 347 17,722
Transfer from Northwest Quadrant - 150,000 150,000
Transfer from Stadler Rail - 7,100 7,100
Transfer from FC77 1,171,996 (1,171,996) -
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,733,296 (876,281) 3,857,015 4,733,296 - -
Expenses and Other Uses
RDA Personnel 2,100,484 19 154,148 2,254,632
Gallivan Personnel 1,171,996 13 (1,171,996) -
Administrative Fees 800,000 139,683 939,683
Operating & Maintenance 308,116 51,884 360,000
Charges and Services 202,700 - 202,700
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 150,000 (50,000) 100,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 4,733,296 32 (876,281) 3,857,015 4,733,296 - - -
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (0) -
TOTAL Revenue 54,232,619 57,942,203 54,232,619 3,967,605
TOTAL Expense 54,232,619 57,942,203 54,232,619 3,967,605
CIP Allocations detailed on Cap Projects tab 4,738,562 7,679,646 - (1,933,268)
Appropriation of Fund Balance - - - -
GRAND TOTALS
FY2021
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2021
Budget
FY2022
Budget
Local Building Authority (FC66)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,219,250
Change in Building Lease Revenue 3,975
Change in Transfers In 295,997
Appropriation of Cash (298,297)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,675 2,220,925
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,219,250
Change in Debt Service (1,125)
Change in Project Costs 2,800
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,675 2,220,925
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 00
LBA KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2020
Adopted
Budget
Full Time
Equivalent
Changes from
FY2020
Budget
FY2021
Budget
Multi-Agency Drug Task Force (FC41)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY20 Beginning Balance 1,763,746
Remove FY2021 Funding (1,763,746)
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Forfeiture 1,567,118
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Restitution 466,455
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 269,827 2,033,573
Expenses and Other Uses
FY20 Beginning Balance 1,763,746
Remove FY2021 Expense (1,763,746)
Change in Operating Expense 2,033,573
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 269,827 2,033,573
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
MULTI-AGENCY DRUG TASK FORCE KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
Budget Budget Budget FY 21-22
DEPARTMENT 2019-20 2020-21 2021-2022 Variance
GENERAL FUND
Attorney's Office 50.25 50.25 55.25 5.00
City Council 35.00 35.00 35.00 0.00
911 Communications Bureau 100.00 100.00 108.00 8.00
Community and Neighborhood 204.00 204.00 176.00 (28.00)
Economic Development 16.00 18.00 18.00 0.00
Department of Finance 69.70 69.70 71.70 2.00
Fire 366.00 366.00 374.00 8.00
Human Resources 22.05 21.20 26.05 4.85
Justice Courts 44.00 42.00 42.00 0.00
Mayor's Office 24.00 26.00 30.00 4.00
Police 711.00 711.00 720.00 9.00
Public Lands 0.00 0.00 117.35 117.35
Public Services 341.35 329.35 249.00 (80.35)
Non Departmental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 1983.35 1972.50 2022.35 49.85
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Airport 563.80 610.80 610.80 0.00
Golf 34.65 34.65 33.65 (1.00)
Public Utilities 427.00 435.00 452.00 17.00
Sustainability 63.00 63.00 63.00 0.00
ENTERPRISE FUND
TOTAL 1088.45 1143.45 1159.45 16.00
INTERNAL SERVICE AND OTHER FUNDS
Information Mgmt Svcs 71.00 69.00 84.00 15.00
Fleet Management 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00
Government Immunity 8.50 8.50 9.00 0.50
Risk Management 6.25 6.10 7.45 1.35
Special Revenue: 1/4 Sales Tax from County 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
INTERNAL SERVICE AND OTHER
FUND TOTAL 133.75 131.60 148.45 16.85
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 19.00 32.00 32.00 0.00
TOTAL POSITIONS 3224.55 3279.55 3362.25 82.70
STAFFING DOCUMENT SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEARS 2019-20 THROUGH 2021-22
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City Council
Council Person xxx 7.00 7.00 7.00
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-City Council 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor City Council 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Deputy Director -Council 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Public Policy Analyst 33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Operations Mgr/Mentor 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Community Facilitator
Community Facilitator 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Operations Mgr/Mentor
Public Policy Analyst II 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Council Office Communication Director 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Analyst 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Analyst/Public Engagement 28 3.00 2.00 2.00
Public Engage/Comm Specialist II 28 0.00 1.00 1.00
Constituent Liaison/Public Policy Analyst 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Engagement & Comm Special 26 0.00 2.00 2.00
Constituent Liaison 26 3.00 2.00 2.00
Assistant to Council Executive Director 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Council Admin Asst 24 5.00 5.00 5.00
RPT Council Staff Asst 26 2.00 1.00 1.00
CITY COUNCIL TOTAL 35.00 35.00 35.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
City Administration
Mayor xxx 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief of Staff 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief Administrative Officer 41 0.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief of Staff 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor 39 4.00 3.00 2.00 One Reclassification to Chief Equity Officer
Communications Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Deputy Director 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Advisor 29 1.00 2.00 2.00
REP Commision Senior Staff Position 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Associate Director of Community Empowerment 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Liaison 26 3.00 5.00 5.00
Executive Assistant 24 4.00 5.00 4.00 One Reclassification to Equity Team Member
Office Manager Mayor's Office 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Outreach Sp & E Coord 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Census Coordinator (23)
Census Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Community Outreach Sp &E Coord(24)
Communication & Content Mgr 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Front Office Clerk 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
City Administration Total 24.00 26.00 25.00
Office of Equity and Inclusion
Chief Equity Officer 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 Formerly Senior Advisor
Equity Team Member 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Community & Neighborhood Dept. formerly
ADA & Equity Coordinator (26)
Equity Team Member 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Community & Neighborhood Dept. formerly
ADA & Equity Coordinator
Equity Team Member 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Finance Dept. formerly Consumer
Protection Analyst (16)
Equity Team Member 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Formerly Executive Assistant (24)
Office of Equity and Inclusion Total 0.00 0.00 5.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL 24.00 26.00 30.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
911 Dispatch Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Deputy Director 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Operations Mgr 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
911 Dispatch Supervisor 24 10.00 10.00 10.00
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III 14-18 82.00 82.00 90.00 8 New Positions
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III Unfunded 14-18 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU TOTAL 100.00 100.00 108.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Office of the Executive Director
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORAT Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant -Appointed 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Executive Director's Office Total 5.00 6.00 6.00
Public Relations Division
Director Airport Public Relations & Marketing 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Air Service Development Manager 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior Manager Air Services Development
Senior Manager Air Services Development 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Air Service Development Manager
Airport Communication Manager 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Community Outreach Manager
Airport Community Outreach Manager 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Communication Manager
Airport Communication Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Public Relations Manager
Airport Public Relations Manager 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Communication Coordinator
Public Relations Total 4.00 4.00 4.00
Planning and Environmental Division
Director of Airport Plan/Cap Program 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Environmental Program Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Planner 30 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Principal Planner
Airport Principal Planner 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Senior Planner
Airport Senior Environmental Sustainability
Coordinator
31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Environmental Sustainability
Coordinator
Airport Environmental Sustainability Coord 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Airport Environmental Sustainability
Coordinator
Airport Planning Programs Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Associate Planner
Associate Planner 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Planning Programs Coordinator
Environmental Specialist II 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Environmental Specialist I
Environmental Specialist I 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Environmental Specialist II
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning & Environmental Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Finance and Accounting Division
Director of Finance and Accounting 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Controller 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Finance Manager 37 2.00 1.00 1.00
Construction Finance Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Auditor III 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Auditor II 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Accountant I
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant III 27 5.00 5.00 5.00
Accountant II 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant I 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Auditor II
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 2.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 2.00 0.00 0.00
Part-Time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Finance and Accounting Total 22.50 16.50 16.50
Maintenance Division
Director of Maintenance 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Maintenance Director 36 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 changed from Airport Maintenance Superintendent, 1
changed from Technical Systems Program Mgr
Airport Maintenance Operations Superintendent 34 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Airport Fleet Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Maintenance Superintendent 32 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Aviation Services Manager 31 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 changed from Facilities Maintenance Contract Coordinator
Airport Maintenance Ops Support Mgr 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Facilities Assets Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Maintenance Manager 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Facilities Maint Warranty/Commission Mgr 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical Systems Program Mgr 29 2.00 3.00 2.00 1 changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Tech Systems Analyst IV 28 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Maintenance Electrician I (Apprentice)
Computer Maint Mgmt Systems Administrator 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Computer Maint Systems Supervisor
Computer Maint Systems Supervisor 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Computer Maint Mgmt Systems Administrator
Airport Fleet/Warehouse Operations Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Administrator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Facility Maint Supervisor 27 2.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Plant Coordinator Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Maintenance Supervisor
Aviation Srvs Tech Sys Adm 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Civil Maint Warranty 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Manager 26 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Facility Maintenance Coordinator
HVAC Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Services Supervisor 25 4.00 4.00 4.00
Facility Maint Supervisor 25 21.00 21.00 13.00 8 changed to Airport Maintenance Supervisor
Airport Signs Graphic Design Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Coordinator 25 21.00 21.00 25.00 2 changed from Facility Maintenance Manager, 2 from
Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist
Airport Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 10.00 8 FTE's changed from Facility Maint Supervisor, 1 from Plant
Coordinator Supervisor
Electronic Security Technician 24 14.00 14.00 12.00 2 changed to Airfield Maintenance Electrician
Management Analyst 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Grounds/Pavement Super 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Coordinator 22 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Aviation Services Manager
Facility Support Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 4.00 2 changed from Painter II, 2 changed from General
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 20.00 22.00 3.00 19 changed to Airfield Maintenance Electrician
Airfield Maintenance Electrician 25 0.00 0.00 21.00 19 changed from Maintenance Electrician IV, 2 changed
from Electronic Security Technician
Airfield Electrical Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 changed from Carpenter II, 1 moved from Operations -
Paging Operator
HVAC Tech II 21 8.00 8.00 8.00
Airport Lead Sign Technician 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Fleet Mechanic 21 4.00 6.00 5.00 1changed to Fleet Mechanic II
Plumber II 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Budget & Special Projects
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Warehouse Operator
Airport Budget & Special Projects Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Plumber II
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Airport Maintenance Mechanic II 20 6.00 0.00 0.00
Airfield Maint. Equip. Operator IV 20 23.00 23.00 23.00
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 20 3.00 5.00 5.00
Carpenter II 20 7.00 9.00 6.00 3 changed to Airfield Electrical Supervisor
General Maintenance Worker 20 2.00 8.00 6.00 2 changed to Facility Support Coordinator
Fleet Body Repair and Painter 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic I/II 20 19.00 19.00 20.00 1 changed Senior Fleet Mechanic
Painter II 20 5.00 7.00 5.00 2 changed to Facility Support Coordinator
Office Facilitator I/II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist 19 0.00 8.00 6.00 2 changed to Facility Maintenance Coordinator
Facility Maint. Contract Repair Senior Repair
Technician
19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Facility Maint Contract Repair Tech II 19 3.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airfield Maint. Equipment Oper III 18 61.00 66.00 66.00
Maintenance Electrician I (Apprentice)17 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Tech Systems Analyst IV
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 2.00 4.00 1 changed from Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport & 1 changed
from Airpor Procurement Specialist
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 0.00 2.00 1.00 1 changed to Senior Warehouse Operator
Fleet Services Worker 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Maintenance Division Total 266.50 293.50 294.50
Engineering Division
Director - Airport Engineering 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer VII 36 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Architect 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Engineer Project Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Architectural Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer VI 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Architect 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Geographic Information System Mgr 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Construction Manager 27 3.00 3.00 3.00
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Engineering Tech V 24 3.00 3.00 3.00
Architectural Associate IV 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Project Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator III 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Field Technician 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Records Program Specialist 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Division Total 31.00 31.00 31.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Operations Division
Chief Operating Officer 39 0.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Airport Operations 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Operations Director 38 0.00 0.00 3.00 3 changed from Airport Operations - Superintendent
Airport Operations Superintendent - Security
Comm
35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Superintendent - Landside 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Superintendent - Terminals 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Manager - Ground
Transportation
31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager / Parking 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Airfield 29 16.00 16.00 14.00 1 changed to Airport Operations Manager - Terminals, 1
changed to Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service
Airport Operations Manager Airfield/FBO 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Terminals 29 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Airport Operations Manager - Airfield
Airport Operations Manager -Safety 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Security 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager / Communications 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Operations Manager - Airfield
Airport Customer Service Supervisor 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Operations Supervisor - Airfield
Airport Training Coordinator 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety Program Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Landside Operations Supervisor, 1
changed fromo Airport Operations Specialist - Airfield
Airport Operations Supervisor - Airfield 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Customer Service Supervisor
Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 25 13.00 13.00 12.00 Changed to Safety Program Coordinator
Airport Operations Duty Agent Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Supervisor / Access Control 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Access Control Coordinator 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Landside Operations Officer
Management Analyst 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior Secretary
Airport Operations Supervisor / Communications 24 5.00 5.00 5.00
Airport Operations Training Supervisor
Communications
24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engagement Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Specialists - Airfield 23 22.00 22.00 21.00 Changed to Safety Program Coordinator
Airport Operations Specialists - Terminal 23 25.00 25.00 25.00
Airport Operations Customer Service
Representative
23 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Senior Secretary
Airport Operations Agent - FBO 23 6.00 6.00 6.00
Airport Operations Duty Agent 23 0.00 14.00 14.00
Employment Services Coordinator 21 1.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Airport Commercial Vehicle Ins 18 3.00 3.00 3.00
Airport Landside Operations Officer 18 37.00 37.00 36.00 Changed to Airport Operations Access Control Coord
Air Operations Security Spec 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Operations Lead Coordinator 17 4.00 4.00 4.00
Airport Operations Coordinator 16 0.00 0.00 14.00 8 changed from Airport Operations Coord II, 5 changed from
Airport Operations Coord I, 1 changed from Employment
Services Coordinator
Airport Operations Coord II 16 8.00 8.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Senior Secretary 15 3.00 3.00 0.00 Changed to Office Facilitator II, Airport Operations Customer
Service Rep, Part-Time Operations Intern
Access Control Specialist 15 5.00 7.00 7.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Coord I 14 5.00 5.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Paging Operator 10 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Maintenance - Airfield Electrical Sup
Part-Time Operations Technician 1.50 1.50 2.50 Changed from Senior Secretary
Part-Time Operations Intern 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 10 0.30 0.30 0.30
Operations Division Total 176.80 197.80 196.80
Commercial Services Division
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Director Administration and Commercial Services 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Commercial Manager Airport 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts & Procurement Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Property & Real Estate Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Development Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Tenant Relations Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Property Specialist II 27 1.00 1.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Property Specialist I, 1 changed from
Contracts Specialist II
Airport Contract Specialist I 27 1.00 2.00 2.00
Commercial Program Specialist 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Contracts Specialist II 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Channged to Airport Property Specialist II
Airport Risk Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Risk Management Coordinator
Airport Risk Management Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Risk Manager
Airport Property Specialist I 24 2.00 2.00 1.00 Channged to Airport Property Specialist II
Admin Assistant / GRAMA Coord 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary II 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Administrative Secretary
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Administrative Secretary II
Commercial Services Division Total 14.00 16.00 16.00
Information Technology Services Division
Airport Information Management Services Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Information Technology Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Special Systems Manager 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Tech Systems Superintendent
Airport Tech Systems Superintendent 36 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Special Systems Manager
Software Engineer III 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Network System Engineer II
Network System Engineer III 33 1.00 1.00 3.00 2 changed from Network System Engineer II
Network System Engineer II 31 4.00 4.00 1.00 2 changed to Network System Engineer III, 1 FTE changed
to Network Engineering Team Manager
Software Support Admin II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical System Program Manager 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Network Support Team Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Support Administrator III 27 8.00 8.00 7.00 Changed to Network Support Administrator II
Technical Systems Analyst IV 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical Systems Analyst III 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Technical Systems Analyst II
Network Support Administrator II 25 8.00 9.00 10.00 Changed from Network Support Administrator III
Technical Systems Analyst II 24 1.00 2.00 3.00 Changed from Technical Systems Analyst III
Network Support Administrator I 23 2.00 2.00 2.00
Information Technology Services Division
Total
35.00 37.00 37.00
SLC DEPT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL 563.80 610.80 610.80
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Office of City Attorney
City Attorney 42 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of City Attorney Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Legal Support
General Fund
Deputy City Attorney 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 changed from Senior City Attorney
Senior City Attorney 39 9.50 9.50 8.50 1 New Position BA#5, 2 changed to Division Chief Senior City
Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.50
First Assistant City Prosecutor 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Assistant City Prosecutor 29 3.00 3.00 3.00 1 changed from Assosiate City Prosecutor
Associate City Prosecutor 27 9.00 9.00 10.00 1 New Postition; 1 changed to Assistant City Prosecutor
Paralegal 21 4.50 4.50 4.50
Prosecutor Law Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Legal Secretary III 18 1.00 1.00 3.00 New Position BA#5, 1 changed from Government Immunity
Senior Prosecutor Assistant 17 3.00 3.00 6.00 3 changed from Prosecutor Assistant
Prosecutor Assistant 16 7.00 7.00 4.00 3 changed to Senior Prosecutor Assistant
Legal Support Total 41.50 41.50 45.50
City Recorder
City Recorder 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Asst City Recorder Operations 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changed to Minutes and Records Clerk
Asst City Recorder Records Spec 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changed to Minutes and Records Clerk
Minutes and Records Clerk 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 changed from Asst City Recorder Operations; 1 changed
from Asst City Recorder Records Spec.
Deputy Recorder 26 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position BA#5, changed from grade 19 to 26
Senior Records Technician 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changedto Associate Records Technician
Associate Records Technician 18 1.00 1 changed from Senior Records Technician
RPT/Records Clerk 0 0.75 0.75 0.75
City Recorder Total 6.75 6.75 7.75
Risk Management Fund
Risk Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Risk Management Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 0.00 0.00 0.50 New Position
Subtotal of Risk Mgmt Fund 2.00 2.00 2.50
Governmental Immunity Fund
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior City Attorney
Senior City Attorney 39 3.50 3.50 3.50 1 New Position BA#5, 1 changed to Division Chief
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.50
Claims Adjuster 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Legal Secretary III 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 moved to general fund
Claims Specialist 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Paralegal 21 2.50 2.50 2.50
Office Facilitator I 18 0.00 0.00 0.50 New Position
Subtotal of Gov Imm Fund 8.50 8.50 9.00
CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL 60.75 60.75 66.75
General Fund 50.25 50.25 55.25
Risk Management Fund 2.00 2.00 2.50
Governmental Immunity Fund 8.50 8.50 9.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
CAN Admin Office of the Director
CAN Admin Office of the Director
CAN Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
CAN Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New Position
CAN Financial & Administrative Services Dir 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
CARES Policy and Program Manager 32 1.00 2.00 1.00 1 Transferred to Engineering
Civic Engagment Mngr, Spec, Asst 21-31 0.00 4.00 0.00 4 Transferred to IMS Innovations Team
Civic Engagement Innovations Manager 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Real Property Mngr, Agent, Spec 21-31 1.00 4.00 4.00
CIP Manager, Specialist 25-31 0.00 2.00 2.00
CARES Capital Asset Division Manager 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Manager 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Real Property Agent 26 2.00 0.00 0.00
ADA & Equity Program Coordinators 26 0.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to the Mayor's Office
ADA Community Liaison 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Cares Capital Improv Program Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Small Business Loan Officer 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Office Facilitator 18-19 1.00 0.00 0.00
CAN Admin Office of Director Total 18.00 18.00 12.00
Building Services
Building Official 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Building Serv & Licensing Manager 32 3.00 3.00 3.00
Development Review Spvr, Sr, Planner I-III 25-30 0.00 8.00 1.00 7 Transferred to Planning
Development Review Supervisor 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Economic Dev Business Coord 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Plans Examiner Sr, Chief, I-III 25-29 0.00 10.00 10.00
Building Inspector Sr, I-III 19-29 0.00 22.00 22.00
Civil Enforcement Spvr, Insp, Officer I-III 17-29 0.00 9.00 9.00
Housing/Zoning Specialist 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Building Inspector 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Plans Examiner 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Plans Examiner 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Housing/Zoning Inspector 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Development Review Planner 27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing/Zoning Legal Investigator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Building Inspector I-III 19-27 21.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Protection Engineer 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
Development Review Planner I- II 25 4.00 0.00 0.00
Plans Examiner I-II 25 6.00 0.00 0.00
Review Processor Supervisor 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Civil Enforcement Officer I- II 17-19 8.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Permit Processor I-II 14-16 4.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator I-III, Sr Secretary 15-19 0.00 5.00 5.00
Senior Secretary 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Technician II 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Building Services Total 66.00 66.00 59.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Engineering
City Engineer 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Deputy City Engineer 36 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Engineer II-VII 27-36 13.00 12.00 0.00 12 Transferred to PS
Architect City, Sr, Mngr, III 29-36 0.00 4.00 0.00 4 Transferred to PS
GIS Mngr, Coord, Anaylst, Spec 24-33 0.00 7.00 0.00 2 Transferred to IMS, 5 Transferred to PS
Survey City, Prof Land 26-30 0.00 3.00 0.00 3 Transferred to PS
City Architect 36 1.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Manager 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Architect 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Systems Coordinator 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
City Surveyor 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Architect III 29 2.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to Y&F
Engineering Const Program Project Manager 29 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Transferred to PS
Pub Way Concrete/Pave Manager 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician IV-VI 23-27 8.00 9.00 0.00 9 Transferred to PS
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Specialist 26 2.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Support Services Manager 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
GIS Specialist 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
GIS Tech II 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to PS
Eng Info and Records Spec 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Engineering Total 46.00 46.00 0.00
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Director, HAND 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director HAND 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
HAND Policy and Prog Manager, Spec 26-32 0.00 5.00 5.00
Housing Program Manager 29 2.00 0.00 0.00
Homeless Manager, Coord 26-29 0.00 2.00 2.00
Homeless Manager 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
HAND Project Policy 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant III 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Principal Planner 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Manager Housing 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Homeless Strategies & Outreach 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Dev Programs Specialist 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Dev Grant Admin 26 2.00 3.00 3.00
CD Programs & Grant Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Rehab Spec, Officer I-II 22-25 0.00 5.00 5.00
Housing Rehab Specialist 25 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing & Rehab Loan Officer 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Rehab Specialist I-II 22-23 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Loan Administrator 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New Position
Housing & Neighborhood Dev Total 21.00 21.00 22.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Planning
Planning Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Planning Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 33 3.00 3.00 4.00 New Position
Planning Programs Supervisor 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Development Review Spvr, Sr, Planner I-III 25-30 0.00 0.00 7.00 7 Transferred from Building Services
Planner Senior, Pricincipal, Assoc 24-28 0.00 21.00 21.00
Senior Planner 28 8.00 0.00 3.00 3 New Positions
Urban Designer 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Principal Planner 27 10.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Planner 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Secretary 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Graphic Design Tech 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Total 30.00 30.00 41.00
Transportation
Director of Transportation Planning 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director of Transportation 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer II-VII 36 6.00 7.00 7.00
Transportation Program Manager 33 3.00 2.00 2.00
Transit Program Planner I-III 25.28 6.00 7.00 7.00
Traffic Control Center Super, Oper I-II 23-26 0.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Control Center Super 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Analyst 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Tech I-II 23 4.00 4.00 4.00
Traffic Control Center Oper I-II 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Control Center I 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II, Tech 15-19 1.00 2.00 2.00
Office Technician I 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Transportation Total 26.00 26.00 26.00
Youth & Family Division
Youth & Family Div Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Associate Director Youth City 29 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 Transferred from PS
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Engineering
Senior Community Programs Manager 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 7.00 7 Transferred from PS
Events Coordinator Sorenson 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Program Assistant 14 0.00 0.00 4.00 4 Transferred from PS
Youth City Coordinator 10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Youth & Family Total 0.00 0.00 19.00
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD TOTAL 207.00 207.00 179.00
General Fund 204.00 204.00 176.00
1/4 Cent Sales Tax Transportation Fund 3.00 3.00 3.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development
Economic Development Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technology & Innovation Strategic Ind Advisor 34 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 29 to 34
Director of Business Development 32 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from from 29 to 32.
Economic Development Manager 29 5.00 4.00 4.00
ED Project Coordinator 25 2.00 3.00 3.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Total 10.00 12.00 12.00
Arts Council
Arts Council Executive Director 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Assistant Director 29 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 27 to 29
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Arts Council Program Coordinator 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Art Program Manager 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Total 6.00 6.00 6.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 16.00 18.00 18.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Redevelopment Agency
Chief Operating Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief Operating Officer 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Project Manager 33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
Project Manager 29 7.00 7.00 7.00
Communications Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
Communications Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 0.00
Property Administrator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant II 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 19 0.00 0.00 2.00
Office Facilitator I 18 2.00 2.00 0.00
Redevelopment Agency Total 19.00 19.00 19.00
Gallivan Plaza
Custodian II 11 0.00 1.00 1.00
Office Technician I 12 0.00 1.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker II 16 0.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 19 0.00 1.00 1.00
Plaza Marketing/Activities Supr 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Gallivan Event Adv/Mktg Manager 25 0.00 2.00 2.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 1.00
Plaza & Comm Events Div Director 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Redevelopment Agency Total 0.00 13.00 13.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOTAL 19.00 32.00 32.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Fire Chief
Fire Chief 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Fire Chief 35 2.00 2.00 2.00
Administrative Secretary II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial & Admin Svs Manager 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant I-III 18-27 0.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position
Office of the Fire Chief Total 5.00 8.00 9.00
Community Relations
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Recruiting/Outreach Specialist 20 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Education Specialist 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Relations Total 6.00 0.00 0.00
Finance
Financial & Admin Svs Manager 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant I-III 18-27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Total 3.00 0.00 0.00
Logistics
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-28 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Support Services Total 7.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Division
Director Emergency Communications 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Safety Technology Systems Coordinator 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communication Tech 20 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Division Total 3.00 0.00 0.00
Training
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Training Total 7.00 0.00 0.00
Operations
Battalion Chief 33 6.00 6.00 6.00
Captain 30 52.00 65.00 65.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 197.00 222.00 222.00
Fire Fighter Unfunded 22-27 10.00 10.00 10.00
Operations Total 265.00 303.00 303.00
Airport Operations
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 10.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 30.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Total 41.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Medical
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 8.00 0.00 0.00
Community Health Care Paramedic 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Medical Total 13.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 7.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention Specialist 17 3.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention Totals 16.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Administrative Services
Battalion Chief 33 0.00 6.00 7.00 1 Transferred from Police & Reclassified from Emergency
Management Program Director
Captain 30 0.00 12.00 14.00 2 New Positions
Recruiting/Outreach Specialist 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 0.00 21.00 21.00
Community Health Care Paramedic 24 0.00 2.00 2.00
Public Education Specialist 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 0.00 2.00 2.00
Director Emergency Communications 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Public Safety Technology Systems Coordinator 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Communication Tech 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Mgt Multi-Language Media
Coordinator
25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Emergency Mgt Training Program Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Community Preparedness Coordinator 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Emergency Mgt Critical Infrastructure Liaison 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 3.00 3.00
Fire Prevention Specialist 17 0.00 3.00 3.00
Office Technician I 12 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Administrative Services Total 0.00 55.00 62.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 366.00 366.00 374.00
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Accounting Total
Chief Financial Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Business Sys Analyst Team Lead 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Controller 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Sys Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Systems Admin 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Payroll & Accounting Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
City Payroll Administrator 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Grants Acq/Project Coordinator 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sr Payroll Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Payroll Kronos Specialist 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
City A/P Coordinator 20 2.00 2.00 2.00
Accounting Total 14.00 14.00 16.00
Financial Reporting/Budget
Deputy Controller 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 2.00 2.00
Financial Analyst IV (RDA)32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant IV 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Staffing/Position Control Specialist 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Property Control Agent 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Reporting/Budget 6.00 6.00 6.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis
Director Int Audit & Fin Analysis 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Financial Analyst Auditor 32 4.00 4.00 4.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis Total 6.00 6.00 6.00
Revenue & Collections
Director Revenue & Collections 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Collections Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Licensing Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
Landlord/Tenant License Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead Collections Officer 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Collections Officer 20 4.00 4.00 4.00
Consumer Protection Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 New Position BA#5, transferred to Mayors Office
Business License Officer 17 2.00 3.00 3.00
Business License Processor II 16 4.00 3.00 3.00
Business License Processor I 14 1.00 1.00 1.00
Revenue & Collections Total 19.00 19.00 19.00
Civil Action Unit
Lead Hearing Officer Referee Coord.19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hearing Officer Referee Coord II 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Hearing Officer Referee Coord I 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Civil Action Unit 3.00 3.00 3.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Purchasing
Chief Procurement Officer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Contracts Administrator 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Purchasing Consultant 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Procurement Specialist II 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Procurement Specialist I 24 1.00 2.00 2.00
Contract Development Specialist 23 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Purchasing Total 10.00 10.00 10.00
Treasurer's Office
City Treasurer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Treasurer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cash & Investment Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 2.00 2.00 2.00
Cashier Administrator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Treasurer's Office Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Policy & Budget
City Budget Director 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy & Budget Analyst 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Budget and Policy Total 3.00 3.00 3.00
General Fund 69.70 69.70 71.70
Risk Fund 0.30 0.30 0.30
FINANCE 70.00 70.00 72.00
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resource Administrative Support
Chief Human Resource Officer 41 0.00 0.80 0.80
Human Resource Mgmt Director 41 0.80 0.00 0.00
Deputy Chief Human Resource Officer 37 0.00 0.00 0.85 Changed from Human Res Deputy Director
Human Resource Deputy Director 37 0.85 0.00 0.00 New position BA#5, changed to Deputy Chief Human
Resource Officer BA#7
Civilian Review Board Investigator 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Recruiting & Onboarding Mgr 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.80 0.80 0.80
Human Resources Supervisor - Recruitment 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Compensation and Classification Anaylst 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resources Leave Specialist 29 0.00 0.80 0.80
Senior HR Recruiter 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Leave Coordinator 27 0.80 0.00 0.00
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.80 0.80 0.00 Changed to Human Resource Business Partner II (29)
HR Office Administrator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Benefits Analyst (25)
Benefits Analyst 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Benefits Analyst (27)
HR Recruiter 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Sr HR Tech (19), Assoc HR Recruiter (21)
Associate HR Recruiter 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist (21)
Senior HR Technician 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist (21)
Senior HR Technician 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 New positions
Administrative Support Total 11.05 13.20 17.25
Departmental Consultants
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Relations/EEO Manager 34 0.00 1.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Labor & Employee Relations 34 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Program Specialist 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 0.00 5.00 5.80 Changed from Employee Marketing & Comm (25)
Senior Human Resource Consultant 29 6.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Consultant 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Associate 22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Departmental Consultants Total 9.00 6.00 6.80
Training
Education Program Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Learning and Development Specialist 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Training & Development Coord (24)
Training & Development Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Learning and Development Specialist (27)
Human Resource Management Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Benefits
Chief Human Resource Officer 41 0.00 0.20 0.20
Human Resource Mgmt Director 41 0.20 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Deputy Director 37 0.15 0.00 0.15
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.20 0.20 0.20
Human Resources Supervisor - Benefits 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Human Resource Leave Specialist 29 0.00 0.20 0.20
Human Resource Leave Coordinator 27 0.20 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 0.00 0.00 0.20 Changed from Employee Marketing & Comm (25)
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.20 0.20 0.00 Changed to Human Resource Business Partner II (29)
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Benefits Analyst (25)
Benefits Analyst 25 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to Senior Benefits Analyst (27)
Benefits Total 3.95 3.80 4.95
Human Resources Total 26.00 25.00 31.00
General Fund 22.05 21.20 26.05
Risk Fund 3.95 3.80 4.95
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Department Leadership and Administration
Chief Information Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II-III 24-29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Solution Manager 34 4.00 0.00 0.00
Executive Assistant 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Department Leadership and Administration
Totals
7.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Services
Financial Manager I 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II-III 24-29 0.00 0.00 2.00 The titles of these individuals have been renamed. This does
not affect the pay of these employees.
Asset Management Administrator 26 0.00 1.00 0.00
Inventory Control Specialist 24 0.00 1.00 0.00
Purchasing and Administration Totals 0.00 3.00 3.00
Infrastructure Technology Services (ITS)
Chief Information Security Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 34 0.00 1.00 2.00 New Position - ERP Manager
Network Security Manager 34 3.00 0.00 0.00
Network Systems Engineer I-III 27-33 7.00 9.00 12.00 New Position - Cyber security, Unified communications, and
Enterprise Backup and Wireless.
INF Technology Support Manager 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
End User Team Manager 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Dept Info tech Operation Team Lead 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
Network Support Administrator I - III 23-27 12.00 12.00 12.00
Asset Management Administrator 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory Control Specialist 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Infrastructure Technology Services Totals 27.00 24.00 28.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Geographical Information Systems
Chief Data Officer 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 These employees have been transferred from CAN and other
Parts of IMS to create this team. These are not new positions
within the city and were moved from CAN. However, they are
now housed with IMS.
GIS Programmer Analyst 30 0.00 0.00 2.00 Moved in budget Amedment #8
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved in budget Amedment #8
Geographical Information Systems Totals 0.00 0.00 4.00
Software Services
Chief Technology Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Software Services 37 0.00 0.00 0.00
Software Engineer Team Lead 36 0.00 1.00 1.00
Enterprise Application Architect 37 1.00 0.00 0.00
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 This position was moved to the GIS Team
Software Lead 34 0.00 4.00 2.00 1 moved to Tech Solution Manager and 1 moved to Software
Support Admin.
Sr Software Engineer 35 2.00 1.00 1.00
Software Engineering Data Admin 36 3.00 4.00 3.00 This position was moved to the GIS Team
Software Engineer I-III 27-33 6.00 5.00 5.00
Software Engineer Team Manager 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Software Support Team Manager 34 3.00 0.00 0.00
Software Support Admin I-III 28-32 14.00 14.00 15.00 Moved from Software Lead
Tech Solution Manager 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Software Lead
Software Support Totals 32.00 32.00 30.00
Media and Engagement Services We have rebranded this team to be more encompasing of
the work that they perform.
Video Production Manager 3 1.00 1.00 1.00
Multimedia Production Spec I-III 23-31 4.00 4.00 4.00
Civic Engagement Program Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 5.00 1 New Position. The remaining 4 were transferred from
another department.
Multimedia Production Services Totals 5.00 5.00 10.00
Enterprise Project Management We have rebranded this team to be more encompasing of
the work that they perform.
Technology Solution Team Lead 36 0.00 1.00 1.00
INF Tech Project Manager 35 0.00 1.00 1.00
Software Lead 34 0.00 2.00 2.00
Solution Management Totals 0.00 4.00 4.00
Innovations Team
Chief Innovations Officer 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position BA#6
Innovations Team Lead 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position BA#6
Senior Innovations Consultant 30 0.00 0.00 2.00 New Position BA#6
Solution Management Totals 0.00 0.00 4.00
INFORMATION MGMT SVCS TOTALS 71.00 69.00 84.00
JUSTICE COURT
Justice Court
Criminal Court Judge 37 5.00 5.00 5.00
City Courts Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Section Manager 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Supervisor 24 2.00 2.00 2.00
Accountant II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Case Managers 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Lead Judicial Assistant 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant III 17 11.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant II 16 7.00 0.00 0.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I 15 9.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I,II,III 15-17 0.00 25.00 25.00
Justice Court Total 44.00 42.00 42.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Police Chief
Chief of Police 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Chief 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Deputy Chief (32) / Transferred to Investigative
Lieutenant--Police 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial & Admin Services Manager 32 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Sergeant Police 29 1.00 1.00 4.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Police Public Relations Director 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Communications Administrative Director (37)
Communications Administrative Director 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Police Public Relations Director (29)
Police Officer 19-25 5.00 8.00 8.00
Mental Health Professional 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Accountant I-III 21-27 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Grant Acquis & Proj Fin Analyst 27 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Grants Acquisition/Project Coordinator 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol Bureau
Administrative Assistant Appointed 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Executive Assistant
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Administrative Assistant
Administrative Secretary I-II 18-21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Police Services Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Graphic Design Specialist 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Graphic Designer 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech I-II 12-15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of the Police Chief Total 21.00 24.00 21.00
Administration and Operational Support
Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain--Police 34 4.00 4.00 1.00 Transferred to Training and Investigations
Lieutenant--Police 32 5.00 5.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Sergeant--Police 29 18.00 18.00 2.00 Transferred to Investigative
Financial & Admin Services Manager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Accountant I-III 21-27 0.00 0.00 4.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Grant Acquis & Proj Fin Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Police Services Coordinator 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Records Director 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Lab/Evidence Room Manager Director 29 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Manager (29)
Police Officer I-III 19-25 118.00 147.00 7.00 Transferred to Investigative and Patrol
Public Safety Tech Systems Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Lab Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 0.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 5.00 3.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Forensic Scientist Lab Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Quality Assurance Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Communications Tech 23 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to 24 from 23
Information Systems Supervisor 22 5.00 5.00 5.00
Forensic Scientist 21 5.00 5.00 5.00
Grama Coordinator/Paralegal 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mgt Services Supervisor Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Supervisor
Sr Police Information Specialist 15 13.00 13.00 13.00
Technical Support Specialist 15 5.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator 18-19 0.00 2.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Office Tech I-II 12-15 3.00 1.00 1.00
Police Information Specialist 13 16.00 16.00 16.00
Crime Lab Technician I-II 16-19 15.00 15.00 15.00
Evidence Technician I-II 16 7.00 7.00 6.00 Changed to Evidence Supervisor
Evidence Supervisor 23 1.00 Changed from Evidence Technician (16)
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Victim Advocate 22 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Gang Outreach Coordinator 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Community Programs Manager (24) Transferred
to Investigative
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Crime Statistics & Analysis Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Emergency Management
Emergency Mgt Program Director 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Emergency Management City Wide Training &
Exercise Coord
24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Community Preparedness Coord.23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Emergency Management Asst Crit Infrastructure
Liaison
18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Outreach Program Administrator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Administration 239.00 268.00 96.00
Patrol Operations Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain Police 34 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed to Deputy Chief (37) / Moved to Training
Lieutenant--Police 32 17.00 18.00 12.00 Transferred to Investigative
Sergeant--Police 29 44.00 49.00 30.00 Transferred to Investigative and Training
Police Officer 19-25 348.00 310.00 279.00 Transferred to Investigative
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 20.00 20.00 0.00 Transferred to Training
Social Work Director 30 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Social Work Manager 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Social Work Case Worker 19 5.00 5.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Community Programs Manager 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Office of the Chief
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Administrative Secretary I 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Training and Airport Bureau
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 0.00 2.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Office Tech I-II 12-15 5.00 3.00 1.00 Transferred to Training and Airport Bureau
Patrol Operations 451.00 419.00 327.00
Investigative Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Captain Police 34 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Administration
Lieutenant--Police 32 0.00 0.00 5.00 Transferred from Patrol
Sergeant--Police 29 0.00 0.00 18.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 111.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Social Work Director 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Social Work Manager 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration / Changed from LCSW (24)
Social Work Case Worker 19 0.00 0.00 8.00 Transferred from Patrol / New
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 0.00 0.00 12.00 Transferred from Patrol / New
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration
Victim Advocate 22 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Administration
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol / Changed from Gang Outreach
Coordinator (15)
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Administration / New
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Administration
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Investigative Bureau 0.00 0.00 173.00
Training and Airport Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Captain / Moved from Operations
Captain Police 34 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Administration
Lieutenant--Police 32 0.00 0.00 5.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Sergeant--Police 29 0.00 0.00 15.00 Transferred from Patrol
Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 58.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 20.00 Transferred from Patrol
Administrative Secretary I 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Office Tech I-II 12-15 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Training and Airport Bureau 0.00 0.00 103.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 711.00 711.00 720.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Administrative Services
Public Services Department Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Admin Services Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 FTE moved to IMS
Operations Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications and Administration Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Business Systems Analyst Team Lead 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
CARES Policy & Program Manager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 FTE from Community & Neighborhoods
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.35 0.35 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Safety Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Strategy & Special Project Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 FTE moved to IMS
Communications Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 FTE moved from Compliance and changed from Parking
Enforcement Officer (18)
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant Appointed 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst II 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 changed from Public Outreach and Information Liaison
(21)
Financial Analyst I 21 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Outreach and Information Liaison 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 changed to Management Analyst (24)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of Director Total 15.35 15.35 15.00
Gallivan & Events Division
Gallivan Utah Center Program
Plaza & Comm Events Div Dir 32 0.95 0.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 1.45 0.00 0.00
Plaza Marketing/Activities Super 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.95 0.00 0.00
General Maint Worker I,II 16 5.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech I 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Custodian II 11 1.00 0.00 0.00
Plaza & Comm Events Div Dir 32 0.05 0.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.55 0.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Manager 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.05 0.00 0.00
Special Events Admin Asst 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Gallivan & Events Total 15.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Transferred Engineering from Department of Community
& Neighborhoods
City Engineer 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Deputy City Engineer 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer VII 36 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
City Architect 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer VI 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer V 33 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Manager 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Senior Architect 33 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Senior Landscape Architect 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer IV 31 0.00 0.00 6.00 5 Transferred from CAN and 1 New
GIS Systems Coordinator 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Licensed Architect 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New
City Surveyor 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Landscape Architect III 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 1 Transferred from CAN and 2 New
Engineering Const Program Project Manager 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
Pub Way Concrete/Pave Manager 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer II 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Technician VI 27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Professional Land Surveyor 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering GIS/Asset Management Specialist 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Procurement & Contracts Specialist 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Support Services Manager 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
GIS Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Tech V 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Tech IV Union 23 0.00 0.00 4.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Tech II 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Eng. Data/SID Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Eng. Info and Records Spec 18 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Transferred from CAN and 1 New
Engineering Total 0.00 0.00 48.00
Golf Division
Golf Program - Golf Fund
Golf Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Associate Director 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Manager 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.65 0.65 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Professional 30 5.00 5.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Course Super 27 to 36 holes 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
9-hole Golf Professional 27 2.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Course Super 18 holes 27 3.00 3.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Superintendent 9 Hole 25 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Assistant Golf Club Professional 20 7.00 7.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Assistant Golf Course Super 20 10.00 12.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Subtotal for Golf Fund 34.65 34.65 0.00
Golf Division Total 34.65 34.65 0.00
Youth & Family Division
General Fund
Youth & Family Div Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Associate Director Youth City 29 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Senior Community Programs Manager 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Community Programs Manager 24 7.00 7.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Events Coordinator Sorenson 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Program Assistant 14 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Youth City Coordinator 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Youth & Family Total 18.00 18.00 0.00
Compliance Division
Compliance Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Compliance Div Field Supervisor 27 2.00 1.00 1.00
Compliance Swing-Shift Field Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from (19) Office Facilitator
Parking Pay Station Tech 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead Compliance Enforcement Officer 20 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (21) Special Projects Assistant
Parking Enforcement Officer 18 18.00 18.00 17.00 1.0 FTE changed and moved to PS Admin Communications
Coordinator (25)
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed 1.0 from (13) from Crossing Guard Coordinator
Crossing Guard Coordinator 13 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (15) Office Tech II
Office Tech I 12 2.00 2.00 2.00
Compliance Total 30.00 30.00 29.00
Facilities Services Division
Building Maintenance Program
Facilities Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Commissioning Authority 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst I 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Energy/Utilities Management Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
District Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 25 3.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Plumber III 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead HVAC Technician 22 0.00 1.00 1.00
HVAC Technician II 21 3.00 2.00 2.00
Lead Bldg Maintenance Tech 21 5.00 5.00 0.00 Changed 5.0 to (21) Maintenance Specialist III
Maintenance Specialist III 21 0.00 0.00 5.00 Changed 5.0 from (21) Lead Bldg Maintenance Tech
Carpenter II 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Painter II 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I (16)
Gen Maint Worker IV 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to General Maintenance Worker II
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Specialist II 19 0.00 0.00 10.00 Changed 10.0 from (18) Building Equipment Operator II
Building Equipment Operator II 18 10.00 10.00 0.00 Changed 10.0 to (19) Maintenance Specialist II
General Maintenance Worker III 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from General Maintenance Worker IV
Building Equipment Operator I 17 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (17) Maintenance Specialist I
Maintenance Specialist I 17 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from (17) Building Equipment Operator I
Equipment Operator 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
General Maintenance Worker III 16 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker I (16)
General Maintenance Worker I 16 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from General Maintenance Worker III (17)
Senior Facilities Landscaper 16 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech 16 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (20)
Office Technician II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Beautification Maintenance Worker II 13 3.00 3.00 3.00
Beautification Maintenance Worker I 12 2.00 2.00 2.00
Facilities Services Total 47.00 47.00 47.00
Fleet Management Division
Fleet Fund
Fleet Mgmt Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Operations Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Daily Operations Leader 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Asset Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mgmt Service Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Fleet Warehouse Super 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Metal Fabrication Tech 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Customer Service Advisor Lead 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Senior Mechanic 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Fleet Mechanic 20 23.00 24.00 25.00 1 Changed from Fleet Mechanic Trainee (16)
Fleet Customer Service Advisor 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic Trainee 16 3.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to Fleet Mechanic (20)
Fleet Senior Warehouse Operator 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Parts Warehouse Support Worker 14 3.00 3.00 3.00
Fleet Maintenance Scheduler 12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Parts Delivery Driver 11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Total 45.00 45.00 45.00
Streets Division
Streets Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 3.00 3.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Mgr 28 3.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor (25)
Streets Construction & Maintenance Supervisor 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Operations Maintenance Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Streets Response Team Field Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from (21) Response Team Leader
Maintenance Supervisor 25 5.00 5.00 4.00 1 Changed to Operations Supervisor (27)
Traffic Signal Lead 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Traffic Signal Tech II 23 2.00 3.00 3.00
Response Team Leader 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to (24) SRT Field Supervisor
Streets Maintenance Lead 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
Traffic Maintenance Lead 21 2.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Signal Tech I 21 2.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 20 10.00 10.00 10.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Senior Asphalt Equipment Oper 20 12.00 12.00 12.00
Lead Equipment Operator 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Streets Response Team Member II 19 1.00 0.00 1.00 New position
Asphalt Equipment Oper II 18 38.00 38.00 38.00
Concrete Saw & Grinder Oper 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Streets Response Team Member I 18 1.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Maintenance Operator II 18 8.00 7.00 7.00
Communication and GIS Coordinator 18 0.00 1.00 1.00
Equipment Operator 17 5.00 5.00 5.00
Traffic Maintenance Operator I 16 2.00 3.00 3.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Communications Coordinator 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Total 109.00 109.00 110.00
PUBLIC LANDS
Public Lands Administration
Public Lands Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Director Public Lands 33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 0.00
Landscape Architect III 29 1.00 1.00 0.00
Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr 29 0.00 1.00 0.00
PPL Project Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00
Program Support Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Relations Coordinator 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Usage Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Lands Administration Total 10.00 10.00 0.00
Parks Division
Parks Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 2.00 0.00
Regional Athletic Complex Manager 29 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Sexton 28 1.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 2.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 0.00
District Supervisor 25 7.00 8.00 0.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 1.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 1.00 1.00 0.00
Metal Fabrication Tech 22 1.00 1.00 0.00
Events Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Plumber II 21 3.00 3.00 0.00
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 20 2.00 2.00 0.00
Concrete Finisher 20 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 1.00 1.00 0.00
General Maintenance Worker IV 19 3.00 3.00 0.00
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 1.00 0.00
Irrigation Technician 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Maint Worker Irrigation Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech II 18 4.00 3.00 0.00
Cemetery Equipment Operators 17 4.00 4.00 0.00
Florist III 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Maint Worker III 16 1.00 0.00 0.00
Graffiti Response Field Tech 16 6.00 6.00 0.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 16.00 20.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I 16 1.00 2.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 3.00 3.00 0.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 9.00 10.00 0.00
Parks Total 72.00 80.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Division
Trails & Natural Lands Division Director 32 1.00 1.00 0.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Open Space Lands Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
District Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Natural Lands Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator 19 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 5.00 2.00 0.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Total 10.00 5.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Division
Urban Forestry Division Director 32 1.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forestry Crew Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 0.00
Forest Area Service Coordinator 22 3.00 3.00 0.00
Arborist III 21 4.00 5.00 0.00
Arborist II 19 6.00 4.00 0.00
Arborist I 18 0.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Total 15.00 15.00 0.00
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL 421.00 409.00 294.00
TOTALS BY FUND
General Fund 341.35 329.35 249.00
Fleet Management Fund 45.00 45.00 45.00
Golf Fund 34.65 34.65 0.00
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
Public Lands Administration Transferred from Public Services
Parks & Public Lands Director 41 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Deputy Director Public Lands (38)
Public Lands Deputy Director 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 New FTE
Finance Manager II 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 New FTE
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 Transferred from Public Services Admin
Business Systems Analyst II 30 0.00 0.00 1.00
Landscape Architect III 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Public Landscape Planner
Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
PPL Project Manager 28 0.00 0.00 1.00
PPL Landscape Planner 28 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed 1.0 from Landscape Arch III (29) ; 1.0 New FTE
PPL Asset Manager 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Warehouse Supervisor PG24
Community & Building Partnership Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 New FTE
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Warehouse Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Asset Manager PG 27
Parks Usage Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Warehouse Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sr Warehouse Operator to Warehouse
Specialist (PG15)
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Warehouse Specialist
Public Lands Administration Total 0.00 0.00 17.35
Parks Division Transferred from Public Services
Parks Division Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 2.00
Regional Athletic Complex Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
City Sexton 28 0.00 0.00 1.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 1.00
District Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 8.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Admin
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Admin
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 0.00 0.00 1.00
Metal Fabrication Tech 22 0.00 0.00 1.00
Events Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Plumber II 21 0.00 0.00 3.00
General Maintenance Worker III 21 0.00 0.00 4.00 1 Changed from Concrete Finisher (20), 3 Changed from
General Maintenance Worker IV (19)
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 20 0.00 0.00 2.00
Concrete Finisher 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III (21)
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 0.00 0.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker IV 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III (21)
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Administration
Senior Florist 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech II 18 0.00 0.00 3.00
General Maintenance Worker II 18 1.00
Cemetery Equipment Operators 17 0.00 0.00 4.00
Graffiti Response Field Tech 16 0.00 0.00 6.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 0.00 0.00 20.00 1 new FTE, 1 Changed to General Maintenance Worker II
(18)
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I 16 0.00 0.00 2.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 3.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 0.00 0.00 10.00
Parks Total 0.00 0.00 78.00
Trails and Natural Lands Division Transferred from Public Services
PPL Deputy Director Planning & Ecological
Services 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Division Director (32)
Trails & Natural Lands Division Director 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to Deputy Director (38)
Strategy & Special Projects Manager 28 1.00 1.0 New FTE
District Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Natural Lands Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Graphic Design Specialist 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 New FTE
Stewardship and Education Coordinator 22 1.00 Changed from Volunteer Coordinator (19)
Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Stewardship and Education Outreach (22)
Sr Natural Resource Technician 16 2.00 Changed from Senior Parks Groundskeeper (16)
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 New FTE, 2 Changed to Sr Natural Resource Technician
(16)
Parks Groundskeeper 12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Total 0.00 0.00 7.00
Urban Forestry Division Transferred from Public Services
Urban Forestry Division Director 32 0.00 0.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forestry Crew Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Forest Area Service Coordinator 22 0.00 0.00 3.00
Arborist III 21 0.00 0.00 5.00
Arborist II 19 0.00 0.00 4.00
Arborist I 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Total 0.00 0.00 15.00
Golf Division
Golf Program - Golf Fund Transferred from Public Services
Golf Division Director 35 1.00
Associate Director 33 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.65
Golf Professional III 30 1.00 Added III to the end
Golf Course Super 27 to 36 holes 29 1.00
Golf Course Super 18 holes 27 3.00
Golf Professional II 26 2.00 Changed from 18-hole Golf Professional to Golf Professional
II
Golf Superintendent 9 Hole 25 2.00
Golf Professional I 23 3.00
Changed from 9-hole Golf Professional to Golf Professional I;
2.0 changed from Assistant Golf Club Professional (20)
Player Development and Programs Mgr 21 1.00 1.0 changed from Assistant Golf Club Professional (20)
Assistant Golf Club Professional 20 4.00 2.0 changed to Golf Professional I (23); 1.0 changed to
Player Development and Programs Mgr (21)
Assistant Golf Course Super 20 12.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00
Golf Subtotal for Golf Fund 0.00 0.00 33.65
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Golf Division Total 0.00 0.00 33.65
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 151.00
TOTALS BY FUND
General Fund 0.00 0.00 117.35
Golf Fund 0.00 0.00 33.65
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
Waste & Recycling Division Refuse Fund
Waste & Recycling Div Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager I 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste & Recycling Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Analyst and Safety Coordinator 28 0.00 1.00 1.00
W&R Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor to W&R Operations
Supervisor (27)
Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor to W&R Operations
Supervisor (27)
W & R Permit Coordinator 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
W & R Education & Permits Lead 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from W&R Education & Permits Lead to WR
Program Lead (20)
WR Program Lead 20 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from W&R Education & Permits Lead and Office
Tech II to WR Program Lead (20)
Waste & Recycling Equip Op II 18 29.00 28.00 29.00 Changed from Lead Equipment Operator to Waste &
Recycling Equip Op II (18)
Senior Equipment Operator 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Lead Equipment Operator 20 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed from Lead Equipment Operator to Waste &
Recycling Equip Op II (18)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Tech II 15 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed from Office Tech II to WR Program Lead (20)
W & R Education Specialist 15 5.00 5.00 5.00
Container Maintenance Worker 14 2.00 2.00 2.00
Waste & Recycling Total 56.00 56.00 56.00
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund
Sustainability Envir Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Energy Climate Program Mgr 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 3.00 Changed from Sustainability Community Manager &
Sustainable Business Prog Coor to Sustainability Program
Manager (29)
Sustainability Community Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Sustainability Community Manager to
Sustainability Program Manager (29)
Sustainable Business Prog Coor 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Sustainable Business Prog Coor to
Sustainability Program Manager (29)
Special Projects Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Office Facilitator II to Special Projects
Assistant (21)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Office Facilitator II to Special Projects
Assistant (21)
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund 7.00 7.00 7.00
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT (Refuse
Fund) TOTAL
63.00 63.00 63.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Administration
Director--Public Utilities 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-Public Utilities 39 1.00 2.00 2.00
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant-Appointed 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Strategy & Innovations Officer 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
GIS Info Tech Systems Admin 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Engineer III-VII 26-36 3.00 0.00 0.00
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mgr 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Safety Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
PU Communications Engagement Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Analyst II 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Change from a GIS Analyst (27)
GIS Coordinator 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
PU Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Spec 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Analyst 27 3.00 4.00 3.00 1 Change to a GIS Analyst II (30)
Engineer II 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Community & Engagement Coordinator 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Development Manager 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Util Dev Review Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility Planner & Development Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Locator Manager 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Utility Planner 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech III-V 21-24 4.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Leak Detection Tech II 23 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Technician II 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Relations Coordinator 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Util Dev Review Specialist 19 3.00 4.00 4.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 2.00 2.00
Records Technician 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Utilities Representative - Cont 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Utility Locator 19 8.00 8.00 8.00
Administration Total 41.00 34.00 36.00
Maintenance
Operations Maint Superintendent 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Distribution System Mgr 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Computer Operation Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maint Support Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
WW Collection Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Irrigation Canal Systems Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water System Maintenance Super 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Water System Operation Super 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Electrical Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Irrigation System Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technical System Analyst III-IV 26-28 2.00 3.00 3.00
Water Service Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Collection Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lift Station Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Meter Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Office Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Water Meter Tech 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Maint Coord Public Util 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Specialist 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. Office/Technical 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sr. Communications Coordinator-Public Util 15 6.00 6.00 6.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 6.00 6.00 6.00
Metal Fabrication Technician 22 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Water Dist System Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Senior Water System Maint Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Waste Water Collection Lead Maint Worker 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
WW Lift Station Lead Worker 21 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 Changed from Waste Water Lift Station Lead Wkr (20); 1
New Position
Drainage Maintenance Lead Worker 21 0.00 0.00 3.00 2 Changed from Drainage Maintenance Worker III (19), 1
New Position
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
General Maintenance Worker V 21 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III from a General
Maintenance Worker V
Senior Pumps Maint Tech 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Irrigation Operator 20 4.00 4.00 4.00
Waste Water Lift Station Lead Wkr 20 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to WW Lift Station Lead Worker (21)
Water System Maintenance Operator I-II 17-19 27.00 27.00 27.00
Water Meter Tech I-III 18-19 6.00 6.00 6.00
Waste Water Coll Maint Worker II 19 12.00 12.00 12.00
Drainage Maintenance Worker III 19 10.00 10.00 9.00 2 Changed to Drainage Maintenance Lead Worker (21), 1
New Position
Pumps Maintenance Technician 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Facility/Building Maint Wkr 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Maintenance Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste Water Lift Station Maint Wkr 18 3.00 4.00 4.00
Irrigation Operator II 17 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 New Position
Landscape Restoration Lead Wkr 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility/Building Maintenance Wkr 15 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position
Water Distribution Valve Operator 15 8.00 8.00 8.00
Water Maintenance Support Wkr 14 2.00 2.00 2.00
Custodian II 11 2.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Total 173.00 175.00 180.00
Water Reclamation Plant
Water Reclamation Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Dept Manager 35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineer VI 33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Rec Plant Operations & Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regulatory Compliance Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Maintenance Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Program Manager 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Laboratory Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Project Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Compliance Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Waste Water Business Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
W.W. Plant Maintenance Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Process Control
Analyst
27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Reclamation Safety Specialist 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Operations Supervisor 26 0.00 4.00 Changed from Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator
Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator 26 7.00 6.00 0.00 4 Changed to WRF Operations Supervisor; 2 Changed to
WRF Operator III's (21)
Fats, Oils & Grease Program Supervisor 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
WRF FOG/Sewer Rate Program Supervisor 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Instrumentation and Controls Technician II-IV 25-28 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from Painter II (20)
Technical Systems Analyst II-IV 24-28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Laboratory Chemist 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lab Chemist 24 3.00 2.00 2.00
Water Reclamation Planner Scheduler 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Operator IV 23 0.00 0.00 4.00 Changed from WRF Operator III (21)
Waste Water Senior Operator 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 23 4.00 4.00 4.00
Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator II Non Union 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Technician II 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Utilities Representative- Office /Technical 15 1.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
HVAC Technician II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Plant Maint. Operator IV 21 8.00 8.00 8.00
Water Reclamation Facility Operator III 21 18.00 19.00 17.00 2 Changed from Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator
(26); 4 Changed to WRF Operator IV (23)
Painter II 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Instrumentation & Cntl Tech IV (28)
Waste Water Preventative Maint Worker 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Plant Maint. Operator I 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Reclamation Plant Total 69.00 69.00 69.00
Finance
Finance Administrator 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager III 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Service Manager Public Utilities 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant IV 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Financial Analyst III 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Metering Technologies Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant III 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Metering Technologies Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Billing Office Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Services Supervisor 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Service Accts/Coll Invent 18 6.00 6.00 6.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Generalist 15 9.00 9.00 9.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Customer Service 15 7.00 7.00 7.00
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Tech II 19 6.00 6.00 7.00 1 Changed from Water Meter Reader II (14)
Water Meter Reader III 18 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Water Meter Reader II (14)
Water Meter Reader II 14 7.00 7.00 5.00 1 Changed to Advanced Meter Infra Tech II (19); 1 Changed
to a Meter Reader III (18)
Finance Total 49.00 50.00 50.00
Water Quality & Treatment
Water Quality & Treatment Administrator 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
L&C Cross Connection Control Manager 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Cross Connection Control Manager (26)
Regulatory Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Program Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Quality Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Assistant Manager 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lead and Copper Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Project Manager 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Water Treatment Process Control Analyst 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
WTP Facility Manager/Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Change from Water Treatment Plant Lead Operator (26)
Cross Connection Control Manager 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to L&C Cross Conn. Control Manager (30)
Watershed Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical System Analyst III 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Treatment Plant Lead Oper 26 3.00 3.00 0.00 Change to WTP Facility Manager/Supervisor (27)
Pretreatment Compliance Specialist 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storm Water Compliance Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Quality Coordinator 23 2.00 3.00 3.00
Cross Connections Control Coord 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storm Water Technician II Union 22 0.00 0.00 2.00 Change from Stormwater Technician (21)
Storm Water Technician Union 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 Change to Stormwater Technician II (22)
Cross Connections Control Inspector 21 0.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Assur Sr Samp Cl Water 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lead Watershed Ranger 21 2.00 2.00 4.00 Change to Lead Watershed Ranger; 2 Changed from
Watershed Ranger (19)
Watershed Ranger 19 5.00 5.00 4.00 2 Changed to Lead Watershed Ranger; 1 New Position
Water Plant Operator II 21 25.00 25.00 25.00
Water Quality & Treatment Admin Total 52.00 53.00 56.00
Water Resources
Water Resources Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Department Special Projects Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Water Rights, Contracts and Property
Manager
30 1.00 1.00 1.00
PU Sustainability Manager 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Conservation Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Change to 30 from 26
Water Resources Eng/Scientist 27 2.00 2.00 2.00 Change to 27 from 26
Water Rights & Property Agent 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Property & Water Contracts Asst 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hydrology Specialist Union 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Conservation Technician 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
PU Records Prog Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Rights Assistant 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Resources Total 8.00 10.00 11.00
Engineering
Chief Engineer - Public Utilities 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III-VII 29-36 12.00 16.00 23.00 Dev-2-VII,1V, 2IV, 5 New positions: 3 Engineer IV's (31) & 2
Engineer V's (33); 1 Changed from an Engineer VI (34) to
and Engineer VII (36); 1 Changed from an Eng Tech VI (27);
1 Changed from an Eng Tech IV (23)
Sr Water Treatment Engineer 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Control Specialist 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program/Projects
Manager
29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer II 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech II - VI 19-27 17.00 Combined all Engineering Techs under Engineering
Engineering Tech IV- VI 23-27 9.00 9.00 0.00 1 Changed to an Engineer IV (34), Transferred 8 to
Engineering Tech II - VI
Engineering Tech III-V 21-24 0.00 5.00 0.00 1 Changed to an Engineer IV (31); 1 Transferred from Street
lighting, Transferred 5 to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Eng Contracts Coord Public Util 22 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Document Controls Specialist (18)
Engineering Tech III 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Engineering Tech II 19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Document Controls Specialist 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Engineering Contracts Coord P.U. (22)
Administrative Secretary 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 New position
Engineering Tech I 17 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Streetlighting from Engineering
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Contracts Technician (15)
Contracts Technician 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Contracts Process Coordinator (17)
Engineering Total 32.00 42.00 48.00
Street Lighting
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Engineering
Engineering Tech III 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from an Engineering Technician I (17)
Engineering Tech I 17 1.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from Engineering to Streetlighting; Changed to
an Engineering Technician III (21).
Street Lighting Total 3.00 2.00 2.00
Grades 2019-20 20-2021 2021-2022
Changes from
FY 2020-21 to FY 21-22
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT TOTAL 427.00 435.00 452.00
Water Utility Fund 270.22 276.65 283.16
Sewer Utility Fund 120.63 122.01 126.55
Storm Water Utility Fund 33.65 34.82 39.57
Full Time
Street Lighting Fund 2.50 1.52 2.72
CITYWIDE GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS
Attorney's Office
Victime Advocate 0.00 0.00 1.00 Application Pending
Attorney's Office Total 0.00 0.00 1.00
Community & Neighborhoods
CARES Policy and Program Manager 25-27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Expires December 2022, with possible extensions
Youth and Family Program Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 Extend with ARP Funding
Special Projects Assistant for Community
Commitment Program
0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Associate Planners 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Treasury Policy and Program Manager 25-27 0.00 0.00 2.00 Expires December 2021, with possible extensions
Community & Neighborhoods Total 0.00 1.00 7.00
Economic Development
Economic Development Manager 29 0.00 0.00 2.00 Possible ARP Funding
Project Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Arts Council Program Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Economic Development Total 0.00 0.00 2.00
Fire Department
Fire Fighter 22-27 0.00 0.00 4.00 Possible ARP Funding
Office Technician II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police - Fix the Bricks Grant
Fire Department Total 0.00 0.00 5.00
Finance Department
- Grant Administrator 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
- Grant Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
- Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Fire Department Total 0.00 0.00 2.00
Public Lands Department
Arborist 0.00 0.00 0.00 Possible ARP Funding
Fire Department Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS 0.00 1.00 17.00
Page | 1
COUNCIL BUDGET
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Russell Weeks, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver, Allison Rowland,
Sylvia Richards, Kira Luke, Sam Owen, and Libby Stockstill
DATE: June 15, 2021 UPDATED 2:05 PM
RE: Fiscal Year 2021-22 MOTIONS FOR CITY BUDGET ADOPTION
– RED TEXT TO BE READ ALOUD BY COUNCIL MEMBERS –
MOTION 1. Adopts City Budget except Library and CIP (agenda item H14)
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance approving Salt Lake City’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget as outlined in the
attached key changes spreadsheets and staffing document, excluding the schedule for capital projects and debt and
the Library Fund.
MOTION 2. Adopts Library Fund Budget (agenda item H10)
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance approving the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City for Fiscal
Year 2021-22.
MOTION 3. Sets All Tax Rates (agenda item H9)
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance setting the final rate of tax levy, including the final levy for the Library
Fund, upon all real and personal property within Salt Lake City, made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2021-22 as listed
on the motion sheet, and authorize the Council Chair to sign the necessary documentation for the State Tax
Commission.
A tax of .004076 on each dollar of taxable valuation of which:
A. .002854 shall be credited as revenue in the General Fund, generating $88,819,132 of on-going revenue; and
B. .000014 shall be credited to the judgment levy for the General Fund, a one-year adjustment generating $433,129
of one-time revenue; and
C. .000556 shall be credited toward repayment of General Obligation Bonds, generating $17,315,863 of on-going
revenue; and
D. .000649 shall be credited as revenue in the special Library Fund, generating $20,979,219 of on-going revenue;
and
E. .000003 shall be credited to the judgment levy for the Library Fund, a one-year adjustment generating $83,554 of
one-time revenue.
MOTION 4. CIP & Debt Service
I move that the Council adopt $37,355,406 to be transferred into CIP, including APPROVING $8,572,651 in funding
for annual debt service and other ongoing commitments, as detailed in the Mayor’s Recommended CIP Budget
excluding the first year payment for the proposed new sales tax Series 2022 bond, and with the understanding that
funding for CIP projects and the proposed bond will be considered separately later this year.
MOTION 5. Adopts Legislative Intent Statements / Interim Study Items
I move that the Council adopt the Legislative Intent Statements as outlined on the motion sheet under Motion 5,
items A through E.
A. Update Boarded-Building Fee. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration propose a boarded building fee that
includes the full city costs of monitoring and responding by police, fire and other city 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.
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.
a. Golf Fund Financial Sustainability: Trends in revenues, expenditures,
b. Long-term CIP Plans. Based on current projections and the recently-completed short-term CIP plan,
c. 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.
Page | 2
D. 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.)
E. Public Lands Maintenance. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide an estimate of the funding that would
be needed to adequately maintain all of the City's public lands. This estimate should include the number of FTEs, as well as
supplies, equipment, and appropriate signage.
MOTION 6. All other budget-related ordinances, including compensation (agenda items H3 to H8 and H11 to
H13)
I move that the Council adopt ordinances A through F as shown on the motion sheet relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-
22 budget.
A. Appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2022, the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between
Salt Lake City Corporation and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1004, representing
eligible employees in City departments.
B. Appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2022 the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between
Salt Lake City Corporation and the International Association of Firefighters Local 81, representing eligible employees in the Fire
Department.
Staff note: the Council is tentatively scheduled to consider adopting the memorandum of understanding in July.
C. Appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2022, the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between
Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake Police Association, representing eligible employees in the Police Department.
Staff note: the Council is tentatively scheduled to consider adopting the memorandum of understanding in July.
D. Approving the Fiscal Year 2022 Compensation Plan for all non-represented employees of Salt Lake City Corporation and increasing
salary figures by 2% based on the Council’s final adopted FY22 annual budget.
E. Approving an ordinance amending Chapter 14.32, Salt Lake City Code, Construction, Excavation and Obstructions in the Public
Right of Way
F. Approving an ordinance amending several chapters of Salt Lake City Code related to organizational changes including creation of
the Public Lands Department.
Staff note: The Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and potentially adopt amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule on July 13.
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 15, 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 15, 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.
REMARC INVESTMENTS |
BLALOCK & PARTNERS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO
THIRD AVENUE HOMES |
SLC CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING
08 JUNE 2021
SITE OVERVIEW
860 + 868 E 3rd Ave
• Lower Avenues Neighborhood
• Predominant SR-1A zoning w/
occasional CN Neighborhood
Commercial
• Avenues Historic District
3rd Avenue
3rd Avenue
3rd Avenue
CN SR-1A
RMU-35
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
• Gas / Service Station in CN
Zone at corner
• Single-family residence on
double-wide lot
• Creation of for-sale
townhomes w/ opportunity
for live/work
CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED RE-ZONE: RMU-35
PROPOSED PROJECT:
• Combination of (2) parcels
• Rezone to RMU-35
• Maintain / renovate historic
single-family home
• Create For-Sale townhomes
at a sensitive scale
RMU-35 UNDERSTANDING
Maintains intent by allowing
Commercial uses
Allows for greatest flexibility:
• Provides for an ideal unit size
and density in keeping with the
neighborhood
• Site development setbacks
consistent with current area
• Provides needed single-family
residences at a scale that is
highly sought after
Matches existing District’s lot size
as compared to current SR-1A zone
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
SITE OVERVIEW
Avenues Neighborhood
• Density & Scale Precedents
in Immediate Neighborhood;
multi-story, dense multi-family
developments highlighted in
relation to proposed site area
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
SITE OVERVIEW
3rd Avenue O StreetN Street A B C D E FABCDE F123456
65 4 3 2 1
3rd Avenue O StreetN Street A B C D E FABCDE F123456
65 4 3 2 1
3rd Avenue O StreetN StreetABCDEF
A B C D E F
3rd Avenue O StreetN StreetABCDEF
A B C D E F
Existing Site Conditions;
• Gas/Service Station with canopy
and pumps at corner
• Site development
predominantly hardscaped
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EXISTING GAS STATION
EXISTING GAS STATIONPUMP CANOPY
RMU-35 Rezone
(6) 3 Story Townhomes
• 2 car garages loading @
south side
• Lot Area = 13,612 sf
• 32% Open Space Area
• Existing House to
Remain
• Variation & Relief along
primary facades
• Exploration of the
“Front Porch”
• Park strip landscaping
1 2 3 4 5 6
SITE DEVELOPMENT
APPROACH
3rd Avenue
N
S
t
r
e
e
t
EXISTING RESIDENCE
8'
9
'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
0
"
3
5
'
-
0
"
3
2
'
-
0
"
Dgn
3rd Avenue
O Street
N Street
N Street
O Street
Proposed Project Location
residence max height
property line
N Street: View West
3rd Avenue: View North
3rd Avenue: View South
Proposed Project Location
residence max height
property line
NORTH-SOUTH STREET SECTION
THRU 3RD AVE
NORTH PERSPECTIVE ELEVATION
THANK YOU
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
THANK YOU
16
(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
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
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 15, 2021
RE: Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendment at
Approximately 850 & 870 East 2100 South CC to CSHBD2
PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map and Sugar House Master Plan
Future Land Use Map for properties located at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South from the
current CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning designation to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District).
Previous uses of the property were a Nestle factory and offices (previously Snelgrove’s ice cream store and
factory) at 850 East and an office building at 870 East. Buildings on the property are now vacant. The
applicant proposes construction of a mixed-use development including residential and commercial space
on the approximately 3.24 acres.
Two petitions are associated with this request:
•Master Plan Amendment-The Sugar House Community Master Plan designates the subject
properties as “Mixed Use-Low Intensity.” The request is to amend the future land use map for the
parcels to “Business District Mixed Use-Neighborhood Scale.”
•Zoning Map Amendment-The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment for the subject
properties from their current CC designation to CSHBD2.
The Planning Commission found there are no specific policies in the 2005 Sugar House Master Plan to
support or prohibit the proposed future land use map amendment.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 15, 2021
Set Date: June 15, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
Page | 2
Vicinity map with subject parcels outlined in yellow
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
2.The Council may wish to ask if affordable housing units are planned for the proposed
development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As shown on the map below, properties surrounding the subject parcels are a mix of zoning designations
including:
•CC: Corridor Commercial
•CSHBD2: Sugar House Business District
•FB-SE: Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict
•R-1-5000: Single-Family Residential
•RMF-35: Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential
Page | 3
Vicinity zoning map with subject parcels outlined in yellow.
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff found the requested change to the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map is not
particularly significant as both current and proposed land use designations are mixed-use. The primary
reason for the master plan and zoning designation changes are to allow an additional 15’ of building height.
Planning staff also reviewed Plan Salt Lake (2015) which outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth
and development in the city. They found the proposed zoning map amendment and overall project aligns
with the plan’s vision and guiding principles and are supported by policies and strategies in the plan.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
A table comparing building size limits, yard requirements, and some design requirements for the
current CC and proposed CSHBD2 zoning designations is below.
Corridor Commercial (CC) –
Existing Zoning
Sugar House Business
District (CSHBD2) –
Proposed Zoning
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
No minimum lot area or width is
required.
Minimum Yard
Requirements
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: 15’
2. Interior Side Yard: None required.
3. Rear Yard: 10’
4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: No
minimum yard is required.
2. Maximum Setback: 15'
3. Interior Side Yard: None
Page | 4
property in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yard requirements in
chapter 21A.48.
4. Rear Yard: No minimum yard is
required.
5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a
lot in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yards and
landscape requirements in chapter
21A.48. In addition, for those
structures located on properties
zoned CSHBD that abut properties
in a Low Density, Single-family
Residential Zone, every 3’ in
building height above 30’ shall
require a corresponding 1’ setback
from the property line at grade.
The additional required setback
area can be used for landscaping
or parking.
Landscape Yard
Requirements
A landscape yard of 15’ shall be required
on all front and corner side yards,
conforming to the requirements of
section 21A.48.090 and subsection
21A.48.100C.
None required.
Maximum Building
Height
Maximum Building Height: No building
shall exceed 30’. Additional building
height of 15’ may be granted through the
Design Review in conformance with
chapter 21A.59 for a maximum of 45’, and
subject to additional landscaping
requirements.
The Maximum Building Height in
the CSHBD2 zone shall not exceed
30’ for buildings used
exclusively for nonresidential
purposes.
Additional square footage may be
obtained up to a maximum of 60’
if a residential component is
included in the development.
Buildings used exclusively for
residential purposes may be built
to a maximum of 60’.
First Floor/Street Level
Requirements
None The first floor of street level space
of all buildings with this area shall
be required to provide uses
consisting of residential, retail
goods establishments, retail
service establishments, public
service portions of businesses,
restaurants, taverns/brewpubs,
bar establishments, art galleries,
theaters or performing art
facilities.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 35-36 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. Please see the Planning Commission
staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• January 6, 2021 The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House
Community Council meeting. The community council sent a letter to the Planning Commission in
Page | 5
support of the proposed rezone.
• February 10, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notice was posted on the property.
• February 11, 2021 Public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and property owners and
posted to City and State websites on this date.
• February 12, 2021 Newspaper notice of public hearing.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing February 24, 2021. Several people spoke
primarily expressing opposition to the proposed rezone citing concerns with affordable housing,
density, and traffic. The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation
to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
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: Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
850 & 870 E. 2100 South
STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner
(385)226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the master plan & zoning map as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for Master Plan Future Land Use
Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E.
2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The
applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from
“Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to
change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District).
April 15, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (May 5, 2021 16:34 MDT)
05/05/2021
05/05/2021
The Planning Commission found that there are no specific policies in the Sugar House Master
Plan (2005) that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific
policies that would prohibit the proposed amendment. The basis for the request for the zoning
map amendment is based on additional building height (15’) that cold be realized should the
amendment be approved.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
● Early Notification – Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and
tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on December 16, 2020. In addition,
the Sugar House Community Council was also provided notification.
● Sugar House Community Council – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal
at the Sugar House Community Council meeting on January 6, 2021. Planning Staff was
in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached in the
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2021 (Exhibit 3b). The SHCC is
in favor of the proposed amendments.
● Planning Commission Meeting – On February 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding
the proposal on to the City Council for decision. The staff report and minutes of the February
24, 2021 Planning Commission are found in Exhibit 3b & 3c respectively.
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
a) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021
b) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021
c) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021
d) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LIST
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of the properties located at approximately 850 and 870 East 2100 South
Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) and
amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at 850 and
870 East 2100 South Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House
Business District) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00906 and amending the Sugar House
Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February
24, 2021 on an application submitted by Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC to rezone the properties located at 850 and 870 East 2100
South Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-20-129-023 and 16-20-129-009) (the “Properties”) from CC
Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00906, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
with respect to those parcels from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use -
Neighborhood Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00925; and
WHEREAS, at its February 24, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District to CSHBD2 (Sugar House
Business District).
SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of
the Sugar House Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use
designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Mixed Use - Low Intensity to
Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
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 201x.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 850 and 870 E 2100 S
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
April 14, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description for the Properties to be Rezoned and Subject to the Sugar House Master Plan
Future Land Use Map Amendment:
Address: 850 E. 2100 South
Tax ID No. 16-20-129-023
0610 BEG S 0^21'12" W 203.50 FT FR THE NE COR OF LOT 10, BLK 44, 10 AC PLAT A,
BIG FIELD SUR; S 0^21'12" W 67.10 FT; N 89^50'35" W 727.89 FT; N 0^20'03" E 115.16 FT;
E 139.31 FT; N 145.*
Contains 130,244 sq feet or 2.99 acres more or less.
Address: 870 E. 2100 South
Tax ID No. 16-20-129-009
0505 COM 9 RD W & 10 FT S FR NE COR LOT 10 BLK 44 10 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR
W 4.59 RD S 142 FT E 4.59 RD N 142 FT TO BEG 6090-1450 6754-1107 8361-2124,2118
Contains 10,890 sq feet or .25 acres more or less.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK – February 12, 2021
B) NEWSPAPER NOTICE – February 12, 2021
C) STAFF REPORT – February 24, 2021
D) AGENDA & MINUTES – February 24, 2021
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LIST
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925
November 12, 2020 Petitions received by the City.
December 10, 2020 Petitions assigned to and received by Lex Traughber.
December 10, 2020 The Sugar House Community Council was emailed notification of the
proposal.
December 16, 2020 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within
300 feet of the subject property boundaries.
January 6, 2021 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Sugar House
Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting.
February 10, 2021 Property posted with signs for the February 24, 2021 Planning
Commission hearing.
February 12, 2021 Notice of the Planning Commission’s May 22, 2019 Public Hearing
mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda
emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites
February 12, 2021 Newspaper notice appears in the newspaper.
February 24, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation regarding the
requests on to the City Council for a decision.
March 1, 2021 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney’s Office for review reflecting
the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the master plan
& zoning map amendments. Requested review of the draft ordinance.
Received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
March 12, 2021 Transmittal submitted to CAN.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00906 & 00925–
Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory – Sugar House Community Master Plan
& Zoning Map Amendments – Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and
General Business Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use
Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E.
2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential and commercial). The
applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan
from "Mixed Use - Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale" and to
change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the
property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi -family residential, office or mixed-use
development. This project requires both a Master Plan and a Zoning Map amendment. The
subject property is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com).
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests
for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other
auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To
make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-
535-7600, or relay service 711.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Original Notice & Postmark
February 12, 2021
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Newspaper Notice
February 12, 2021
Order Number:
Referral Code:
From:Rankins, Marlene
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation.
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:33:05 AM
Hey Lex,
This is the type of confirmation they provide us with now for your file.
Thank you,
MARLENE RANKINS
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6171
Email marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
www.OurNeighborhoods.CAN.com
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as
possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding
and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning
Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with
development rights.
From: legals@deseretnews.com <legals@deseretnews.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Rankins, Marlene <Marlene.Rankins@slcgov.com>
Cc: ltapusoa@utahmediagroup.com
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Order modified confirmation.
THANK YOU for your business.
This is your confirmation that your order has been changed. Below are the details of your transaction. Please save this confirmation for
your records.
Job Details
DN0010647
Classification:
Other Notices
Package:
Legals
Order Cost:
$126.92
PC 2.24.21 NOTICE
Account Details
Planning Division
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480
801-533-6171
marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
Planning Division
Schedule for ad number DN00106470
Fri Feb 12, 2021
Deseret News Legals
All Zones
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Staff Report
February 24, 2021
1
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
_____________ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Lex Traughber – Senior Planner
(801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
Date: February 24, 2021
Re: Sugar Town/Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory –
Sugar House Community Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments
Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
MASTER PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 850 & 870 E. 2100 South
PARCEL IDs: 16-20-129-009 & 023
ZONING DISTRICT: CC – Commercial Corridor
MASTER PLAN: Mixed Use – Low Intensity
REQUEST: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has
submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two parcels
located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type development (residential
and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan
from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood Scale” and to change the
zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business
District). The following two petitions are associated with this request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Community
Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as "Mixed Use – Low Intensity". The
petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to " Business District
Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale ". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The subject properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial
Corridor District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the
properties to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The Planning Commission’s role in these applications is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who has final
decision making authority.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation regarding the proposed amendments on to the City Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Maps
B. Applicant Information
2
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
C. Analysis of Standards
D. Public Process and Comments
E. City Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business
Machines, LLC, has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments
for the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map in the
Sugar House Master Plan from “Mixed Use - Low Intensity” to “Business District Mixed-Use - Neighborhood
Scale” and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to CSHBD2
(Sugar House Business District). The intent of the request is to change the zoning of the property to allow more
flexibility to develop future multi-family residential, office or mixed-use development. The map below indicates the
approximate area to be potentially affected by the proposals.
The applicant has submitted detailed rationales for the proposed amendments in their applications. This
information is attached for review (Attachment B). Potential master plan and zoning amendment approvals
would allow for residential, commercial, or mixed-use type land uses in the future. A specific development plan
has been submitted to the City for “Design Review” (Petition PLNPCM2021-00025) consideration, and will be
presented to the Planning Commission for a decision at a later date. The task at hand for the Planning
Commission at this time is to consider whether or not an amendment to the Future Land Use Map adopted as part
of the Sugar House Master Plan, and a rezone of the subject property, is appropriate based on adopted City master
plan policies and the adopted standards for entertaining rezone requests.
3
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
PHOTOS OF SUBJECT SITE:
The Snelgrove property
as viewed from 2100
South looking
southwest.
Another view of the
Snelgrove property as
viewed from 2100
South looking
east/southeast.
4
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
View across the street
from the subject property
on 2100 South.
View of the southwest
corner of the property
from the 800 East and
Commonwealth Avenue
intersection looking east.
5
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
View of the southeast
corner of the property
along Commonwealth
Avenue looking
northwest.
View looking east down
Commonwealth Avenue
opposite the rear of the
Snelgrove factory.
6
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
The garages that front
on Commonwealth
Avenue opposite the
Snelgrove factory
building.
Looking west down
Commonwealth Avenue;
Snelgrove factory
building on the right
hand side of the photo.
7
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
The corner of 900 East
and Commonwealth
Avenue looking west.
ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING:
The subject property is currently zoned “Corridor Commercial” and is a parcel of property approximately 3.23
acres in size located between 2100 South and Commonwealth Avenue, and between 800 and 900 East. Please
refer to Attachment A – Vicinity Maps. An abandoned factory and vacant office buildings are currently sitting on
the property.
Surrounding zoning includes CC (Corridor Commercial) to the north, CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District)
adjacent and to the east, FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) adjacent and to the west, and R-
1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and FB-SE to the south. With the exception of the residentially zoned
property located to the south, all surrounding adjacent property is used commercially.
Planning Staff notes that abutting residentially zoned property to the south of the subject property is separated by
Commonwealth Avenue, a city street. Commonwealth Avenue essentially functions as an alley in this case, with
garage access for the homes on Elm Avenue located on Commonwealth as demonstrated in the above photos. A
home located on the southeast corner of 800 East and Commonwealth is oriented toward 800 East.
The requests for the master plan future land use map amendment and the zoning map amendment are reasonable
requests based on consistency with surrounding land use and zoning.
Comparison of the Existing CC (Corridor Commercial) and the CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business
District) Zoning Districts
The subject property is zoned CC – Corridor Commercial. The purpose of the Corridor Commercial zoning district is:
The purpose of the CC Corridor Commercial District is to provide an environment for efficient and
attractive commercial development with a local and regional market area along arterial and major
collector streets while promoting compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through design standards.
This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail
sales and services, entertainment, office and residential. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that
8
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should
follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. This district is
appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans. The standards are intended to
promote a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment to all users.
The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. The purpose of
the Sugar House Business District is:
The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a
transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty four (24) hour population. The
CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high
density residential land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar
House master plan and the Sugar House Business District.
The major difference, and the primary reason for the master plan and zoning amendments, between the CC –
Corridor Commercial District and the CSHBD2 – Sugar House Business District lies in the maximum building
height allowed between the two zones. As shown in the table below, the maximum building height that could be
realized in the CC – Corridor Commercial District is 45’, and the maximum building height that could be realized
in the CSBD2 – Sugar House Business District is 60’. The land uses allowed in these two Districts per chapter
21A.33 – Land Use Tables are virtually identical.
Secondary differences between the two zones are that the CC requires more setbacks and associated landscaping,
while the CSHBD2 requires active ground floor uses along the public street frontages. The former would result in
a more open and suburban condition, while the latter would result in a more urban condition.
Finally, should the property be rezoned to CSHBD2, any new construction on the subject that exceeds 30’ in
height or twenty thousand square feet in size would be subject to the Design Review process, which is a public
process requiring Planning Commission action. In short, should the property be rezoned, the proposed building
would fall under review in a public setting.
Comparison of Zoning Ordinance Standards
A simplified table showing a comparison of the building size limits and yard requirements as well as some of the design
requirements for both zones is included below. This is extracted from the more detailed requirements for each zone
found in the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 21A.32.080 – I – Institutional and Chapter 21A.24.180 – R/O – Residential/
Office.
Corridor Commercial (CC) –
Existing Zoning
Sugar House Business District
(CSHBD2) – Proposed Zoning
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
No minimum lot area or width is required.
Minimum Yard
Requirements
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: 15’
2. Interior Side Yard: None required.
3. Rear Yard: 10’
4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting
property in a Residential District shall
conform to buffer yard requirements in
chapter 21A.48.
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front and Corner Side Yard: No minimum
yard is required.
2. Maximum Setback: 15'
3. Interior Side Yard: None
4. Rear Yard: No minimum yard is required.
5. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a
Residential District shall conform to buffer
9
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Comparing two key development standards, building height and setbacks, the CSHBD2 zone allows for more
building height than the CC Zone by 15’, the building setbacks are very similar (15’) with the difference being that
buildings in the CSHBD2 Zone may be built to the property line if so desired.
CITY WIDE MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
Sugar House Master Plan (2005)
The subject property is located within the Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) area (see SHMP Future Land Use
Map – Attachment A). The associated Sugar House Future Land Use Map currently designates the property as "Mixed
Use – Low Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the property is designated
as "Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale". Note that both future land uses are similar as they are both
mixed-use designations. According to the SHMP on page 5, the “Neighborhood Scale Mixed- Use” designation is “lower
in scale (in reference to the “Town Center Scale Mixed Use” designation) but still orients directly to the street. Uses
include residential, retail, and commercial businesses or primarily small tenants. It is focused around a
transit/pedestrian oriented commercial/retail area with a strong street presence, wide sidewalks, street furnishings,
lighting and landscaping. The street level businesses are commercial and retail in nature, while the upper level can be
either residential or office depending on compatibility of the adjacent uses. Neighborhood Scale Mixed Use occurs
along the perimeter of the Business District, and acts as a transition to the adjacent residential and commercial areas.”
Several policies in the SHMP relate to the requested master plan amendment on various levels. The plan outlines the
following policies:
- Providing space for small tenants in the retail and office buildings that are developed (page 4).
- Increasing a residential presence through a mixed use land pattern (page 4).
- Directing development to be transit and pedestrian oriented (page 4).
yards and landscape requirements in chapter
21A.48. In addition, for those structures
located on properties zoned CSHBD that
abut properties in a Low Density, Single-
family Residential Zone, every 3’ in building
height above 30’ shall be required a
corresponding 1’ setback from the property
line at grade. The additional required
setback area can be used for landscaping or
parking.
Landscape Yard
Requirements
A landscape yard of 15’ shall be required on
all front and corner side yards, conforming
to the requirements of section 21A.48.090
and subsection 21A.48.100C.
None required.
Maximum Building
Height
Maximum Building Height: No building
shall exceed 30’. Additional building
height of 15’ may be granted through the
Design Review in conformance with
chapter 21A.59 for a maximum of 45’,
and subject to additional landscaping
requirements.
The Maximum Building Height in the CSHBD2
zone shall not exceed 30’ for buildings used
exclusively for nonresidential purposes.
Additional square footage may be obtained up
to a maximum of 60’ is a residential component
is included in the development. Buildings used
exclusively of residential purposes may be built
to a maximum of 60’.
First Floor/Street Level
Requirements
None
The first floor of street level space of all
buildings with this area shall be required to
provide uses consisting of residential, retail
goods establishments, retail service
establishments, public service portions of
businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar
establishments, art galleries, theaters or
performing art facilities.
10
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
Discussion: The requested change to the future land use map in the SHMP is not particularly significant given
that the current and proposed land use designations are both mixed-use in nature. There are no specific policies
in the SHMP that support the proposed future land use map amendment nor are there any specific policies that
would prohibit the proposed amendment. As previously noted, the basis for the requested change to the SHMP
and the rezone request are based on additional building height (15’) that could be realized should the amendment
be approved.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
Plan Salt Lake outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the
development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time,
compatibility, how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important
consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing
opportunities for new growth.
Guiding Principles specifically outlined in Plan Salt Lake include the following:
Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and
how they get around.
A beautiful city that is people focused.
A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and foster an environment for commerce, local
business, and industry to thrive.
The proposed zoning map amendment and overall project is aligned with the vision and guiding principles
contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by the policies and strategies in the document.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed master plan and zoning map amendments meet or are able to meet standards for these types of
requests as outlined in Attachment C.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part
of the final decision on these petitions.
11
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAPS
12
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
AREA ZONING
13
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT INFORMATION
14
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT C: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However,
there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to
master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans
addresses this issue in the following way:
All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or
for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of
this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the
applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995)
In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Sugar House Master Plan and
the proposed zoning designation of the subject property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public
hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required
process and noticing requirements have been met.
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 Based on the existing land uses in the vicinity of the subject
property, the development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhood, and the adopted master plans, amending the zoning
map for the subject parcels from CC (Corridor Commercial District) to
CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) is appropriate.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements
of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and
future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of
the city, and, in addition:
A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
C. Provide adequate light and air;
D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and
utilization;
E. Protect the tax base;
F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential
development; and
H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995)
The proposed zone change from CC to CSHBD2 would support the
purposes of the zoning ordinance found in Chapter 21A.02.030:
Purpose and Intent as outlined above. The change would help to
distribute land and utilizations (D.), while helping to support the
city’s residential and business development (G.)
15
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
3. The extent to which a
proposed map amendment
will affect adjacent
properties;
Complies
It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map
amendment could have a positive impact on adjacent properties
with thoughtful future development with an emphasis on
appropriate and compatible design.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes and
provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts
which may impose
additional standards
N/A
The subject property is not located within any designated overlay
zoning districts.
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 The proposal was reviewed by the various city departments tasked
with administering public facilities and services (see comments –
Attachment E). The city has the ability to provide services to the
subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the
owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements.
If the rezone is approved, the proposal will need to comply with
these requirements for future development or redevelopment of the
site. Public Utilities, Engineering, Transportation, Fire, and Police
and other departments will also be asked to review any specific
development proposals submitted at that time.
16
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT D: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Meetings & Public Notice
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the
proposed project.
January 6, 2021 – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council
meeting. Planning Staff was in attendance. A letter from the Sugar House Community Council is attached for
review. The SHCC is in favor of the proposed amendments.
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal include:
• Property posted on February 10, 2021.
• Notices mailed on February 11, 2021.
• Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on February 11, 2021.
• Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing – February 12, 2021
Letter to PC Sugar Town Rezone.doc www.sugarhousecouncil.org 1
February 2, 2020
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair
Sugar House Community Council
RE: PLNPCM2020-00906 Snelgrove Property – Sugar House Master Plan (SHMP) and Zoning Map Amendments
We are writing you concerning the proposed Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment for the two parcels at
850 and 870 East 2100 South. This parcel has long been known as Snelgrove’s Ice Cream, with a store and ice cream factory. More
recently, it was Nestle’s with just a factory. I’ve often wondered why we had a factory in the heart of Sugar House. The parcels are
zoned CC Commercial Corridor, the purpose of which is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive automobile oriented
commercial development along arterial and major collector streets. However, the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map calls
for it to be Business District Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scale. The petitioner is asking that this be rezoned to CSHBD2. The purpose of
that zone is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed use town center that can support a twenty-four-hour
population. The CSHBD provides for residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high-density residential
land use in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House master plan and the Sugar House Business
district.
We have a bus route on 2100 south with 15-minute service now, and this is a block from the S-Line. Our Transportation Committee is
working with the city to try to add bike lanes along 2100 South, which could make it more comfortable for pedestrians.
At the time the SHMP was updated in 2005, we talked about bringing the CSHBD2 zone all along 2100 South (the Lincoln Highway) to
700 East. However, there were businesses along that section from 900 East to 700 East, that would then be non-conforming, and it
didn’t go any further. That zone stopped at 900 East. A number of us have been talking about doing extending the CSHBD2 since that
time. Please note this petition is only for these two parcels. The rest of the parcels on this block and across the street, and west of
800 East will remain CC for now.
The CC zone allows most of the same uses as CSHBD2, but it also allows things like bus stations, warehouses, and other things that
really don’t fit along that corridor. The advantage of the CSHBD2 zone is that it has design guidelines, so that new development has to
be consistent with the standards set in the master plan, those are evident in the newly built parts of the Sugar House Business District.
The other advantage of the rezone is it would allow for additional height, and the applicant has said that will allow him to build a floor
of affordable housing to the project. The applicant says he has convinced the property owner that it is the right thing to do. One thing
we especially like it that it will allow the community to have some input into the design of anything that is built in this zone.
We have met with the applicant at two SHCC Land Use and Zoning meetings and he presented his plans at least on community council
meeting. This is on our website, and a link has been in our newsletter at least twice. I have attached the comments that we received.
I know at least once, I asked the group of about 35 on the zoom call if anyone had any objections to the rezone, and not a word was
spoken.
We are in favor of this rezone.
17
Snelgrove Publish Date: Feb 24, 2021
ATTACHMENT E: CITY COMMENTS
Date Task/Inspection Status/Result Action By Comments
11/12/2020 Pre-Screen Accepted Anglin, Anna John,
Thank you for submitting your zoning
amendment application. It appears to be a
complete application as a preliminary review.
However, once the planner assigned to it does a
thorough review, they may ask for additional
information. There is a fee balance of $283.25
for processing 1+ acres and noticing fees. I
have attached instructions on how to pay for
the balance on line through the Citizens Access
Portal. The project number is PLNPCM2020-
00906 – Snelgrove Ice Cream Plant in
Sugarhouse Rezone.
Thanks,
ANNA ANGLIN
Principal Planner
12/2/2020 Staff Assignment Assigned Traughber, Lex
12/10/2020 Planning Dept Review In Progress Traughber, Lex
12/10/2020 Staff Assignment Routed Traughber, Lex
1/8/2021 Engineering Review Complete Weiler, Scott No objections.
1/27/2021 Building Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
1/27/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex The applicant met with the Sugar House
Community Council on 1/6/2021.
1/27/2021 Fire Code Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
1/27/2021 Police Review Complete Traughber, Lex PD has no issues with these plans per Lamar
Ewell - SLC Police
1/27/2021 Public Utility Review Complete Draper, Jason No objection to the proposed Master Plan and
Zoning Map amendments. The proposed
development or others that would fit the
proposed zoning may require water, sewer, and
storm drain improvements. The site will need
to meet stormwater requirements for detention
and green infrastructure.
1/27/2021 Staff Review and Report In Progress Traughber, Lex
1/27/2021 Transportation Review Complete Barry, Michael Transportation has no comments on these
proposals.
1/27/2021 Zoning Review Complete Mikolash, Gregory Building Services finds no problem with the
proposed amendments – This would include
Zoning, Fire and Building Code.
2/4/2021 Community Council Review Complete Traughber, Lex
2/4/2021 Planning Dept Review Complete Traughber, Lex
2/4/2021 Staff Review and Report Draft Traughber, Lex
Work Flow History Report
PLNPCM2020-00906
850 E 2100 S
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
D. Agenda & Minutes
February 24, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
February 24, 2021 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-02242021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 10, 2021
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Modifications to Izzy South Design Review 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 received Design Review approval on December 9, 2020 for
a building over 15,000 square feet in size and Special Exception approval to allow 3' of additional
building height. Since that time, the applicants modified their design to include additional building
materials on the south and north facades. In accordance with section 21A.59.080, these types of
modifications to the approved Design Review plans require approval from the Planning Commission.
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 number: PLNPCM2020-00222
2. Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100
South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC,
has submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for
the two parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South in anticipation of a mixed-use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land
Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use-Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed-
Use-Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor
Commercial District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are
associated with this request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House
Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low
Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to
"Business District Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor
District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties
to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com)
3. Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S -
A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a
planned development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above-mentioned address. Planned
development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a
reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman
at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 &
PLNSUB2020-00683
4. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1395 E Michigan Avenue – Prescott Muir, property
owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located
in the basement of the existing single-family dwelling at the above-listed address. The applicant is
proposing a two-bedroom apartment measuring 963 square feet in size. The property is zoned R-
1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff
contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00944
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 February 24, 2021 Page 2
Judi Short – Stated the purpose of a Design Review is to get a better result; she does not believe that
the proposal is doing that.
Devin O’Donnell – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concern with lack of low -income
housing.
Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request.
Eoin Daxter – Stated his opposition of the request and raised concerns with the affordabilit y.
Soren Simonsen – Raised concern with proposed material.
Michelle Mower – Stated her opposition of the request.
Paula Mendoza – Stated her opposition of the request.
Lynn Schwartz – Provided an email comment stating opposition of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission made the following comments:
• The purpose of these projects are to build density
MOTION
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report and the information
received in the meeting I move that the Planning Commission approve the requested modification
to petition numberPLNPCM2020-00222 for Izzy South located at approximately 534 East 2100
South.
With the following modification:
1. That the applicant
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Snelgrove Ice Cream Factory Property MP and Rezone at approximately 850 & 870 East 2100
South - Mark Isaac, representing Sugarhouse Village, LLC, and General Business Machines, LLC, has
submitted applications for a Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map amendments for the two
parcels located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 210 0 South in anticipation of a mixed -use type
development (residential and commercial). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use
Map in the Sugar House Master Plan from "Mixed Use -Low Intensity" to "Business District Mixed -Use-
Neighborhood Scale" and to change the zoning on the subject property from CC (Corridor Commercial
District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The following two petitions are associated with this
request:
a. Master Plan Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Sugar House
Community Master Plan currently designates the properties as "Mixed Use – Low
Intensity". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to
"Business District Mixed -Use – Neighborhood Scale". Case number PLNPCM2020-00925
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 3
b. Zoning Map Amendment - The properties are currently zoned CC – Commercial Corridor
District. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the properties
to C-SHBD2 – Sugar House Business District. Case number PLNPCM2020-00906
The subject project site is located in Council District 7 represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Lex
Traughber at (385) 226-9056 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com)
Lex Traughber, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to
the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether there is an intent to
Mark Isaac, applicant, provided further information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• I would like to suggest that
• Clarification on setback requirements
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Judi Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council – Stated her support of the rezone request.
David Fernandez – Stated his opposition of the request.
Eli Kauffman – Stated her opposition of the request.
Eoin Daxter – Stated concerns with affordable housing in the neighborhood.
Michelle Mower – Stated concerns with affordable housing.
Soren Simonsen – Stated his opposition of the request.
Lexi Langford – Stated her opposition of the request.
Tom Greenleigh – Stated his opposition of the request.
Tyler Adams – Raised concerns with affordable housing.
Stephanie Christian – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request.
Hollie Brown – Provided an email comment stating her opposition of the request and raised concerns
with added traffic.
Kimia Golchin – Stated her opposition of the request.
Annie Lim – Stated her opposition of the request and raised concerns with affordable housing.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 24, 2021 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on sidewalk requirements
• Clarification on whether parking is included
• Clarification on whether there has been a requirement for affordable housing
MOTION
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom stated, based on the analysis and findings in the staff report
that amendments for Master Plans and the standards for Zoning Map Amendments have been
substantially met, testimony and the proposal presented, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council in suppor t of the proposed amendments
located at approximately 850 & 870 E. 2100 South. PLNPCM-00906 & 00925
Commissioner Bell seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passe d unanimously.
The Commission took a short break.
Reilly Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision Plat at approximately 1159 E 1300 S -
A request by Anthony Reilly, property owner, for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat as a planned
development to divide one existing lot into two lots at the above -mentioned address. Planned
development approval is required for reduced lot width (from 50 feet to 46 and 40.25 feet) and a
reduced side yard setback on Lot 1 (4 feet to 3 feet). The property is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential) and within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at
(385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com ) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00681 &
PLNSUB2020-00683
Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Anthony Reilly, applicant, provided further information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Planned Development petition (PLNPCM2020 -00681) and Preliminary Subdivision
Plat (PLNSUB2020-00683) as proposed, subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff
report.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Vice Chairperson Barry continued the meeting.
4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
5. MAILING LIST
MOUNTAIN STATE TEL & TEL CO
OLATHE, KS 66063
PO BOX 2599
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
INCORPORATED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2060 S WINDSOR ST
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
PETTY INVESTMENT CO.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
PETTY MOTOR COMPANY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP.
HIGHLAND, UT 84003
5455 W 11000 N # 202
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORP.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
777 E 2100 S
BICYCLE ENTERPRISES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
803 E 2100 S
MKP FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09/14/2012
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84158
PO BOX 58564
A & A FUNK, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2582 S ELIZABETH ST # 4
FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
INCORPORATED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2060 S WINDSOR ST
YOUNG S LEE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
825 E 2100 S
BICYCLE ENTERPRISES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
803 E 2100 S
CORP OF PB OF CH OF JC OF LDS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84150
50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST
MELISSA L SOUTHWICK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2152 S 800 E
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2160 S 800 E
JILL C HALL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2166 S 800 E
A SERIES OF 2172 S
SANDY, UT 84092
11289 S WYNGATE LN
774 ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
774 E 2100 S
ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMERICAN FORK, UT 84003
5455 W 11000 N #202
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
HOWTON PROPERTIES LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30355
PO BOX 52427
PHOENIX OF SALT LAKE CITY, LLC
DEERFIELD, IL 60015
PO BOX 1159
NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLC; UINTAH
INVESTMENT, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
2001 S WINDSOR ST
GENERAL BUSINESS MACHINES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108
1828 S WASATCH DR
921 PROPERTIES LC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84124
4070 S EVELYN DR
SUGARHOUSE VILLAGE, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1165 E WILMINGTON AVE
2010 VENTURES, LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
812 E 2100 S
SKH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84098
1280 FOXCREST CT
DALE F BONDARUK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104
1455 W WASATCH AVE
ALEXA LANGFORD
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
833 E ELM AVE
SHAUN FUHRIMAN
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
837 E ELM AVE
KAYCEE NIPPER; LANDY NIPPER; PAUL
NIPPER (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
841 E ELM AVE
ELM AVENUE HOME LLC
OGDEN, UT 84402
1680 NAVAJO DR
HEIDI M BEINTEMA; RACHEL BRUNO
SAN DIEGO, CA 92116
4223 MEADE AVE
JLF VENTURES LLC
DRAPER, UT 84020
13827 S SPRAGUE LN
GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP LLLP
PARK CITY, UT 84068
PO BOX 680365
AURELIO RUELAS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1015 E ELM AVE
WASATCHRENTALPROPERTIES, LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84098
110 MATTERHORN DR
AURELIO RUELAS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
1015 E ELM AVE
SALT LAKE COUNTY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114
PO BOX 144575
ELIZABETH M HUELSKAMP
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2151 S 800 E
3AS SUGARHOUSE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
867 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR
TARTARO REVOCABLE LIVNG TRUST
06/17/2015
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
2167 S 800 E
ALICE U ESPINOSA
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
820 E ELM AVE
KIMIA GOLCHIN; MAGGIE NARTOWICZ (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
826 E ELM AVE
RHAMA RENTALS LLC
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103
524 N MAIN ST
ROBERT V HARRELL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
836 E ELM AVE
DEBRA S GRIMES
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
840 E ELM AVE
LA BREDIN LEGACY TRUST 9/15/2017
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
844 E ELM AVE
KAIA ANNE RAGNHILDSTVEIT; OYVIND
RAGNHILDSTVEIT; TIFFANY RAGNHILD
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
850 E ELM AVE
BARBARA L MCCAULEY
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106
854 E ELM AVE
MARK R MORRIS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
35 E 100 S # 602
MATTHEW P MANES; MARK MORRIS (JT)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
35 E 100 S
GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP LLLP
PARK CITY, UT 84060
3642 OAKWOOD DR
GRODNIK PROPERTIES, LLC
PARK CITY, UT 84060
3642 OAKWOOD DR
SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR
Current Occupant
2023 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2027 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2027 S 800 E #NFF1
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2029 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2021 S WINDSOR ST
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2035 S WINDSOR ST
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
2030 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Current Occupant
767 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
809 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
815 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
837 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
827 E 2100 S #NFF1
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
724 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2172 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
790 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
863 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
867 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
875 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
909 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
935 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
870 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
880 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
850 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
823 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
829 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
847 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
851 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
857 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
859 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2141 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2147 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
818 E COMMONWEALTH AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
820 E COMMONWEALTH AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2165 S 800 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
830 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
858 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
866 E ELM AVE
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2148 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
2166 S 900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Current Occupant
922 E 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
From:george chapman
To:Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments against Case PLNPCM2020-00906, PLNPCM2020-00925 at Planning Commission
Date:Monday, February 22, 2021 4:38:12 PM
I am concerned but supportive of the project on the former Snelgrove site due to the need for
wide sidewalks since the only safe way to ride a bike on 2100S. is on a raised and wide
sidewalk. In addition, any entrance and/or exit should be away from 2100S 900E intersection
for safety reasons (and an important bus stop).
Otherwise, this project is an important and much needed addition to Sugar House. If needed,
please give the developer flexibility in height to allow wider sidewalks.
From:Mark Morris
To:Planning Public Comments; Traughber, Lex
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Email in support of Petition PLNPCM2020-00906: Snelgrove Site Rezone
Date:Friday, February 19, 2021 12:24:58 PM
SLC Planning Commission-
I'm emailing in support of the petition to update the city's land use map and zoning
ordinance to permit the 'Snelgrove Ice Cream' parcel in Sugar House to proceed.
I have owned a home on Elm Avenue directly south of this parcel for the last 15 years. I have
welcomed the investments and added activity in the Sugar House business district over the last
decade. With each new project, we've added much desired housing and walkability for the
neighborhood. Having been in this part of the city for many years, the walkability has much
improved over time, and it makes this neighborhood one of the most walkable in the entire
state. With the city's investments to update 900 East through this neighborhood this year, its
clear that the prioritizing of walkability/bikeability of the community is a priority, which I
applaud.
Having looked at the back of the Snelgrove factory out my front window for many years, I see
the potential for the site, and welcome the change to the neighborhood with housing and the
new liquor store.
I have participated as a neighborhood resident in the discussions with the Sugar House Land
Use committee with the developer, and have seen many of the community's suggestions
integrated into site plan changes and improvements. I think the addition of walking routes
through the block go a long way to improving access to all, and chopping up a large block in
the neighborhood. From my experience, the development team is acting in good faith to bring
a well-designed and context sensitive project to an urban neighborhood, encouraging more
residents to move to a neighborhood where they can walk to many destinations, and live a less
car-centric life. With easy access to bus, train, bike, and walking, from my experience this is
one of the most liveable neighborhoods in the city.
I certainly wish there was more space along 2100 South in the project for retail/services space,
rather than just the building's gym and leasing office. No doubt there are other retailers or
service providers who would be more than interested in space next door to one of the city's
few liquor stores. I appreciate the inclusion of public art in the project, and look forward to
seeing it come together.
Thank you for the city's attention to this neighborhood. I know you hear a lot of resistance to
new projects in Sugar House, but that is certainly not a unanimous opinion.
Mark Morris, PLA, LEED™AP, ASLA
VODA Landscape + Planning
159 West Broadway #200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone (385)429-2858
Email mark@vodaplan.com
Web www.vodaplan.com
From:Landon Clark
To:Traughber, Lex; Anderson, John
Subject:(EXTERNAL)
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:01:21 PM
Hi Lex or John,
My name is Landon Clark with the Sugar House Community Council.
I won't be able to make the planning commission meeting tonight but wanted to send a
paragraph from the SHCC for you to read tonight to the planning commission.
Speaking on behalf of the Sugar House Community Council we would like to talk about the
level of outreach this developer has done with our community. They have presented at our
general community council meeting a couple of times, our Land Use and Zoning a couple of
times and have met with a group of us countless times. Their level of community engagement
has been outstanding. For the most part we have had a very positive response throughout the
community. There is a lot of discussion about bringing more affordable housing to Sugar
House. When this group had the idea of including work force housing in exchange for an
extra floor of height the response was overwhelming positive, even George Chapman gave a
thumbs up.
Thank you
Landon Clark
Sugar House Community Council Chair
GO UTES!
From:Anderson, John
To:Della Rae Riker
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:31:45 PM
Thanks for the additional comments. I will make sure that the commission receives them.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
John,
Thank you for your quick response and the meeting information.
The only additional comments I have are that 2100 S is already stressed with traffic. Many of the
roads in Sugarhouse are heavily trafficked and in need of repair as a result. We haven't even seen
the traffic impact from the occupation of the new apartments between McClelland and Highland
Drive. Also, for neighbors who love the cozy feel of their Sugarhouse street having to look at a 60'
building will have an emotional impact. In a time when people's lives have been drastically impacted
by COVID now seems the time to maintain the integrity of our community as much as possible.
Again, many thanks,
Della Rae
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:32 PM Anderson, John <John.Anderson@slcgov.com> wrote:
Della Rae,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are
instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021
agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to
questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the
counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which
may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or
preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep
it as small as possible.
--
Della Rae Riker
--
Della Rae Riker
raeriker@gmail.com
801-891-3238
From:Anderson, John
To:Della Rae Riker; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:32:10 PM
Della Rae,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Della Rae Riker
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) : 850 & 870 E. 2100 South Rezone
Please don't. Sugarhouse is becoming much too crowded and losing the community charm. Keep it
as small as possible.
--
Della Rae Riker
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Stephanie Christian; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:33:50 PM
Thanks, Stephanie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing.
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Christian
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:31 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) 21st south snelgrove
I am writing to express my opposition to the reasoning proposal on 21st south near the old snelgroves. Adding the
proposed amount of housing to that area of 21st south will create an unsustainable amount of congestion. The
congestion is already an issue that needs to be addressed. I am not opposed to dense housing however the additional
traffic and needs need to be addressed more thoroughly than what is proposed.
-Stephanie Christian
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anderson, John
To:David Fernandez; Planning Public Comments
Cc:"Judi Short"; Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:27:23 AM
David,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on
how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: David Fernandez
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:13 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Cc: 'Judi Short'
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Deny the Sugar Town Zoning Change
I call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission to deny the request for the change of zoning and
prevent the development of the apartment complex known as “Sugar Town” to proceed.
Furthermore, I would call for the Salt Lake Planning Commission, the Salt Lake City Council and the
Mayor to find the courage to move heaven and earth to re-open the Snelgrove factory as a local
boutique ice cream parlor. I ask this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Regards,
David Fernandez
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Hollie Brown; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!!
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:54:42 PM
Thank you for your comments, Hollie. We will read your comments into the record during the public hearing
tonight.
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollie Brown
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 5:49 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) No more condos in Sugarhouse!!
The proposed plan for the old Snelgrove site is a bad idea. Sugarhouse is getting so built out and the charm that once
made this neighborhood so desirable is all but gone. Traffic is insane especially on 2100 s from 700 e to 1300 e. The
roads aren’t designed for the drastic increase in traffic. I have lived in Sugarhouse for 48 years and have watched it
deteriorate. Cramming another condo into the area only benefits the developers because it certainly isn’t benefiting
residents. When will enough be enough? How about focusing on open spaces and developing unique features that
will add to the community instead of another chain restaurant or retail store that will be out of business in six
months? Instead of telling taxpayers of proposed building, how about asking area residents what we’d like to see? I
guarantee no one will say more condos and retail.
Thank you,
Hollie Brown
From:Anderson, John
To:Carling Mars; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:35:31 AM
Carling,
Good morning, I’m assuming that you’re referencing the proposed zoning changes at the
former Snelgrove ice cream plat which is located at 850 E. 2100 S. That project would not
remove any existing housing as currently proposed. It would only remove the existing
nonconforming industrial site. You can learn more about the project here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/00906.00925StaffRep
ort.pdf I hope this is helpful. If you have additional questions please let me know.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Carling Mars
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposing luxury redevelopment of area near Snelgrove
Hello!
I am opposed to getting rid of the somewhat affordable options around 2100 S and 800 E in the
interest of building a luxury apartment building. We have an affordable housing crisis in SLC and we
need to be building more housing that is accessible to people making minimum wage or even
amounts much higher than minimum wage, as these people are being priced out of many
neighborhoods by luxury developments that demolish existing more affordable housing. All new
housing developments should be required to include subsidized housing for low income people. We
are not going to fix the homelessness crisis by erecting luxury apartments. We need more affordable
housing, not less.
Best,
Carling Mars
SLC resident
From:Anderson, John
To:The Greenleighs; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:53:08 AM
Thomas,
In order to participate in tonight’s meeting there are instructions on how to connect on the
meeting’s agenda found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf If for some reason you are unable to connect to tonight’s meeting,
please send an email to this address, and I can read your comments aloud to the
commission. Please let me know if you have any questions.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: The Greenleighs
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to speak at hearing Petitions PLNPCM2020-oo906 & 00925
I would like to speak briefly at tonight's meeting of the Planning Commission regarding two concerns we
have as a close neighbor to the proposed SugarTown project.
1) The proposed 2019-style modernistic design conflicts with the 1920's -1950's look of the surrounding
neighborhood, the look that made Sugarhouse a desirable location for the development in the first place.
2) Due to the proximity of the development to our homes (18 feet), and the age of much of the building
being demolished, we request that a specific plan be added to the proposal to protect the neighbors
from toxic dust and debris, and that there be a specific plan for noise mitigation during demolition and
construction.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Thomas Greenleigh
From:Anderson, John
To:Devin; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:53:45 AM
Devin,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. I do
also want you to know that Salt Lake City leaders and staff are certainly aware of the current housing affordability
crisis and we are working hard looking for solutions to mitigate a significant problem. If you would like to
participate in the meeting this evening there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:19 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re-zoning
Hello,
I am writing today to as you to oppose the snelgrove re-zone. Honestly, as a long time resident of SLC I find it
beyond troubling how much new development has pushed lower income people out of the city. We’ve seen such a
large amount of new development in the last 5-10 years. Each time a building goes up, seeing that a studio
apartment is over $1200, 1br $1300+ and 2 br $1500+ is scary. Doing this with even $15/hr is a stretch. It’s making
renting anything else difficult as well with the prices being driven up by these luxury buildings.
When you look at the generally accepted 50/20/30 plan for budgeting it’s not in your citizens’ interest to allow this
to continue. That rule states 50% of income should go to your essentials (food, transport, housing, utilities). A
$15/hr worker brings in ~$2400 a month leaving $1200 for the necessities. Rent alone just broke that so now your
other life expenses like food and utilities are taking away from what should be saved income. You’d need two
people at that income level to make it possible. At minimum wage... forget it. A $1600/mo income would take 2
people just to afford a studio.
So, I beg of you, please stop this and any other re-zones. Stop giving breaks to these high cost apartments. In fact,
pressure the existing ones to offer a higher percentage of not just low income but also affordable rates. Many people
fall in the middle that are left out because they can’t afford market rate but make to much to qualify as low income.
Lining the city’s pockets by bringing out of state residents in can’t be more important than supporting existing
residents and adding to our homeless population.
Thank you,
Devin O'Donnell
From:Anderson, John
To:Angie Witzel; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:31:09 AM
Angie,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you
would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Angie Witzel
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 8:37 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Development
I am very concerned about the proposed 60 Unit housing and business development on the former Snelgrove site.
The Sugar House area does not have the infrastructure to support the existing multi unit homes and businesses.
I drive on dilapidated roads in desperate need of repair every day. The traffic in Sugarhouse is terrible as most roads
are one lane with the exception of 21st South.
Until major improvements in infrastructure are made, this development should not move forward. As much as the
planning community thinks Sugar House is a walking community, it is not.
Thank You
Angie Witzel
From:Anderson, John
To:Kim Lee; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:04:46 PM
Kim,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission before
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the
meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Lee
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:07 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Lot
Please do allow plans for more condos or apartments in the sugarhouse area. It is ruining what has been a great
place to live and shop. There is not enough parking as is. And the traffic patterns are horrendous at certain hours of
the day! Please rethink this!.
thanks,
From:Anderson, John
To:Kim Kendall; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:29:24 AM
Kim,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at
tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on
how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Kim Kendall
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:38 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property
This plan to rezone the Snelgrove property for yet MORE high density housing and retail is a
disaster!! Please reconsider and understand that 2100 S. is a main thorough fair, the existing
infostructure is absolutely not capable of supporting what you are planning. Please be conscious of
the people and businesses that fit into current infostructure. 2100 S. from 2300 East west to State
street has already become more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians, crime has skyrocketed and it
is absolutely ridiculous to think that it can support the traffic that comes with additional housing and
retail.
Regards,
Kim Kendall
From:Anderson, John
To:Kristin Kraus; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:15:06 AM
Kristin,
Good morning, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Kristin Kraus
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:00 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
I'm very disappointed to read about the plans to convert the former Snelgrove ice cream
property to another mixed use facility with shops and living units of up to 60 feet. Aren't
there enough of those in Sugarhouse? I feel like we are turning into NYC, which is not a
good thing!
The great thing about Sugarhouse used to be that it wasn't suburbia with the same stores
and fast food restaurants as everywhere else. There were quaint shops and cute buildings.
This is what we want for our neighborhood, NOT more rezoned ridiculousness.
Sincerely,
Kristin Kraus
84106
From:Robinson, Molly
To:Scott Sartor; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal
Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 2:26:56 PM
Mr. Sartor,
Thank you for your comment. The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation
to the City Council regarding the matter at their meeting last Wednesday, February 24th.
We will forward your comment in our packet to the City Council. You will have future
opportunities to give comment as the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to
making a decision to approve or deny the request.
Thanks,
Molly
MOLLY O'NEILL ROBINSON, AICP
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7261
CEL 385-226-8656
EML MOLLY.ROBINSON@SLCGOV.COM
WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
WWW.OURNEIGHBORHOODSCAN.COM
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: Scott Sartor
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 4:54 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove Property Proposal
To Whom it May Concern,
I am against any more apartments or condos in this area. Traffic is already at capacity on 2100
South from 700 East to 1300 East. Please go drive and walk around the block there before you do
anything that involves more condos/ affordable housing!
Thanks very much,
Scott Sartor
From:Anderson, John
To:Ann Haynes; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Traughber, Lex; Rankins, Marlene
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:28:42 AM
Ann,
Your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting. If you
would like to participate in the meeting there are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be
found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC02.24.2021agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response
to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do
so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Haynes
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:57 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove property
To whom it may concern,
Please do not change the zoning of the snelgrove parcel. Sugarhouse, and 2100 south, do not need more traffic and
tall buildings. Keep the corridor designation please! We are just overwhelmed with the model of business on the
bottom floor and apartments above.
Ann Haynes
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anderson, John
To:devwright@gmail.com; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:00:41 PM
Devin,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: devwright@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove redevelopment
Hello,
I want to state my support for the redevelopment of the Snelgrove property in Sugarhouse. I think
that a mixed use development would be a perfect addition to this neighborhood and would replace
an unsightly industrial building. Salt Lake City needs more density so an additional floor and
extension to 60” height is reasonable.
Thank you for your attention,
Devin Wright
From:Anderson, John
To:Lucy Houser; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Rankins, Marlene; Traughber, Lex
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone
Date:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 2:01:42 PM
Lucy,
Good afternoon, your comments are appreciated and they will be shared with the Planning
Commission before tonight’s meeting. If you would like to participate in the meeting there
are instructions on how to do so on the meeting’s agenda that can be found here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/02.%20February/PC0
2.24.2021agenda.pdf Please let me know if you have additional comments to share.
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7214
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Lucy Houser
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Snelgrove rezone
Hello,
I oppose the rezoning of the Snelgrove property.
I live right around the corner at 1982 South 800 East. The traffic is already terrible on 2100 South,
and that enormous apartment building where Granite Furniture used to be next to Fairmont Park
hasn't even opened yet. Adding yet another large apartment building to Sugar House will very
negatively affect the traffic situation.
In addition, a 60' building is simply too high. It will shadow and overlook the neighborhood, affecting
our access to natural light and will impinge on our privacy.
Please do not give permission to the developers to go ahead with this project as it is currently
planned. Send them back to the drawing board.
Lucy Houser
I oppose
1 SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ISSUE STATEMENTS June 2021
SCHOOL SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION – JUNE 2021
Second extension of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on School Resource Officers
(SROs)
We recommend extending the expiration date MOU between
SLCPD and SLCSD. Currently expires July 2021 and we would like
negotiations to commence immediately with an extension of the
current MOU remaining in place for an additional 6 months or
until renegotiated.
This will allow time for the new superintendent to become
familiar with the program, its efficacy and the needs
The School Safety Subcommittee has amassed a number of
recommendations for adjustments that could apply to a
future MOU and will share those with both parties
This will further allow sufficient time to ensure that
changes to the MOU are meaningful and substantial and
aren’t simply wording adjustments
We expect this will include some language from bills
introduced in the last session that didn’t pass at the state
level
1
RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION: POLICY AND PRACTICE SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS PASSED BY FULL COMMISSION ON JUNE 2, 2021
Recommendation 1: Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras
Recommendation 2: Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD
Recommendation 3: Community Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color
Recommendation 4: Co-Response (Mental Health)
Recommendation 5: Call Diversion and Dispatch
1. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras (revised and approved 6/2/2021)
Utah Code sets minimum standards for activation, storage, notifications, and other body worn
camera procedures. Body-worn camera use in the Salt Lake City Police Department is outlined
in Policy 422 (Portable Audio / Video Recorders), which is largely dictated by Utah Code 77-7a
(Law Enforcement Use of Body-worn Cameras) and adopted in 2016. Additionally, the City
Council adopted Ordinance 54 on December 1, 2020 for the Police Department’s use of body-
worn cameras that formalizes recent policies and executive orders guiding body-worn camera
use, data, records, and reporting (2.10.200).
The Racial Equity in Policing Commission believes the current policy and ordinance is part of a
multifaceted approach the City is taking to examine internal systems and identify paths toward
better accountability, transparency, and equity. SLCPD’s related policies and Ordinance 54 match
or exceed state law requirements with their use. Additionally, the Commission found that SLCPD
is progressive in the use of their cameras by incorporating additional accountability and
transparency beyond what state law requires. Examples include internal auditing and outside
auditing, two levels of reports, and random audits of footage. This Commission supports the
current body-worn camera policies and ordinance and recommends SLCPD continue to strive to
be the “gold standard” of best practices nationwide.
Additional recommendations to achieve “gold standard” include making the following
modifications to policy and Ordinance 54:
● Ordinance 54 requires a qualified individual outside of SLCPD designated by the mayor
to randomly review and audit body worn camera videos. The Commission recommends
that this position be identified and provided the necessary support and funding to perform
these responsibilities. Furthermore, the mayor’s designation of this qualified individual
shall require approval and support from the City’s Chief Equity Officer.
● Pursuant to current policy, standards, and ordinance multiple body-worn camera reviews
and audits are required, including those by the SLCPD audit and inspection unit, the
qualified individual designated by the mayor, and the The Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA®). In furtherance of efficiency, transparency,
accountability, and sustainability the Commission recommends the City specify, develop,
and establish criteria regarding how body-worn camera reviews and audits are to be
conducted and define uniform and consistent performance metrics and language. This
should be done collaboratively with the current audit and inspection unit within SLCPD
(Sgt. Mason Givens) and the designated qualified outside body-worn camera auditor.
Strongly consider including:
○ Audit all use of force reviews to determine if the reviews were conducted
appropriately and if the outcomes are within policy. This includes K-9 incidents
involving use of force.
○ Increasing the random reviews of videos by the outside qualified individual from 5
to 20 per month and include random sampling of officer videos as well as
completed supervisor reviews and allow for direct selection.
○ As required by Ordinance 54, a record and report will be provided to the Mayor
and City Council on a quarterly basis. The Commission recommends that the
SLCPD audit and inspection unit also provide a record and report on the
department’s internal audit to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis.
○ The Commission recommends these quarterly reports be provided to the
Commission at the same time.
○ SLCPD should inform the Commission of any incidents reported to internal affairs.
○ Pursuant to Ordinance 54, any findings of material non-compliance with state law,
City Code and Police Department policy will be referred to the Chief of Police, the
City Attorney, the Council Chair, the Mayor and the Mayor's Chief of Staff. These
findings should also be reported to the Commission.
○ SLCPD is required to provide an annual report to CALEA and such report should
also be shared with the Commission.
● SLCPD is currently nationally accredited by The Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®). This requires compliance with 162 standards and
only 4% of law enforcement agencies nationwide are accredited. SLCPD should strive for
an advanced accreditation (462 standards) and explore the costs, resources and benefits
of doing so.
2. Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD
Leverage the planned cultural assessment mentioned in the Police Department’s Crime Control
Plan to incorporate an implicit bias survey. The survey shall be developed, administered,
analyzed, and disseminated by a third-party as agreed to by the Commission and funded by the
City. The results shall be shared with the Chief Equity Officer, Commission, City Council, Mayor’s
Office, SLCPD and the public. The survey shall be modeled after the Pew Research Center 2016
national Survey of Law Enforcement Officers*. The results shall be shared with the Commission
to inform next steps.
*References: See the PEW survey here as example and template:
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/08/29155639/2016-Law-
Enforcement-Topline_Final-1.pdf
*Related article: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-
race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/
3. Community-Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color
The Commission recommends the funding, development, and delivery of community-based
training on the history of policing of people of color.
The session(s) is not just about the history of SLC and its communities of color, but of the United
States and its history with People of Color and how that history impacts, and is still a part of, the
present. It should be co-facilitated with a qualified community member (of color) knowledgeable
and involved in equity work, and an officer Sgt./Lt. or above (of any race or ethnicity).
The training shall be incorporated into the SLCPD onboarding process and provided to new
employees within the first 30 days of employment. This should also become a part of in-service
training since only focusing on the Academy and new officers misses the majority of officers and
would indicate that this is not a check-the-box, nor a one and done. Content would be different
after all officers have gone through an initial session(s).
The session(s) should be a mix of history/present day examples of legal and social impacts based
on race and ethnicity, understanding institutional bias and racism presented with no blame but as
a description of what is. It should include an understanding of personal bias and examples of the
impacts of both personal and institutional bias.
There should be an opportunity and the space and climate created for officers to speak candidly.
If there is not a sharing of perspectives, with the ability to be open to hearing alternative
perspectives, there will be no real chance for “AH HA moments”. Space must be created to be
comfortable having uncomfortable conversations.
The Commission and SLCPD estimate the following scope:
700 officers to be trained.
25 officers per training group.
28 sessions (budget 30 sessions for makeup dates and/or new employees).
Two hours each session (totals 60 hours).
It is recommended that this training be funded and developed as soon as reasonably possible,
and all officers complete the training within a reasonable time. Additionally, it is recommended
that Council provide any necessary additional funding for voluntary overtime pay to ensure regular
staffing needs can still be met while officers take time to attend the training within this timeline.
4. Co-Response (Mental Health)
The Community Connections Center and SLCPD CIT Co-Response model is needed and should
be expanded. It should be the prioritized approach to mental health crisis response. Mental
health access disproportionately impacts minority communities. According to recent data, 25% of
calls to law enforcement from African Americans are mental health related – this highlights the
importance of the initial moments and how to best respond. Therefore, we recommend expansion
and prioritization of the current co-response model with the following:
● Focus on communities of color. Reach out to those communities and provide more
community policing in these areas and build trust. Understand their needs and educate
them on SLCPD’s response and assess if it’s accessible to them.
● Expand the co-response program to provide co-response during hours that are at a higher
risk for use of force situations – late afternoon and evening.
○ Provide co-response during virtually all hours and days where mental health crisis
calls most frequently occur:
■ Short-term/Immediate:
● Two officers should be redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-
0030, or 2:30 PM to 12:30 AM).
● One CIT/HOST officer on each shift should work a staggered
schedule that covers Saturday and Sunday.
● Two clinicians from the Community Connection Center should be
redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-0030, or 2:30 PM to
12:30 AM).
● One clinician on each shift should work a staggered schedule that
covers Saturday and Sunday.
● The CIT/HOST sergeant should vary, and stagger hours as needed
to provide additional coverage to both sets of assignments.
● The department should consider offering pay incentives for both
officers and clinicians working afternoon shift hours and weekends
to be able to consistently fill these assignments.
■ Mid-term/6-12 months:
● As staffing permits, build up this program by increasing the number
of officers from 4 to 10 to match the number of social workers. There
are currently 10 social workers and 4 officers, which means only 4
teams are available at a time. This increase in officers would allow
for 10 teams.
● Assess and evaluate a Civilian EMS Response (like Denver’s STAR) with an outside
agency when time is appropriate.
5. Call Diversion and Dispatch
Engage in a dispute system design process to develop the best/most appropriate model/system
for incoming calls, diversion and dispatch coordination and response. This process should
consider and/or include the following:
● Collaboration with public safety to understand how 9-1-1 calls are being taken and
directed.
● Understanding how communities are being policed and how they want to be policed.
Engage each of the city’s community councils and its communities.
● Add a mental health question to the 911 dispatch script “Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health,
police, or mental health emergency?”
● Establishing a civilian force response team to handle certain calls for service related to
low level investigative crimes and low-level disputes. (Matrix Call Diversion Opportunities).
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: June 15, 2021
RE: Rezone& Master Plan Amendment
810 East 800 South R-2 to CB
PLNPCM2020-00740 &
PLNPCM2020-00741
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing June 15, 2021
Set Date: June 15, 2021
Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Potential Action: July 20, 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to rezone property located at approximately 810 East 800 South.
from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial.
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council.
The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card files show that a single-family home was
demolished in 1989. The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-story building that
would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second floor, and parking located to
the rear.
Page | 2
Vicinity Map
(From Attachment A, Planning Commission Staff Report)
Page | 3
Zoning Map
Page 2 of the Transmittal Letter
Page | 4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning Commission Staff Report
Pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report identify three main issues for review. A short
description of each issue and the finding is provided below for reference. Please see the Planning
Commission staff report for full analysis.
Issue 1: Compatibility with adopted planning documents
This section reviewed the proposal for compatibility with existing master plans such as the East Central
Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake.
•The preliminary plans for a mixed-use development require the zoning map and master plan
amendments.
•The CB zoning district and Community Commercial land use designation are consistent with the
proposed development. They are also consistent with the zoning and land use on the adjacent
Smith’s property.
•There is a commercial use on the adjacent Smith’s property and on the corner of 800 East and 800
South. As such, the proposed amendments are appropriate for the context and the neighborhood.
•The current zoning and small size of the parcel limits the property to a single-family residence.
•The proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendment are also compatible with the
citywide Plan Salt Lake in that it would provide a mix of uses, redevelopment of a vacant property,
and additional commercial space and residential units in the central area of the city.
Issue 2: Zoning compatibility with adjacent properties
•The existing zone, R-2, generally permits single- and two-family residential properties.
•The CB zone, consistent with the Smith’s property to the east, allows for a variety of commercial
uses and multifamily development.
•The anticipated use of the site with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor
would serve as a transition from adjacent higher intensity uses and would be compatible with the
commercial development to the east and the mix of small scale commercial and residential
development to the west.
Issue 3: Existing zoning limitations and proposed zone
•The subject property is currently zoned R-2, which allows for single-family and two-family
dwellings.
o Two-family dwellings require a minimum of 8,000 square feet, which is approximately
1,200 square feet larger than this parcel.
o With this requirement, the property is generally limited to single-family uses. It has been
vacant since the previous residence was demolished in 1989,
Zoning District Comparison
Page | 5
R-2
(Existing)
CB
(Proposed)
Minimum Lot Area
Single-family detached dwellings
Two-family dwellings
5,000 sq. ft.
8,000 square feet
None
Max Height
28 ft. to the ridge or the
average of the block face;
20 ft. for flat roofs
30 ft.
Front Yard
Average of
block face or
20 ft.
None
required
Rear Yard
25% of lot depth not less
than 15 ft., need not be
more than 25’
10 ft.
Interior Side Yard
4 ft. on one or
10 ft. on the
other
None
required
Max Building Coverage 40%NA
Landscape Yard NA Front yard, if
provided
Buffer yard NA 7 ft. next to
residential
Allowed Uses Comparison
The transmittal letter notes the Planning Commission discussed recommending that the City Council limit
the site to specific uses, but, ultimately, did not make a recommendation on use of the site.
The CB allows many more commercial uses than the R-2. Pages 22 – 24 of the Planning Commission staff
report includes a comparison of the allowed uses in the R2 and CB zoning districts.
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments –
PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
810 East 800 South
Request:
To rezone the
parcel from R-2 to
CB and amend the
master plan future
land use map
designation from
Low Density
Residential to
Community
Commercial.
Existing Zoning
-Existing zoning is R-2
-Proposed zoning is CB
Conceptual Proposal
Key Considerations
Compatibility with Master Plans
-Requires Master Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial
-Adjacent property is Community Commercial
-Proposal is consistent with Plan Salt Lake and Central Community Master Plan
Zoning Compatibility
-Property is currently vacant
-Residence on site demolished in 1989
-Existing R-2 zoning and approximately 6,850 sq. ft. size of parcel limits current use to a single-family home
-Proposed CB zoning consistent with property to the east
Existing Zoning Limitations and Proposed Zone
-Small, approximately 6,850 sq. ft. property
-Limited to a single-family home on property; vacant since 1989
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: April 28, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
810 East 800 South
STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP, Senior Planner
(385) 226-4448, sara.javoronok@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the zoning map and master plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group, on
behalf of the property owner, 810 E Holdings LLC, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map
amendments for an approximately 0.15 acre (6,850 sq. ft.) property located at approximately 810
East 800 South. The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment to change the Central
Community Future Land Use Map designation from Low Density Residential to Community
Commercial. The applicant is also requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of
the parcel from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The
applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-story building that would have
commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second floor, and parking located to
the rear.
The property is approximately 0.15 acres (6,850 sq. ft.) and is zoned R-2. The applicant is
requesting a Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the parcel to CB. The Central
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
5/4/2021
5/5/2021
Community Master Plan was adopted in 2005 and the Future Land Use Map designates this area
as Low Density Residential. The zoning map amendment to CB requires a change in the land use
designation to Community Commercial. The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card
files show that a single-family home was demolished in 1989.
Map showing the area proposed for rezoning outlined in yellow with
existing adjacent zoning identified
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the East Central and East
Liberty Park Community Councils on October 14, 2020. The community council was given 45
days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed
zoning amendment.
The East Liberty Park Community Council held a Zoom meeting on October 22, 2020 that the
applicant, developer, and staff attended. Phil Winston presented the project and also stated the
applicant was willing to enter into a development agreement prohibiting a restaurant or bar.
Comments were generally supportive of the proposal and neighbors have indicated that they
were against a restaurant or bar.
The Community Council submitted a letter of support (attached) for the project with a
development agreement.
Planning Commission Meeting: On January 13, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. One citizen provided testimony in
support of the request. One citizen spoke in opposition to the request because of the wide range
of uses permitted in CB. A neighbor provided an email comment in support of the request. The
Commission discussed recommending that the City Council limit the site to specific uses, but,
ultimately, did not make a recommendation on use of the site. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the rezone and
master plan amendment, consistent with the staff recommendation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission
A) Mailing Notice
B) Staff Report
C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
4. Public Comment
5. Original Petition
6. Mailing List
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 810 East 800 South
Street to rezone the parcel from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential to CB Community
Business District and amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 810
East 800 South Street to rezone the parcel from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District
to CB Community Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00740 and
amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map pursuant to petition number
PLNPCM2020-00741.
WHEREAS, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group submitted an application to
rezone a parcel of property located at 810 East 800 South Street to rezone the parcel from R-2
Single- and Two-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to
petition number PLNPCM2020-00740 and amending the Central Community Future Land Use
Map with respect to the property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial
pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2020-00741; and
WHEREAS, at its January 13, 2021 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 said applications; 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 parcel located at 810 East 800 South Street (Tax ID No. 16-
2
08-176-024-0000), which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is
rezoned from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to CB Community Business
District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the property identified in Exhibit “A” from Low Density Residential to
Community Commercial.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 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
April 20, 2021
3
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the property parcel
Tax ID No. 16-08-176-024-0000
BEG 5 RDS E FR NW COR LOT 5, BLK 2, PLAT B, SLC SUR; E 5 RDS; S 5 RDS; W 5 RDS;
N 5 RDS TO BEG.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission – January 13, 2021 Public Hearing
A. Mailing Notice
B. Staff Report
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
4. Public Comment
5. Original Petition
6. Mailing List
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
September 23, 2020 Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group submits application for
rezone and master plan amendment of the property at 810 East 800
South.
October 8, 2020 Petitions PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741
assigned to Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and
processing.
October 14, 2020 Email sent to Recognized Community Organizations (East Central
and East Liberty Park Community Councils) informing them of the
petition.
October 22, 2020 Proposal discussed at East Liberty Park Community Council Zoom
meeting
December 29, 2020 Sign posted on property.
December 29, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State
websites and Planning Division listserv. Notices also mailed out to
property owners/residents. A newspaper notice was also requested
to be printed as required for master plan amendments.
January 13, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public
hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
January 15, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00740 Zoning Map
Amendment and PLNPCM2020-00741 Master Plan Amendment, requests by Stanford Bell of
Altus Development Group, on behalf of the property owner, to amend the zoning map for the
property located at approximately 810 East 800 South. The proposal would rezone the property
from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) pursuant to petition
PLNPCM2020-00740 and amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map with respect to
the property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to petition
number PLNCPM2020-00741. The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a two-
story building that would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the second
floor, and parking located to the rear. The property is in Council District 5, represented by Darin
Mano.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: 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, please call Sara Javoronok at 385-226-4448
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741.
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. Mailing Notice
December 29, 2020
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
January 13, 2021
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner, 801-535-7625
Date: January 13, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00740 and PLNPCM2020-00741 – 810 East 800 South
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 810 East 800 South
PARCEL ID: 16-08-176-024-0000
MASTER PLAN: Central Community
ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)
REQUEST: The applicant, Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group, on behalf of the property
owner, 810 E Holdings LLC, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments for
an approximately 0.15 acre (6,850 sq. ft.) property located at approximately 810 East 800
South. The applicant is requesting a Master Plan amendment to change the Central
Community Future Land Use Map designation from Low Density Residential to
Community Commercial. The applicant is also requesting a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning of the parcel from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB
(Community Business). The applicant submitted preliminary development plans for a
two-story building that would have commercial space on the first floor, residential units
on the second floor, and parking located to the rear.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Vicinity Map
B.Site Photographs
C.Additional Applicant Information
D.Existing Conditions & Development Standards
E.Analysis of Standards
F.Public Process & Comments
G.Department Review Comments
1
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The property is approximately 0.15 acres (6,850 sq. ft.) and is zoned R-2. The applicant is requesting a
Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning of the parcel to CB. The Central Community Master
Plan was adopted in 2005 and the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Low Density
Residential. The zoning map amendment to CB requires a change in the land use designation to
Community Commercial. The property is currently vacant. The city’s permit card files show that a
single-family home was demolished in 1989. Per the applicant, this was due to a fire. The residence is
shown on the 1898 Sanborn maps, the first to cover this area, and is shown as two stories with brick on
the first floor. The 1950 Sanborn maps also show the residence on the site (and approximately 19
residences and an 11-unit apartment building on the Smith’s site).
Map showing the area proposed for rezoning outlined in yellow with
existing adjacent zoning identified
2
KEY ISSUES:
The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, community input,
and department review comments.
Issue 1: Compatibility with adopted planning documents
The proposal is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. The Central
Community Master Plan identifies this property as Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling
units/acre). The property is currently vacant and located to the west of a Smith’s grocery store and is
to the east of a duplex zoned R-2. Slightly further to the east on the corner of 800 East and 800 South
is a Small Neighborhood Business (SNB) zoned parcel. Residential properties are located to the north.
The preliminary plans for a mixed-use development require the zoning map and master plan
amendments. The CB zoning district and Community Commercial land use designation are consistent
with the proposed development. They are also consistent with the zoning and land use on the adjacent
Smith’s property. While a change from the existing designations, it is appropriate for the site and the
neighborhood. The property has been vacant since 1989. There is a commercial use on the adjacent
Smith’s property and on the corner of 800 East and 800 South (Vis). As such, the proposed
amendments are appropriate for the context and the neighborhood.
Several goals and criteria in the Central Community Master Plan are applicable to this project. The
plan’s Vision for the Future identifies several applicable criteria among four goals:
Livable communities and neighborhoods
• A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing
stock.
• The appropriate transition of multi-family housing with mixed land uses in designated areas
supports sustainable development within the community.
Vital and sustainable commerce
• Increased pedestrian accessibility and cultural activities encourage more housing that supports
the employment center of the downtown area.
• An enhanced built environment encourages employees to work and live in the Central
Community and supports the creation of smaller locally owned businesses.
Unique and active places
• New places where people can gather, meet, socialize, and recreate are created using design
excellence and shared resources.
• Existing destination centers and gathering places are enhanced through urban design
recommendations.
Pedestrian mobility and accessibility
• Children, senior adults, and those with disabilities can access destination points without being
threatened by vehicular movement.
• Improved pedestrian movement along arterials and collectors ensures pedestrian safety.
The proposed rezoning and master plan amendment would allow for a future development that could
include commercial and residential uses, including the development proposed in the preliminary plans
for a building with a first-floor commercial use and second floor residential. The property is in a
location that is accessible to pedestrians and near other commercial and residential uses.
Specific to the East Central North Neighborhood Planning Area, the following issues apply:
• Ensure that commercial development is compatible with any adjacent residential land uses
• Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s
residential character.
• Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum
lords,” etc.
3
The current zoning and small size of the parcel limits the property to a single-family residence. This is
likely why it remains vacant. While a single-family residence was its historic use, the previous residence
on the property was demolished 30 years ago and it has not been redeveloped in the past 30 years. In
addition, while not recent, the construction of the Smith’s and the change to the character of the
neighborhood with its development makes the proposed commercial zoning, change in the land use
designation, and the preliminary proposal for a mixed-use development appropriate for the site.
The proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendment are also compatible with the
citywide Plan Salt Lake. Consistent with Plan Salt Lake, the proposal will provide a mix of uses,
redevelopment of a vacant property, and additional commercial space and residential units in the
central area of the city. The plan identifies several initiatives that the proposed rezoning helps to
implement. In the Growth Chapter, the following apply:
1.Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and
transportation corridors.
2.Encourage a mix of land uses.
3.Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
The proposed rezoning is located on 800 South, one block north of the 900 South “Funding our Future”
frequent service transit route and one block west of the 900 East Route 209. As stated above, the site
is currently vacant, and the proposed rezoning and master plan amendment are consistent with the use
to the east and, given the small nature of the property, would serve as a transition to the residential and
small neighborhood business uses to the west.
While a residential use would not be required, the applicant submitted a preliminary proposal that
included housing units. In this case, two initiatives in the Housing Chapter apply as well:
2.Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4.Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
5.Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
The site is located in close proximity to existing infrastructure, including frequent service transit routes.
The preliminary proposal for commercial and residential would provide additional space for small
businesses and additional residential units in the neighborhood.
Issue 2: Zoning compatibility with adjacent properties
As detailed in Attachment A – Vicinity Maps and Attachment D – Existing Conditions and
Development Standards, the surrounding properties are zoned CB and R-2. The R-2 zone generally
permits single- and two-family residential properties. The CB zone, consistent with the Smith’s
property to the east, allows for a variety of commercial uses and multifamily development. Given these
standards, the anticipated use of the site with commercial on the first floor and residential on the
second floor would serve as a transition from adjacent higher intensity uses and would be compatible
with the commercial development to the east and the mix of small scale commercial and residential
development to the west.
Issue 3: Existing zoning limitations and proposed zone
The subject property is currently zoned R-2, which allows for single-family and two-family dwellings.
However, two-family dwellings require a minimum of 8,000 square feet, which is approximately 1,200
square feet larger than this parcel. With this requirement, the property is generally limited to single-
family uses. It has been vacant since the previous residence was demolished in 1989, so this reuse
seems unlikely. This is detailed in Attachment D – Existing Conditions and Development Standards.
As previously stated, the proposed CB zoning district is consistent with the zoning of the Smith’s
property to the east. Grocery stores are frequently zoned CB, which is intended to provide for the close
4
integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. It allows
for an additional 5’ of building height compared to the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and SNB
zoning districts, which could allow for a taller first floor ceiling height that often benefits commercial
uses and is consistent with the zoning to the east. The maximum height in CB at 30’ is 2’ greater than
the 28’ permitted for a single-family home with a pitched roof in the R-2 zoning district. CB allows for
a wider variety of uses compared to SNB. The uses in CB are similar to CN and many of the additional
uses permitted in CB, such as an assisted living facility, gas station, or hotel are likely to be developed
on larger parcels. This property is adjacent to an existing CB zoned property and the uses, height, and
design standards related to glass and blank wall length as well as the maximum 30’ height are
appropriate for the site.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed master plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial and
the proposed zoning map amendment from R-2 to CB would allow for a variety of commercial uses and
multifamily residential on the site. Currently, the property is vacant since a historically single-family
residence was demolished in 1989. Generally, due to the small size of the site, development of a greater
intensity than a single-family residence is not permitted due to lot area restrictions. The proposed CB
zoning district is located on the Smith’s property to the east and a rezoning of this small parcel to CB
would serve as a transition to the R-2 and SNB zoned properties near the subject property.
The East Liberty Park Community Council discussed the proposed rezoning at their October meeting
and submitted a letter in support of the proposal. At the meeting, there were questions about the
proposed use, including whether a restaurant or bar would be permitted and a potential development
agreement with a restriction on these uses. In addition, staff has received three emails in support of
the proposal (Attachment F).
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 ultimately approved, the applicant may
proceed with the submission of plans to redevelop the site. If ultimately denied, the applicant would be
able to construct a single-family home on the property.
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
6
Noble Pl
80
0
E
900 S
Chase Ave
800 S
900 S
800 S
Me
n
d
o
n
C
t
800 S
900 S
80
0
E
80
0
E
Wi
n
d
s
o
r
S
t
731
758 764 768 718
726
732
738
742
764
717 816 826 840
721
725
729
739
747
749
753
757
761
765
724
726
730
736
744
750
754
760
762
785 819
823
831 833
719 854 856
723
725
729
733
737
743
751
753
755
759
761
763
845 851 861
726
732
746
750
760
768
772
780
752
756
764
768
774 802
839
847
851
853855857859
863
814
818
824
828
832
836
844
848
854
751
753
763
765 775 777
859
801
809
813
817
823
829
847
832
829
825
825
810
835
833
834
834
819 841 865 870859
876
80
0
E
Li
n
c
o
l
n
S
t
Lowell Ave
Belmont Ave
Eg
l
i
C
t
Wi
n
d
s
o
r
S
t
La
k
e
S
t
Sego Ave
700 S
900 S
90
0
E
800 S
70
0
E
¯Salt Lake City Planning Division, 10/12/2020
Legend
Subject Property
Parcels
Vicinity Map
0 80 160 240 32040
Feet7
ATTACHMENT B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
View of the property.
View of the property, the accessory structure on the property to the west, and the back of the commercial
building on the corner of 800 S and 800 E.
8
View of Smith’s property to the east.
View of east/front façade of commercial property at 800 S and 800 E.
9
View of adjacent duplex to the east – 800 E/front facade.
View of the front/west façade (800 E) of the property to the south of the subject property.
10
View from the site looking across 800 S
11
ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT
INFORMATION
12
Updated 7/1/
Master Plan Amendment
Amend the text of the Master Plan Amend the Land Use Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name of Master Plan Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please call (801) 535-7700 if
you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application.
REQUIRED FEE
Filing fee of $ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre.
$100 for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
13
Updated 7/1/
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
Is the request amending the Land Use Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the master plan?
If so, please include exact language to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
14
Updated 7/1/
Zoning Amendment
Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
iling fee of $plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
15
Updated 7/1/
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance ?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
16
September 22, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Re: Description of Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 810 E 800 S
Planning Commission,
We are seeking to develop and construct a mixed commercial / residential building at 810 E 800
S, Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake County Parcel Number 16-08-176-024-0000 (the “Property”).
We are submitting two applications in conjunction with each other to begin this process: 1) an
amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan, changing the
Property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial, and 2) a zoning map
amendment changing the Property from R-2 to CB (Community Business).
The Property is subject to the Central Community Master Plan, East Central North
Neighborhood, which has the Property listed as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. Additionally, the property is currently zoned as R-2. The Property is an empty lot and has
been that way for well over twenty-five years. It currently attracts the transient population and
has been not beneficially used for a significant period of time.
The corner of 800 S 800 E has turned into a small commercial hub, with several businesses
located immediately to the west of the Property and zoned as Small Neighborhood Business.1
Smith’s grocery store is located immediately to the east of the Property, which is zoned CB.
With the Property sandwiched between commercial uses, it is not a desirable location for a single
family or two-family dwelling. Additionally, the market value of the Property, given its
excellent commercial location, makes it cost prohibitive to build a single-family dwelling or two-
family dwelling under the current zoning. The Property will most likely continue to sit vacant
unless it is allowed to be used for commercial or mixed-use purposes.
We intend to build a two-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor. We have included a proposed site plan and a rough
rendering of the elevation of the building as seen from 800 South. This use meets the purposes
of the Master Plan by locating “community level retail sales and services on appropriate
arterials,” in an area that is already surrounded by commercial uses. See Central Community
Master Plan, CLU-1.2, page 11. There is also a heavy emphasis in the Central Community
Master Plan on providing mixed use commercial / residential properties with “ground level
1 There is a garage immediately to the west of the Property that is zoned R-2. However, that garage juts
out from a parcel further to the south that has a duplex with in home business operating out of the
property. The block face surrounding the Property appears to be all commercial. The only property that
adjoins the Property and is used solely as a residential home is immediately to the south.
17
commercial space [and] apartment or condominium units above the first floor,” especially in the
9th and 9th area just to the south of the Property. See Central Community Master Plan, page 11.
This development meets these objectives and will add to the community.
We respectfully request that the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map be
amended so that the Property is designated at Community Commercial and that the Property be
rezoned to from R-2 to CB.
We’re excited to move forward with this project. Please reach out to me if you have any
questions.
Best,
Stanford Bell
801-884-9044
18
EXISTINGBUILDING(1442 SF)
EXISTINGBUILDING
800 SOUTH
810 E 800 S (0.16 ACRES - 6850 SF)
2600 SF (LOWER)
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING POWER POLE
ADA
2900 SF (UPPER)
ARTIST
STUDIO
ARTIST
STUDIO
DUMPSTER
17
'
-
6
"
21
'
-
6
"
EXISTINGBUILDING
SCALE:
A1
A1-01
SITE PLAN - 081820810 E 800 S
1/16"=1'-0"
19
COFFEE BOUTIQUE GALLERY
810 EAST CONCEPT SKETCH 8/24/20BOUTIQUE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOORRESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE
810
20
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS &
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CURRENT USES OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS AND THOSE WITHIN THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY
Abutting property to the north:
The properties to the north and across 800 South are single-family residences that are zoned R-2
(Single and Two-Family Residential).
Abutting property to the south:
The property to the south is zoned R-2 and there is a single-family home on the property.
Abutting property to the east:
The property to the east is zoned CB (Community Business) and there is a Smith’s grocery store on
the site.
Abutting property to the west:
The property to the west is zoned R-2 and there is a duplex on the property. The property to the west
of it has a commercial building and is zoned SNB (Small Neighborhood Business).
CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS (21A.24.110 and 21A.26.030)
The subject property is zoned R-2 and the proposal is for CB. The following table provides the
general yard and bulk requirements for development within the zoning districts.
R-2 Zoning District (Existing)
Minimum Lot Area (single-family detached dwellings) Minimum Lot Width
5,000 sq. ft. 50 ft.
CB Zoning District (Proposed)
Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width
None None
21
R-2 Zoning District (Single-family)
Front Yard Rear Yard Interior Side
Yards
Maximum
Building
Coverage
Height
Average of
block face or
20 ft.
25% of lot depth not less
than 15 ft., need not be
more than 25’
4 ft. on one or
10 ft. on the
other
40% 28 ft. to the ridge or the
average of the block face;
20 ft. for flat roofs
CB Zoning District
Front Yard Rear
Yard
Interior
Side Yards
Height Maximum Building
Coverage
Landscape Yards Buffer Yards
None
required
10 ft. None
required
30 ft. NA Front yard, if
provided
7 ft. next to
residential
Allowed uses in each zone:
Land use tables for each zone are below for reference.
Permitted and Conditional Uses by District
Use R-2 CB
Accessory use, except those that are specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 P
Alcohol:
Bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) C10,11
Animal: Veterinary office P
Antenna, communication tower P
Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height in the zone C
Art gallery P
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area) P24
Bed and breakfast P
Bed and breakfast inn P
Bed and breakfast manor C3
Clinic (medical, dental) P
Commercial food preparation P
Community garden C P
22
Daycare center, adult P
Daycare center, child C22 P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22
Dwelling:
Assisted living facility (large) P
Assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling, accessory unit P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P
Dwelling, manufactured home P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P2
Group home (large)17 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
Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P
Multi-family P
Rooming (boarding) house P
Eleemosynary facility C P
Financial institution P
Financial institution with drive-through facility P9
Gas station C
Government facility C C
Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P
Home occupation P24 P23
Hotel/motel C
Large wind energy system P
Library P
Limousine service (small) C
Mixed use development P
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations C C
Museum P
Nursing care facility P
Office P
Open space P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P
Park P P
Parking:
23
Off site P
Park and ride lot C
Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size C P
Reception center P
Recreation (indoor) P
Recycling collection station P
Restaurant P
Restaurant with drive-through facility P9
Retail goods establishment P
Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P
With drive-through facility P9
Retail service establishment P
Furniture repair shop P
With drive-through facility P9
Reverse vending machine P
Sales and display (outdoor) P
School:
College or university P
Music conservatory P
Professional and vocational P
Seminary and religious institute C P
Seasonal farm stand P
Studio, art P
Theater, live performance P12
Theater, movie C
Urban farm P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P2
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P5 P2
Vehicle:
Automobile repair (minor) P
Qualifying provisions for CB:
2. Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
9. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations.
10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title.
11. In CN and CB Zoning Districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total.
Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450 square
feet in an outdoor patio area.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
23. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030
of this title.
24
24. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
Qualifying provisions for R-2:
2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such dwellings
are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995).
5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
24. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title.
25
ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master
plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not
have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 –
Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way:
All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council
for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use
decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or
general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995)
In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Central
Community Master Plan and the proposed zoning designation of the subject property. In this case,
the master plan identifies the property as low density residential. The zoning map and master plan
requests facilitate a rezoning of the property to the Community Business district, consistent with the
adjacent property to the east. This district allows for a much wider variety of uses. The small size of
the parcel limits the practicality of many of these permitted uses on the site. The applicant’s
preliminary proposal for two-story mixed-use building with commercial on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor would be compatible with the neighborhood and serve as a
transition between the more intensive use of the Smith’s property to the east and the duplex and small
commercial building to the west. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public
hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission for a master plan amendment. The
required process and noticing requirements have been met. Should the Planning Commission make a
positive recommendation for the zoning map amendment, an amendment to the master plan is also
appropriate.
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 As discussed in Issue 1, the proposed
zoning amendment is consistent
with Plan Salt Lake and policies
within the Central Community
Master Plan. The master plan
amendment will provide consistency
with the land use map in the Central
Community Master Plan. This
proposal would provide a transition
from the more intensive commercial
development to the east with the
residential and small commercial
development to the west.
2.Whether a proposed
map amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies Section 21A.02.030 of the Salt Lake
City Code provides the purpose and
intent of the overall Zoning
Ordinance stating that it is to,
“promote the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and
26
welfare of the present and future
inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to
implement the adopted plans of the
city, and to carry out the purposes of
the municipal land use development
and management act…and other
relevant statutes.” Additionally, it is
to address the following:
A. Lessen congestion in the streets
or roads;
B. Secure safety from fire and other
dangers;
C. Provide adequate light and air;
D. Classify land uses and distribute
land development and utilization;
E. Protect the tax base;
F. Secure economy in governmental
expenditures;
G. Foster the city's industrial,
business and residential
development; and
H. Protect the environment.
The proposed master plan and map
amendment would foster the city’s
development with additional
commercial space and residential
units on a parcel that has been
vacant for 30 years. It would protect,
and likely increase, the tax base and
possibly lessen congestion in the
streets by placing more residences
and neighborhood scale commercial
space in the neighborhood.
3. The extent to which a
proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies As discussed in Issue 2 and
Attachment D, the proposed map
amendment will have an effect on
the adjacent properties since a use
more intensive than a single-family
home could be constructed.
However, the parcel has been vacant
for 30 years and has not
redeveloped. The proposed zone is
consistent with the property to the
east and, given its size, would likely
provide a transition to the less
intensively developed properties to
the west.
4. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may
impose additional
standards
The zone is
consistent
with
any other
applicable
overlays.
The site is located within the
Groundwater Source Protection
Overlay and is within the boundaries
of a National Historic District. It
would be required to comply with
the requirements of the
Groundwater Source Protection
overlay. City historic preservation
requirements do not apply to
properties within National Historic
Districts.
27
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.
City services
can be
provided
to the
site.
The subject property is located
within a built environment where
public facilities and services already
exist. Redevelopment on this
property may require upgrading or
installation of utilities and drainage
systems.
No concerns were received from
other City departments regarding
the zoning amendment or the
potential for development on these
properties as long as normal
development requirements are met.
28
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings and other public input opportunities related to the proposed
project:
Notice of Application to Recognized Community Organization:
A notice of application was sent to the East Central and East Liberty Park Community Councils on
October 14, 2020. The community council was given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to
request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment.
The East Liberty Park Community Council held a Zoom meeting on October 22, 2020 that the
applicant, developer, and staff attended. Phil Winston presented the project and also stated the
applicant was willing to enter into a development agreement prohibiting a restaurant or bar.
Comments were generally supportive of the proposal and neighbors have indicated that they were
against a restaurant or bar.
The Community Council submitted a letter of support (attached) for the project with a development
agreement.
Open House:
An online open house was posted on October 19, 2020.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Early notification sent to property owners within 300’ on October 15, 2020.
Public hearing notice posted on December 29, 2020.
Public notice posted on City and State website and Planning Division list serve on December 29,
2020.
Public hearing notice sent to property owners within 300’ on December 29, 2020.
Public Input:
Staff has received three emails in support of the proposal that are attached.
29
ELPCO (East Liberty Park Community Organization) elpcoslc@gmail.com www.facebook/com/ELPCO
January 6, 2021
Dear SLC Planning Commission:
The board of ELPCO, the East Liberty Park Community Organization, is writing in support of the request by
Stanford Bell and Phil Winston of Altus Development Group to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map for a development project at 810 East 800 South [Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 &
PLNPCM2020-00741].
Our positive recommendation results from a careful examination of this proposal, a comprehensive
presentation by the developers, and feedback from residents who live near the project area.
We support this project for the following reasons:
• The development creates a better use for a vacant property
• The project adds housing units to the neighborhood
• The zoning change to CB (Community Business) is consistent with the proposed design and with the
zoning of adjacent parcels
• The project mixes residential and commercial uses in a scale that this appropriate for the streetscape
• The zoning and master plan changes are supported by nearby residents
In October 2020, Phil Winston from Altus Designs presented about this project for 20 minutes during an online
ELPCO community meeting. He described the purpose of the development and the reason for the zoning
changes and reviewed his team’s community engagement efforts.
You can watch the ELPCO presentation by Phil Winston here: https://youtu.be/lYhdavQ-QlE?t=480
During this presentation, Phil Winston mentioned his decision to not allow a restaurant or bar to occupy the
commercial space based on his conversations with residents. He added he would codify this in a development
agreement attached to the project.
ELPCO supports this development agreement, would recommend that it be expanded to include confirmation
of mixed-use design with residential units and the use of durable building materials consistent with the
surrounding properties. We would also like to see this development agreement attached to the title of the
property. We recommend the SLC City Council work with Altus to complete this development agreement.
Additionally, ELPCO contacted residents of 800 East who live adjacent to the project and have recently been
involved with the Telegraph Exchange Lofts proposal. Here are two comments we received regarding this
project.
We support it completely. First of all, it fits the location and scale very well. They have done a great job
of checking in and clearing the idea with us and other neighbors. We feel it does a great job filling that
eyesore of a space that is not ideal for home or duplex, while also adding housing. The design acts as a
buffer to yards/homes from 800 S and has well thought out design and greenery to blend, while still
creating a structure that will visually enhance the neighborhood.
30
ELPCO (East Liberty Park Community Organization) elpcoslc@gmail.com www.facebook/com/ELPCO
[…] are in support of the project. While hesitant to set the precedent of spot rezoning, we agree that
this is a different situation than Telegraph Exchange and this lot will never thrive as anything but
commercial. Phil Winston and the Demuris did a good job in engaging the immediate neighborhood for
feedback and the mixed-use design will greatly improve this stretch of 800 South.
In summary, ELPCO supports the master plan and zoning map amendments for the project at 810 East 800
South.
Sincerely,
Jason Stevenson, ELPCO co-chair
Darryl High, ELPCO co-chair
Dave Richards, Land Use advisor
Judi Short, Land Use advisor
About ELPCO
ELPCO is the East Liberty Park Community Organization—a local, city-sanctioned community organization that
represents the residents and businesses in the East Liberty Park area of Salt Lake City. The area covered by
ELPCO is defined by the boundaries of 700 E to 1300 E and 800 S to 1700 S. ELPCO currently meets online on the
fourth Thursday of every month. Learn more at www.facebook.com/ELPCO or by emailing elpcoslc@gmail.com
- Sign up for ELPCO's twice-monthly e-newsletters here: http://eepurl.com/gcOcCL
31
From:John Webster
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 810 East 800 South proposal
Date:Friday, November 20, 2020 12:01:54 PM
Hi Sara,
I'm writing in favor of the development proposal on 800 south and 810 East, just West of the Smith's
grocery store.
I've been a home owner in the area since the early 1990s and watched the surrounding area improve
dramatically. That 800 South area around Smiths has been a bit of a neglected space. Seems that city
and private development has favored the 900 South corridor. We appreciate the amenities that
development afforded and would welcome extending the rejuvenation to 800 South. The mix of
commercial space with residential above is a great combination. We need the tax base business brings
and more residential housing. Win win.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Warm regards,
- John Webster
32
From:Tom Brennan
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00740/00741 Public Comment
Date:Friday, October 23, 2020 8:46:48 AM
Sara,
I’m writing in general support of the proposed development at 810 East 800 South. This is an
appropriate use at this location. The general scale of the proposed development is in character with
other neighborhood business in the 9th and 9th neighborhood.
While this is an application for a zoning change and not a design review, I would encourage that the
application to change zoning be tied in some manner to the materials used for the exterior.
Specifically I would encourage that materials be appropriate for the neighborhood – specifically not
Exterior Insulated Insulation (EIFS) more commonly referred to as stucco or Dryvit. While the
rendering is conceptual (and could in fact drastically change), what appears to be proposed is a
traditional brick and industrial sash façade could easily be built using an EIFS system which would be
completely inappropriate for the area.
Thank you,
-- Thomas S. Brennan, AIA, LEED AP, NCARB 1018 S. Lake Street Salt Lake City, UT 84105
33
From:John Ewanowski
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment - 810 E. 800 South development
Date:Monday, November 30, 2020 1:03:33 PM
Sara,
I am writing as an architect, member of the SLC Historic Landmark Commission, and 9th and
9th resident to register my support for Altus Development Group's proposed project at 810 E.
800 South. The current vacant lot is an eyesore, and the building depicted in the 8/24/20
Concept Sketch is handsome and appropriately scaled. I like how the design references the
past while utilizing contemporary materials. As a result, I support the zoning map amendment
and master plan amendment as depicted by the applicant.
Sincerely,
John
--
John Ewanowski
1022 S. 900 East | Salt Lake City, UT 84105
34
ATTACHMENT G: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Public Utilities – Jason Draper, Jason.Draper@slcgov.com
No objections to the zone and master plan amendment. Development will likely require off-site
improvements including and upgrade of the water main.
Zoning, Building, and Fire Code – Greg Mikolash, Gregory.Mikolash@slcgov.com
Building Services finds no zoning, building code, or fire code related issues associated with this
request.
Engineering – Scott Weiler, Scott.Weiler@slcgov.com
No objection.
Transportation – Michael Barry, Michael.Barry@slcgov.com
Transportation has no objections to this Zoning Map and master Plan amendment
35
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 13, 2021, 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-01132021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South -
Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design
Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential
units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4 -story building that will be
located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design
Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of
approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to
decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the
building. The exterior wall of the prop osed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall
of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a
front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground
floor of the existing building, the applicant is also requesting to allow the rooftop garden areas to
count toward landscaping requirements. The property is located within the CC (Commercial
Corridor) zoning district in council district 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Amy
Thompson at (385) 226 -9001 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00721
& PLNPCM2020-00722
2. Windsor Court Planned Development at approximately 1966 S Windsor Street - Mike
Spainhower, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a 17 -unit multi-family
dwelling at 1966 S. Windsor Street. The project would be built on an existing vacant lot. The total site
is 0.7 acres. The Planned Development is needed to address a modification to the front yard setback
and landscape buffers. The subject property is located in the RMF -35 zoning district and within
Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226 -8499
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020 -00727
3. Village at North Station Building D Design Review at approximately 1925 W North Temple –
Michael Batt, representing the property owner, is seeking Design Revie w approval to modify a front
setback requirement for a proposed building located at approximately 1925 W North Temple. The
applicant is requesting to modify the maximum 5' front yard setback requirement due to the location
of a high voltage power line alon g Orange Street. They are requesting increased front yard setback
so that the front of the building is a required minimum safe distance from the power line. Modifications
to the front yard setback can be approved through the Design Review process. The subject property
is located within the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area District - Mixed Use Employment Center
Station – Transition) zoning district. The property is in Council District 1, represented by James
Rogers (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (385) 226-3835 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case
Number PLNPCM2020-00730
4. 9th Mixed-Use Multifamily Design Review – Eric Moran, on behalf of the property owner and
management company, RD Management, along with architects Peter Jacobsen and Jeff Byers of
The Richardson Design Group, are seeking Design Review approva l to redevelop the property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 900 East with residential and
commercial space. The proposal includes 264 residential units and approximately 16,000 square
feet of commercial space. The app licant is requesting Design Review by the Planning Commission
to allow for a façade length greater than 200 feet in the TSA-UN-C zoning district and for modifications
to the design standards in 21A.37. The property is located within Council District 4, re presented by
Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com )
Case number PLNPCM2020-00641
5. AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use at approximately 1550 South 5600
West – A request by Brian Sieck of Smartlink for a new AT&T wireless communications facility with
an 80’ monopole and unmanned communication site located at approximately 1550 South 5600 West.
The proposed site would be located in the northwest corner of the parcel. The subject property is
located within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District 2,
represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00819
6. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner
of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The
proposal would rezone the property located at a pproximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single
and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan
Future Land Use map designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial . The
applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor
and residential units on the second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Ma no (Staff contact: Sara
Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020 -00740
& PLNPCM2020-00741
7. Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake
City has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the
property owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560
South 300 East from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The
proposed Master Plan amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail
service uses on the property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO
(Residential Office) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
8. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over -height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved
by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front
yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances
include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and
manufacturing districts, public facilities and recrea tion facilities where a greater height is necessary
to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning
Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional
fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter
21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide.
(Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00511
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 January 13, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 05:30 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning 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 Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal
Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Andres Paredes were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal
Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer, read the emergency proclamation for holding a remote meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 02:31
MOTION 02:46
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom moved to approve the December 9, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lyon,
Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as
she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 04:24
Chairperson Scheer informed the public of the long agenda and that there will be a break half-way through
the agenda.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 05:33
Michaela Oktay, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.
05:55
Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe
Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a
Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at
approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the
same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for
an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the
Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side
yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed
upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right
at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear
yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING 2:28:51
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 2:29:15
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, the information
presented and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use for the AT&T communications site with an 80-foot monopole and
associated equipment (Petition PLNPCM2020-00819) subject to the following conditions:
1. Any modifications to the approved plans after the issuance of a building permit must be
specifically requested by the applicant and approved by the Planning Division prior to
execution.
2. Applicant shall comply with all other department/division requirements.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
2:30:50
Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner of
810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The proposal
would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map
designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant anticipates
developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor and residential units on the
second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226-4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-00741
Sara Javoronok, Senior 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.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Whether it’s in the Commissions purview to require a development agreement
Phillip Winston, applicant, provided a presentation with further details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on why the CB zone was chosen
• Setback standards for CB zone
PUBLIC HEARING 2:48:35
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Cindy Cromer – Stated there is no way that the CB zone with its wide array of allowed uses is appropriate
with at this sensitive location.
Nathan Florence - Provided an email comment stating his support of the request.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 7
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission discussed the following:
• Possibility of additional condition for a recommendation to the City Council
MOTION 3:01:53
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony, and
discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, file PLNPCM2020-
00740, proposed zone change from R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential District) to CB
(Community Business) and file PLNPCM2020-00741 proposed master plan amendment from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
3:03:36
Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake City
has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the property
owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning
map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560 South 300 East
from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central Community Future
Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The proposed Master Plan
amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail service uses on the
property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO (Residential Office) and is located
within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-
2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
Nannette Larsen, 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.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on how the height difference changes with the RMU zone
• Clarification on what the rezone is allows
Mariel Wirthlin, applicant, provided further information.
PUBLIC HEARING 3:16:38
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Cindy Cromer – Stated this RO zone is a bad zone and every square inch of it we can get rid of in the
City is a good thing.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
Notice of Public Hearing
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City
Council regarding the following petitions:
1. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South
– Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Devel-
opment Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to
amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The pro-
posal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800
South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Busi-
ness) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designa-
tion from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant
anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial
on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject prop-
erty is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoro-
nok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLN-
PCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-007412.
2. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City
Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special
exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030)
and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and ap-
proved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear
yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when
a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries
and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and
construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence,
wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments
proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt
Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilm-
ore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLN-
PCM2020-00511
The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Build-
ing. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in
watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the fol-
lowing 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.
DN0000000
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
From:cindy cromer
To:Javoronok, Sara
Subject:(EXTERNAL) comments on proposal for 810 E 800 S
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:24:29 PM
To Members of the Salt Lake Planning Commission
From cindy cromer
Re request for rezoning and master plan amendment at 810 E 800 S
1/13/21
My history with this parcel goes back almost 35 years to the expansion of the Smith's Food
King, certainly one of the worst land use decisions the City has made in the past 40 years. In
addition to wiping out dozens of units of modest housing, the City threw the balance of the
9th and 9th business district out of whack and precipitated the demolition of even more
housing to accommodate the loading dock after the expansion.
It was the inadequate loading dock on 900 S which led to the demise of the house at 810 E
800 S. The owner fled because of the trucks idling outside his bedroom and then the house
burned.
There is no way that the CB zone with its wide array of allowed uses is appropriate at this
sensitive location. And the neighbors and community organization can only be assured of
getting what they are willing to support if the City Council enters into a development
agreement with the owner to specify the mass and materials of the new building as well as
limiting the uses. I am not speaking to the integrity of the owner, only that there are no
guarantees that he will be able to do what the neighbors can support. The CB zone itself will
allow abundant uses, forms, and materials which no one would support.
The appropriate zone is the RMU-35 which would allow the proposed uses without the
encroachment of a more intensive zone into the smaller scale uses to the west. There are
lessons to learn from what the City did decades ago. One of them is that if you make a
mistake in land use, you probably will not be able to fix it. Another one is that the bad
decision will haunt future development. The CB zone was never appropriate here and its
extension into the residential area is a request that I cannot support when there is a new
alternative zone to accomplish what the owner wants to do, the RMU-35.
From:Rankins, Marlene
To:Javoronok, Sara
Cc:Oktay, Michaela
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Rezoning and master plan amendment 810 E 800 S
Date:Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:57:20 AM
Hi Sara,
Please see the email below.
Thanks,
MARLENE RANKINS
Administrative Secretary
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-6171
Email marlene.rankins@slcgov.com
www.OurNeighborhoods.CAN.com
www.slc.gov/planning/
www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: Nathan Florence <nathansflorence@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:41 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Rezoning and master plan amendment 810 E 800 S
I’m around the corner from the parcel in question and have dealt with various uses of it for the
almost 20 years we have owned our home at 817 South on 800 East. While we have fought multiple
local projects that we felt overreached or encroached on the street/neighborhood in other locations,
we enthusiastically support this effort for the situation. The location, as it stands now, is not well
suited for its current zoning and the proposed use is creative and fitting. We have been grateful, as
neighbors, for the efforts of the potential developers for engaging with all of the neighbors from the
outset and looking to create a project that really benefits everyone in the neighborhood. It is a great
use for an otherwise problematic property.
We would still like the City to engage in an overall approach to growth that would not be dependent
on this kind of spot re-zone by developers, but in this case we strongly support the application.
Thanks, Nathan and Marian Florence
--
www.nflorencefineart.com
www.artandbelieffilm.com
5. ORIGINAL PETITIONS
PLNPCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-00741
September 22, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Re: Description of Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 810 E 800 S
Planning Commission,
We are seeking to develop and construct a mixed commercial / residential building at 810 E 800
S, Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake County Parcel Number 16-08-176-024-0000 (the “Property”).
We are submitting two applications in conjunction with each other to begin this process: 1) an
amendment to the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan, changing the
Property from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial, and 2) a zoning map
amendment changing the Property from R-2 to CB (Community Business).
The Property is subject to the Central Community Master Plan, East Central North
Neighborhood, which has the Property listed as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use
Map. Additionally, the property is currently zoned as R-2. The Property is an empty lot and has
been that way for well over twenty-five years. It currently attracts the transient population and
has been not beneficially used for a significant period of time.
The corner of 800 S 800 E has turned into a small commercial hub, with several businesses
located immediately to the west of the Property and zoned as Small Neighborhood Business.1
Smith’s grocery store is located immediately to the east of the Property, which is zoned CB.
With the Property sandwiched between commercial uses, it is not a desirable location for a single
family or two-family dwelling. Additionally, the market value of the Property, given its
excellent commercial location, makes it cost prohibitive to build a single-family dwelling or two-
family dwelling under the current zoning. The Property will most likely continue to sit vacant
unless it is allowed to be used for commercial or mixed-use purposes.
We intend to build a two-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the first floor and
residential units on the second floor. We have included a proposed site plan and a rough
rendering of the elevation of the building as seen from 800 South. This use meets the purposes
of the Master Plan by locating “community level retail sales and services on appropriate
arterials,” in an area that is already surrounded by commercial uses. See Central Community
Master Plan, CLU-1.2, page 11. There is also a heavy emphasis in the Central Community
Master Plan on providing mixed use commercial / residential properties with “ground level
1 There is a garage immediately to the west of the Property that is zoned R-2. However, that garage juts
out from a parcel further to the south that has a duplex with in home business operating out of the
property. The block face surrounding the Property appears to be all commercial. The only property that
adjoins the Property and is used solely as a residential home is immediately to the south.
commercial space [and] apartment or condominium units above the first floor,” especially in the
9th and 9th area just to the south of the Property. See Central Community Master Plan, page 11.
This development meets these objectives and will add to the community.
We respectfully request that the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map be
amended so that the Property is designated at Community Commercial and that the Property be
rezoned to from R-2 to CB.
We’re excited to move forward with this project. Please reach out to me if you have any
questions.
Best,
Stanford Bell
801-884-9044
EXISTINGBUILDING(1442 SF)
EXISTINGBUILDING
800 SOUTH
810 E 800 S (0.16 ACRES - 6850 SF)
2600 SF (LOWER)
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING POWER POLE
ADA
2900 SF (UPPER)
ARTIST
STUDIO
ARTIST
STUDIO
DUMPSTER
17
'
-
6
"
21
'
-
6
"
EXISTINGBUILDING
SCALE:
A1
A1-01
SITE PLAN - 081820810 E 800 S
1/16"=1'-0"
COFFEE BOUTIQUE GALLERY
810 EAST CONCEPT SKETCH 8/24/20BOUTIQUE COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOORRESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE
810
6. MAILING LIST
Name Address City State Zip
SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIES INC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI OH 45202
ES 187779 LC 1099 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
CHRISTOPHER DEMURI; MEREDITH DEMURI (JT)1099 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
IXCHEL, LLC 1192 E DRAPER PKWY # 152 DRAPER UT 84020
PAUL A DOUGLAS 146 STONE MILL RD LOT 24 HUDSON NY 12534
KEVIN W STIGGE; PAMELA CALLAHAN (JT)1965 RIDGEHILL DR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
HAMILTON PLACE HOUSING CORPORATION 223 W 700 S # C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
SLC 84102 LLC 24101 MOUNTAIN CHARLIE RD LOS GATOS CA 95033
JOSH COOK 2461 S HIGHLAND DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CLEARWATER HOMES, LLC 336 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
800 EAST FOURPLEX LLC 3734 E THOUSAND OAKS CIR MILLCREEK UT 84124
CODY V DERRICK 645 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BARN THAI LLC 758 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
CHRISTOS TSOUFAKIS (JT)760 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ILONA ZENNER 761 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 762 S WINDSOR ST Salt Lake City UT 84102
BECKY S ROBERTS 763 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 764 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
JAMES A HARRIS; CATHERINE CARGILL (JT)765 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 774 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
REED L DURFEY; SHANNON N DURFEY (JT)785 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 801 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 802 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 803 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 805 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
BRIAN C MILES 809 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 809 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 810 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
JULIA BJORNSTAD 813 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 814 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
NATHAN S FLORENCE; MARIAN C FLORENCE (JT)817 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ANGELA CARLSON; MICHAEL S JACOBSEN (JT)818 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BRENDA L CHRISTENSEN 819 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
SUZANNE MONTGOMERY 823 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
ROBERT S NAK; MARIA L NAK (JT)823 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
CATHERINE E LILLY 824 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 825 E CHASE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84102
BRADLEY R CAIRNS 828 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 829 E CHASE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 829 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
MELODIE RICHARDSON 831 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 832 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
CHARLES T GRAYSON; MELANIE S GRAYSON (JT)832 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
BENJAMIN R KURTIS; ERIKA P KURTIS 833 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
Current Occupant 833 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 834 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 836 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 845 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 847 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 850 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 851 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
Current Occupant 876 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102
TONY MARTINEZ PO BOX 1875 SANDY UT 84091
Altus Development Group 336 W BROADWAY ST, STE 110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
Sara Javoronok, Planning Division PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Salt Lake City Mosquito
Abatement District
Ary Faraji, PhD
Salt Lake City Council Work Session
15 June 2021
Hybrid System (Dependent/Independent)
Local District Law (17B-1-202)
MAD Act (17B-2a-701)
Funding through property taxes
Mosquito Control Structure in Utah
Broad authority to exterminate insects
Pesticide Registration
Regulated through EPA under FIFRA
Further regulated through NPDES under CWA
Even further regulated through UPDES under UT Dept Ag
ALL pesticides required to be reregistered every 15
years under FQPA
EPA evaluates pesticides to ensure that when they are used
according to label directions, they WILL NOT harm people,
wildlife, or the environment.
Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District
$3.8 million dollar budget
10 full time staff, 30 seasonal staff
Salt Lake City Mosquito
Abatement District
Service Area
Surveillance
Control
Public
Education
Training &
Operations
Research
Integrated Mosquito Management
Larval
Adult
Larvicide
Integrated Mosquito Management
(IMM)
Comprehensive preventive/control strategy
Knowledge based (bio/ecology of pests)
Surveillance (SCIENCE) driven
Resource ($) & environmentally dictated
Surveillance
Adult surveillance
Disease surveillance
Larval surveillance
Adult Surveillance
Host seeking traps
Resting traps
Oviposition traps
Adult Mosquito Surveillance
Carbon Dioxide Traps (37)
Gravid Traps (18)
Rural
Industrial
Urban
Surveillance Zones
U-SURV Utah
Data Analytics Software
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
Apr - 2 May - 1 May - 2 Jun - 1 Jun - 2 Jul - 1 Jul - 2 Aug - 1 Aug - 2 Sep - 1 Sep - 2 Oct - 1 Oct - 2
SLCMAD 2021 & 5-yr Avg
Whole District 5-yr Avg
Whole District 2021
Control
Larval control
Adult control
Larval Control
Source Reduction & Habitat Modification
Urban Jungle
Maps created by CDC 2017 (Johnson et al. Journal of Medical Entomology. 54:1605-1614)
Ae. aegypti Ae. albopictus
“Invasive Aedes”
Aedes aegypti
(Yellow Fever Mosquito)
Larval Control
Biological Control
Larval Control
Biological Control –Fish Program
Biological Control –Fish Program
Larval Control
Microbial
Bti and Bsp
Spinosad
Larval Control
Application Methods -Rural
Larval Control
Application Methods –Catch Basins
Larval Control
Application Methods –Tree Holes
Larval Control
Application Methods –Aerial
Davis –Salt Lake Aerial Spray Authority
Treatments –DJI Agras MG-1S
Adult Control
Ultra-low volume (ULV)
Truck-mounted
Aerial
Various Projects
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL
TIKI Torch Studies Non-target Studies Malaria Control
3D Printers and Traps
Spartan Mosquito Eradicator Study
Environmental Assessment
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(Division of Water Quality)
US Fish and Wildlife Services
(Utah Geological Services Field Office)
Utah Department of Health
(Environmental Epidemiology)
Posted on our website: http://www.slcmad.org/notices
Public Notice Website:
https://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/651343.html
In light of public interest, SLCMAD Board decided to NOT
pursue Air Force collaborations
Certified Tax Rates
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Tax Rate 0.00016 0.000141 0.000133 0.000122 0.000115
Budget $3,027,463 $3,363,270 $3,621,250 $3,684,128 $3,736,002
% Increase from
Previous Year 2.60%3.10%1.4%*1.60%1.40%
CPI 3.20%5.10%3.10%2.90%2.5%**
Annual Cost per
$100k Home Value $7.20 $6.35 $7.32 $5.49 $5.18
* Annexations w/ SSLVMAD/Magna MAD
** as of March 2021
Projected Annual Property Taxes
Current
Rate
(0.000115)
~Proposed
Rate
(0.00020)
Price
Increase
$250,000
House
$1,000,000
Business
$12.94 year
($1.08 month)
$22.50 year
($1.88 month) $9.56
$115.00 year
($9.58 month)
$200.00 year
($16.67 month)
$85.00
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 5/26/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/26/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/26/20201
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Meggie Troili as a member of
the Art Design 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 26, 2020
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 Art Design Board.
Meggie Troili – to be appointed for a three year term starting from the date of City Council advice
and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 5/26/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/26/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/26/20201
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Tiffini Porter as a member of
the Art Design 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 26, 2020
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 Art Design Board.
Tiffini Porter – to be appointed for a three year term starting from 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: 5/27/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/27/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/27/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board 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 William Davis 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 27, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City:
William Davis– to be appointed for a four yesr term 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: 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
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________________, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on ___________________
in an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
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 affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Amy Fowler June 15, 2021
X
X
X X
Amy Fowler (Aug 5, 2021 13:06 MDT)Aug 5, 2021
Closed Meeting Sworn Statement - For
6/15/2021 Work Session
Final Audit Report 2021-08-05
Created:2021-06-16
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAWSiN_epKh6YuWGo0Ecq5M9S7hD0ywXBp
"Closed Meeting Sworn Statement - For 6/15/2021 Work Sessio
n" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
2021-06-16 - 8:11:48 PM GMT- IP address: 204.124.13.151
Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature
2021-06-16 - 8:13:36 PM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2021-08-05 - 7:06:19 PM GMT- IP address: 107.127.14.112
Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2021-08-05 - 7:06:38 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 107.127.14.112
Agreement completed.
2021-08-05 - 7:06:38 PM GMT