HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
October 15, 2024 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:01:46
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: Winter Shelter Plans Update ~ 2:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on the State homeless winter
shelter plans.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: Northpoint Light Industrial Zoning Text
Amendment Follow-up ~ 2:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend various
sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code creating a new section 21A.28.040
Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District that aligns with the goals, policies
and future land use recommendations established in the Northpoint Small Area Plan.
The proposal would include providing an environment for light industrial, office, and
research uses, while reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential
properties and native habitats. This is a City Council-initiated petition. Other sections of
Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. This project is within
Council District 1.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024 and Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
4.Ordinance: Obstructions in Required Yards and Height
Exceptions Text Amendment ~ 2:55 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend chapter
21A.36.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, specifically tables 21A.36.020.B and
21A.36.020.C, which regulates permitted obstructions in required yards and permitted
height exceptions in different zoning districts. The proposal would address zoning
administration issues, modify provisions to match building code requirements, eliminate
outdated provisions, and allow rooftop uses to exceed the maximum height in some
zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 19, 2024
5.Informational: Follow-up on Draft Policies for Housing
Program Funds ~ 3:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on proposed changes to the housing
program funds, focusing on changes to the Funding Our Future housing funds
categories. These funds are allocated through the annual budget process. The Council was
briefed on other aspects of the housing program on August 13, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Mosquito Abatement District Property Tax Report ~ 3:35 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District
regarding a proposal to increase property taxes. In keeping with State Code, the
Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees will report to the appointing Legislative
Body regarding their intent to increase the certified tax rate, resulting in a property tax
increase to Salt Lake City residents in 2025. Following the City Council briefing and
hearing, an additional hearing and vote will be held by the Salt Lake City Mosquito
Abatement District Board of Trustees before the end of the calendar year. The hearing
will be held on December 19, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. at the district facilities located at 2215
North 2200 West Salt Lake City, Utah, 84116.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 12, 2024
7.Tentative Break ~ 4:05 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
8.Ordinance: Airport Title 16 Amendments Follow-up ~ 4:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would repeal and replace Title
16 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to Airports. The proposed amendment would
eliminate duplicated and outdated regulations. The proposal also includes moving
codified commercial standards to standalone administrative documents for operators
doing business at the airport. Language related to ground transportation rules and fees is
removed where it is duplicated in City code (Title 5).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 4, 2023 and Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 and Tuesday,
November 12, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
9.Informational: Utah Transit Authority Tech Link TRAX
Extension Study ~ 4:55 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) about the
TechLink Study, which evaluates and recommends a locally preferred alternative for new
TRAX connections in downtown Salt Lake City, Research Park, and potential operational
route changes. It explores changing the route of the red line TRAX with new service to
the Granary District and Ballpark Area. It also considers adding a new orange line TRAX
to connect the Salt Lake International Airport with the University of Utah and Research
Park among other potential changes.
For more information visit www.techlinkstudy.com.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
10.Informational: Collective Bargaining Processes and Legal
Concepts ~ 5:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the City's collective bargaining processes,
memorandums of understanding (MOUs), State law, and related legal concepts. The
City recognizes and negotiates with three bargaining units representing eligible full-
time employees.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
11.Board Appointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission -
Gloria Mensah ~ 5:55 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Gloria Mensah prior to considering appointment to the Racial
Equity in Policing Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
14.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 10, 2024, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: October 15, 2024
RE:Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial
(M-1A) Zoning District
Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: Sept 3, 2024
Briefing 2: Oct 15, 2024
Set Date: Sept 3, 2024
Public Hearing: Oct 1, 2024
Potential Action: TBD
NEW INFORMATION
During the October 1 public hearing a few people spoke. Two individuals who live along 2200 West spoke
about the significant negative impacts they are experiencing due to the warehouse construction going on
west of 2200 West. They said the new zone would ruin agricultural land. Another individual spoke about
how the city can limit distribution and wholesale uses.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
At the September 3 briefing, the Council directed staff to work with Planning and stakeholders on two
issues:
1. Maximum building height pertaining to docks at below-grade
2. Buffer requirements from the Jordan River: Consider whether there are alternatives or
potential development agreements that can help address the concerns.
Updates to the Ordinance
1. Maximum Height in relation to loading docks: The red underlined text is the new language
Planning staff recommended and stakeholders supported.
Maximum Height: No building shall exceed 40 feet in height. Building height along
loading dock areas may exceed the maximum height limit by 5 feet. The additional height
shall only be allowed below the average elevation of finished grade and the area shall be
excluded from the calculation of the average elevation of finished grade.
Page | 2
2. Included painted texture concrete in the list of allowable building materials
Items for further discussion
Jordan River Buffer
The Council adopted the Northpoint Small Area Plan in November 2023. A development buffer adjacent to
the Jordan River was included in the plan with the following policy direction:
Setback and Buffer Table: 300 ft buffer from the Jordan River in both the Light Industrial and
Transitional areas. (Northpoint Small Area Plan, page 18)
Implementation Items: Require a buffer of 300 feet between wetlands/uplands and any site
development (e.g. buildings, parking, site features, and amenities) within the Northpoint Plan
Area. The Great Salt Lake is a complex and delicate ecosystem, and impact on this habitat area by
new development must be carefully mitigated. A critical part of this mitigation is ensuring an
adequate buffer between development and the wetland/upland ecosystem. Wetlands include both
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Plan identifies a 300-foot buffer from wetland
areas. This should be implemented through either an update to the City’s existing Riparian Overlay
Zone or a new Northpoint-specific development code. (Northpoint Small Area Plan, page 35)
The Council has heard from a couple of stakeholders about the buffer’s impact on their property. During
the first briefing, the Council directed staff to work with Planning and stakeholders on concerns expressed
about the buffer.
Cross E. Ranch owns a substantial amount of property adjacent to the Jordan River, technically within
unincorporated Salt Lake County. However, they have expressed interest in annexing into the city and are
part of the Northpoint Annexation, a separate petition that is currently being processed.
Cross E. Ranch contacted city staff to express their concerns about the buffer requirements from the
Jordan River proposed in the zoning amendments. The Northpoint Small Area Plan calls for a 300 ft buffer
from the Jordan River. They’ve expressed support for a buffer for the fist 100 ft from the river, but are
concerned with the additional 200’. They prefer to address the setback concerns via a development
agreement that would allow them to cluster their development area together and then place the traditional
open space, buffer, and landscaping near the river. They recommend the section about buffer yards be
removed and replaced with a development agreement which includes buffers specifically negotiated by the
city and property owner. See Attachment A for their recommended changes to the ordinance.
Based on the feedback from stakeholders and direction from the Council, Planning has provided the
following options for the Council to consider to address concerns about the buffer:
1. Reduce the buffer width to 150' total if the 150' is put into a conservation easement or has a public
access easement. There would have to be a minimum public access easement width of at 50 feet.
2. Remove the transitional buffer (the area between 100’ and 300’) and require development
agreements to negotiate the development of the land while still ensuring community and
environmental benefit goals are met.
3. Modify the allowed uses in the buffer area to generate some financial benefit. Evaluate which uses
could be compatible with the buffer while still providing income. Options might include agriculture,
outdoor recreation, and necessary support buildings.
Page | 3
The following information was provided for the October 1 work session briefing.
During the September 3 briefing, the Council provided direction to staff on the following policy questions.
1. Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening.
o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet
walls for screening mechanical equipment.
o Council Direction: Yes to keeping as is.
2. Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add “painted” in addition to tinted/textured as allowed
types of concrete.
o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted concrete.
o Council Direction: Yes to adding “painted concrete” to the ordinance.
3. Blank Wall Standard – request to change from 12” to 8”.
o Proposed Language: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’.
Changes in plane, texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural
detailing are acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature
shall be either recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve
inches (12").
o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building
size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying
the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break
up the wall than 8".
o Council Direction: Yes to keeping at 12 inches.
4. Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade.
o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not
match standard market buildings for interested tenants.
o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning
staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this
concern.
o Council Direction: Yes to working with stakeholder on language. *See below for
additional information.
5. Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the
Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural
open space.”
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
o Council Direction: Yes to NO change at this time.
6. Remove the buffer requirements from the Jordan River, and work with Cross E Ranch on
alternatives that work for them via a potential development agreement. Cross E Ranch doesn’t
Page | 4
want to create the open areas along the Jordan River in their area because the banks are very high and
potentially dangerous. Cross E Ranch would prefer to cluster the traditional open space, buffer, and
landscaping in their area
o Response - Does the Council want staff to work with planning staff to review and come back
with options for consideration.
o Council Direction: Yes to further discussions with the constituent and come
back to the Council with more information. *See below for additional information.
Additional information
Per Council direction Council and Planning staff reached out with stakeholders who requested changes to
the ordinance for items 4 and 6 above. Those discussions are still ongoing; therefore, staff recommends the
Council continue the public hearing to a future meeting so that if any changes to the ordinance are
proposed, the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on them. Once staff has the potential new
information ready for the Council to review, it will be brought back for discussion in a work session.
The following information was provided for the September 3 work session briefing.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of the Salt Lake City
Code creating a new section 21A.28.040 Northpoint Light Industrial (M-1A) Zoning District. This Council
initiated petition would create a new zoning district that would help implement the vision and goals of the
Northpoint Small Area plan adopted by the Council in November 2023.
The new zoning district would provide an environment for light industrial, office, and research uses, while
reducing the impact on adjacent agricultural and residential properties and native habitats.
The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation. In the motion,
the Planning Commission requested that any land use involving hazardous waste or medical waste be
prohibited. As noted in the Transmittal letter, Planning Staff reviewed the land use tables and confirmed
that such uses are not proposed in the current draft ordinance.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Purpose Statement - The purpose of the Northpoint District is to protect sensitive lands and wildlife
habitat surrounding the Great Salt Lake shore lands and the Jordan River while providing an environment
for light industrial, office, and research uses that produce minimal impact on adjacent residential and
agricultural properties. This district is appropriate within the Northpoint Small Area Plan boundaries. The
district promotes a high standard of building design quality, open space preservation, and protection of
sensitive lands and waterways
Land Uses
Page | 6
The following summary of uses is outlined on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report.
The land use table is significantly pared down from the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District, excluding
many uses that would be inappropriate for the area. Prohibited uses include kennels/pounds,
raising of furbearing animals, bottling plants, check/payday loan businesses, community correctional
facilities, commercial laundry facilities, outdoor recycling processing centers, rock and gravel storage
and distribution, and vehicle auctions, package delivery service and distribution centers.
Allowed Uses include primarily agriculture, light industrial, office, manufacturing uses, and some retail
services.
Development and Design Standards
The following table outlines the Development and Design standards as well as Modification standards
outlined on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report
Summary of Development Standards
Max lot size
Maximum lot size is 10 acres, but larger lots may be approved if 20% of
the area of the lot to be modified is preserved as natural open space on
the development site. See the section below titled Allowed Modifications
for more information on modifications to
the standards.
Max Height Buildings cannot exceed 40 feet in height.
Building Size Limitations
Maximum building footprint is 100,000 square feet, with potential
for increased size if the property owner incorporates sustainability
measures such as additional open space preservation, a green roof, or
electric vehicle parking. See the section below titled Allowed
Modifications for more information on modifications to the
standards.
Setbacks and Buffers
Additional Setback:
Building setback requirements for the front and corner side yard is 20’,
and the rear and interior side yards is 15’, with additional setbacks from
residential structures and specific buffer requirements along the Jordan
River.
New development must be 65’ from principal residential structures on
neighboring properties, and vehicle laneways used to access a
Page | 6
Jordan River Buffer
development site must be setback 30’ from principal residential
structures on neighboring properties.
The Jordan River has a 300’ buffer from the annual highwater line. The
first 100’ is a strict no-disturbance buffer and no construction or
development activities will be permitted in this area. The remaining 200’
of the buffer area (the area between 100’ and 300’) is designated as the
Transitional Buffer Area. This allows the buffer width to be reduced in
some areas if a greater buffer is provided elsewhere. The modified buffer
must maintain the total required buffer area, foot for foot, and must be
contiguous with the No-Disturbance Buffer.
Landscaping Requirements include water wise landscaping and prevention of noxious
weeds to protect adjacent sensitive lands.
Trees
Trees are required along all property lines at a rate of 1 tree per 30 feet
of property line, however, due to concerns with the unique drainage
conditions in the area, trees can be spaced irregularly or clustered. When
abutting a residential use, the amount of trees required is increased to 1
tree for every 15 feet of property line and must be placed every 15 feet for
the length of the residential use and within 30 feet of the residential use.
Design Standards
Building Façade Length Limiting building facade length along 2200 West to 250 feet.
Maximum Length of Blank
Walls
The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art, or architectural detailing along any ground level street facing
facade is 25’.
Building Materials
Specifying building materials to ensure they are compatible with the
natural environment. Brick, natural stone, wood, and tinted/textured
concrete are appropriate materials. Stucco, including EIFS, is limited to
architectural detailing surfaces and articulation. Exterior plastic vinyl
siding or any reflective or polished materials are prohibited.
Roofs
Implementing roof specifications to mitigate the heat island effect. Light
reflective roofing material with a minimum solar reflective index (SRI)
of 82 is required for all roofs.
Bird-safe Glass Treatments
For any building elevation with more than 10% glass, a minimum of 90%
of all glass shall be treated with applied films, coatings, tints, exterior
screens, netting, fritting, frosted glass, or other means to reduce the
number of birds that may collide with the glazing. Any treatment must
create a grid pattern that is equal to or smaller than 2 inches wide by 4
inches tall. Mirrored or highly reflective glass is prohibited.
Dark Sky Lighting Standards All lighting on the property, including lighting on the buildings, parking
areas, and for signs shall be shielded to direct light down and away from
Page | 7
the edges of the property to eliminate glare or light into adjacent
properties and have cutoffs so that no light is emitted and/or reflected
above the horizontal plane of the fixture.
Fence Guidelines
To minimize impacts on wildlife, fences shall have a visually open design
with at least 50% of the fence open for the continuous length of the
fence.
Stormwater Retention
Retention of the 80th percentile storm is required for all new and
redevelopment projects greater than 1 acre. Detention shall be provided
to ensure stormwater discharge does not exceed 0.2 cfs per acre, or less,
to match pre-development flows, as identified in the area stormwater
master plan.
Modification of Standards
Maximum Lot Area
Approval for lots larger than 10 acres may be granted, provided the
buildings and structures are grouped and a minimum of 20% of the area
to be modified is designated as natural open spaced on the development
site. Required setback yards and disconnected small areas of open space
scattered throughout the site do not count toward the 20%, but any
required wetland, canal, or other riparian buffers may be included.
Maximum Building Façade
Length
The maximum building façade length of 250 feet along
2200 West may be increased if more natural open space is provided on
the development site. The maximum building façade length may
increase at a ratio of 20 feet per 5% of the total site dedicated as natural
open space. The natural open space dedicated and permanently
protected on site shall be no less than 7,000 SF, and to the greatest
extent possible, shall be contiguous.
Maximum Building Footprint
Electric Vehicle
Parking
Sustainable Roof
The maximum footprint of a new building (100,000 SF)
may be increased by complying with one or more of the options below.
No more than an
additional 100,000 square feet in building footprint will be permitted for
an overall
maximum building size of 200,000 SF.
Provide a minimum of 10 electric vehicle parking spaces
with a rate of 10,000 SF of additional footprint per 10 EV stalls.
At least 30% of the roof area shall be devoted to either solar
panels or a green roof, or a combination of the two in exchange for
40,000 SF of
additional footprint.
Page | 8
Designation of
Natural Open Space
Public Amenities:
Stormwater
All electric property
Additional open space designation on the
development site at a rate of 1 square foot of building square footage for
1 square
foot of open space preserved.
Inclusion of a privately-owned public pathway, trail, or
greenway connecting to or through natural open space areas with a rate
of 10,000
SF per 1,000 SF of linear feet of trail, or 25,000 SF per trailhead.
Providing full retention of stormwater with no release to the public
storm drain system for 50,000 SF of additional footprint, or providing
stormwater
detention to the effect that no more than 0.1 cfs/acre is discharged from
the 100-
year 3-hour storm for 35,000 SF of additional footprint.
The site is developed as an all-electric property for an
additional 50,000 SF of additional footprint.
Key Considerations
Planning staff discusses in depth two key considerations on pages 7 -10 of the planning commission staff
report. Below is a short summary of the discussion, Please see those pages for full analysis.
1. How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans
Staff found the text amendment was consistent with the goals and policies outlined in Plan
Salt Lake such as Economy, Natural Environment and Growth. Additionally, they found
text amendment aligns with the goals and vision of the newly adopted Northpoint Small
Area plan.
2. Public Input and Code Changes
Staff made many substantive changes to the draft ordinance based on feedback from the
public. These include changes to the land use table, maximum lot size, vehicle laneways and
location of trees.
Potential Amendments
After the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendation, some stakeholders reached out to
Council Member Petro and staff to raise concerns and questions they have about the proposed ordinance.
Staff was able to review and respond to some of the questions. For the others which do not yet have a
response, staff is asking if the Council supports working with the constituent and planning staff to come up
with potential changes that would address their concerns.
Questions with Responses
1.Max height 40 feet. Concern this wouldn't allow for the parapet/screening.
Page | 10
o Response: Current city code (21A.36.020.C) already gives an allowance to do 5' parapet
walls for screening mechanical equipment.
2.Painted vs Tinted concrete. Is it possible to add painted in addition to tinted/textured concrete.
o Response: Planning staff confirmed they would be ok with adding painted.
3.Blank Wall Standard – change to 8’ instead of 12’.
o The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or
architectural detailing along any ground level street facing facade is 25’. Changes in plane,
texture, materials, scale of materials, patterns, art, or other architectural detailing are
acceptable methods to comply with this standard. The architectural feature shall be either
recessed a minimum of twelve inches (12") or projected a minimum of twelve inches (12").
o Response: 12" is the City standard that is used in all other districts no matter the building
size. As of now, Planning staff would prefer to keeping it at 12" for consistency in applying
the code for our building services and zoning reviewers, and because 12" will better break
up the wall than 8".
Questions for further discussion
1.Exclude dock areas from maximum building height since they go below grade.
o The Constituent is concerned that without this accommodation, the buildings will not
match standard market buildings for interested tenants.
o Response: If the Council is supportive, staff will work with the constituent and planning
staff to develop recommendations for the Council to consider that would address this
concern.
2.Amend the wetland buffers in this ordinance to be consistent with language that applies to the
Jordan River buffer: “Land within the Jordan River Transitional Buffer Area may count as natural
open space.”
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 15, 2024
RE: Obstructions in Required Yards and Height Exceptions Tables Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00231
The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Planning Commission that would amend City
code to allow additional height up to 10 feet for rooftop amenities such as a patio, with associated
unenclosed shade structures including shade sails, pergolas, gazebos, etc. The proposal would allow these
in all zoning districts except residential districts. Under current City code rooftop patios are considered
habitable space, so must be within the allowed building height for the zoning district within which they are
located.
If the additional height exception is utilized, coverage with shade sails or other structures would be limited
to 40% of the roof area and require them to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edges of the
building. If the rooftop amenity and shade structure are within the building’s permitted height without a
height exception, then the coverage and setback restrictions would not apply.
Additional changes include updating the table of obstructions in required yards. These changes include
removing outdated language, complying with changes to State statutes, and adding clarity to simplify
administration of the zoning code. A new obstruction type was added to the draft ordinance that includes
“Other accessory structures not regulated elsewhere and not exceeding 10 feet in height and 120 square
feet.” Arbors and trellises were removed as a specific category and they along with pergolas and other
similar structures would be addressed in this section, simplifying the code.
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed text amendment at its June 26, 2024 meeting and held a
public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 15, 2024
Set Date: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing: November 12, 2024
Potential Action: November 19, 2024
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. Is the Council supportive of the proposed 40% limit on shade structures and 10-foot setback for
buildings utilizing additional height?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning staff believes limiting the rooftop shade structure coverage on buildings utilizing additional
height will allow them to cover areas such as pools and grilling areas, while providing space for mechanical
equipment so it does not need to be located at ground level. A 10-foot setback for shade structures on the
top of a building will help ensure the apparent building height from the ground will not change. In
addition, under the proposal buildings with rooftop amenities that abut residential zoning districts would
be required to have a physical barrier such as a fence or planter to help provide privacy for neighboring
properties.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 3-4 of the June 26,
2024 Planning Commission staff report, and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
Planning Commission staff report.
Consideration 1 – Rooftop amenities, associated unenclosed shade structures and their
impacts
As discussed above, City code considers rooftop patios to be habitable space, so they must be within the
maximum allowed building height for the zoning district where the building is located. The Planning
Commission has reviewed projects requesting a few as five additional feet of building height to build
rooftop amenities through the planned development process. Allowing them on buildings that utilize
additional building height will simplify the process for applicants and the Administration to include these
amenities on buildings.
Rooftop amenities such as pools, patios, and grilling areas are a benefit to residents of multi-family
buildings, but without shade they are not frequently used during the hot summer months.
The proposed 40% limit on coverage and 10-foot setback from the roof’s edge is anticipated to minimize
the impact of rooftop amenities to neighboring properties, and passersby. Planning staff stated, “By
allowing for rooftop amenities as a permitted height exception, and therefore allowing additional private
open space, the text amendment implements best planning practices.”
Consideration 2 – Public feedback
Planning received requests from the East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO), Liberty Wells
Community Council, and the Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning Committee for a
presentation on the proposed text amendment.
ELPCO had concerns about a lack of setbacks from abutting single-family homes. Planning staff then
recommended adding the 10-foot setback for shade structures, and a physical barrier to help prevent those
on a building’s roof from looking into neighboring backyards. ELPCO did not share concerns about the
proposed changes, and the Liberty Wells Community Council, and Sugar House Community Council Land
Use and Zoning Committee were supportive of the additional requirements.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Page | 4
Attachment B (pages 32-33) of the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning text
amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and
findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional
information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed text amendment
implements best current, professional practices of urban
planning and design.
Complies
The impact that the proposed text amendment may have
on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions
and processes required by this title.
Complies
The impact that the proposed text amendment may have
on other properties that would be subject to the proposal
and properties adjacent to subject properties.
May impact residential
properties but proposal
incorporates regulations
to minimize impact.
The community benefits that would result from the
proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C.
(21A.50.050.C applies only to private property owner-
initiated amendments. This amendment initiated by the
Planning Commission.)
Not applicable
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• February 14, 2024 – Petition initiated by Salt Lake City Planning Commission.
• February 28, 2024 – Petition assigned to Ben Buckley, Associate Planner.
• March-April 2024 – Planning staff reviewed the petition and drafted language to support goals of
the petition.
• April 12, 2024 – Notice of petition sent to all city recognized community organizations.
• April 16, 2024 – Petition posted to the Planning Division’s open house webpage. Public comment
period ended May 31, 2024.
• May 9, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the East Liberty Park Community
Organization.
• May 16, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Liberty Wells Community Council.
• May 20, 2024 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Sugar House Land Use Committee.
Page | 5
• June 13, 2024 – Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the Planning
Division listserv.
• June 26, 2024 –Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission voted 5-0 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• June 28, 2024 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office.
• August 27, 2024 – Ordinance from Attorney’s Office received by Planning Division.
• September 18, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:October 15, 2024
RE: INFORMATIONAL: FOLLOW-UP ON DRAFT POLICIES FOR HOUSING PROGRAM
FUNDS
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
This is a follow-up briefing on potential changes to Salt Lake City’s housing program funds, which focuses on
one aspect: the allocation process for annual Funding Our Future revenue that is directed to housing-related
services. Since fiscal year 2018, the Council’s role has been to approve or modify a list of proposed funding
amounts for different programs, as part of the annual budget process. Examples include a shared housing
program for people experiencing homelessness, and a mortgage assistance program for first-time homeowners.
The Community and Neighborhoods Department now proposes modifying this process by shifting funding
decisions into the existing annual competitive application process for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) funds. The Department notes that this shift would provide the Council with “more direct
knowledge and control over the allocations to specific programs and activities.” It would also eliminate the need
for a separate administrative process for Funding Our Future funds, which “sometimes includes sending
multiple checks to local organizations for essentially the same programs.”
Goal of the briefing: Consider and provide feedback to the Administration on additional proposals for a
new Housing Program Funds policy, specifically, parts related to the distribution of Funding Our Future
revenue for housing.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Background. The three main sources for City housing program funds, which are administered by the
Housing Stability Division in CAN, are U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant
programs, Funding Our Future sales tax funds, and program income. In recent months the Council has
considered a variety of proposed changes to City processes for allocating housing program funds. The most
recent previous briefing was on August 13, 2024.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
B.Proposed Process Changes. In the existing process, the annual budget for programs supported by
Funding Our Future is allocated by the Council in a lump sum as part of the annual budget process. The
Housing Stability Division, in coordination with the City Purchasing and Contracts Management Division,
issues a request for proposals (RFP) to community organizations which operate specific related programs
and activities. A selection committee ultimately decides how these funds are distributed among the
responses to the RFP.
The proposed new process would shift the annual Funding Our Future allocation into the existing annual
competitive application process for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants, as
an additional source of program funds for programs and activities that include the proposed eligible uses
(see Section C, below). Housing Stability staff would include current goals and objectives from the housing
plans in the competitive application process, and the review process would include evaluation of the
applicants’ alignment with those goals and objectives. The Council would review all the HUD and Funding
Our Future funding recommendations from the relevant board and the Mayor, and make the final decisions.
In addition, the proposed policy changes would clarify the difference between annual funding priorities and
longer-term policy goals and objectives. The eligible uses of Funding Our Future would be defined generally
as “Programs and activities that implement the moderate-income housing plans, anti-displacement plans,
and/or other plans related to housing stability programs.” The funding eligibility categories would be
reduced to just two broad areas: Tenant Housing Assistance, and Equity and Homeownership Assistance. (A
list of proposed eligible uses included in each of these categories can be found in Section C, below.) By
distinguishing between annual funding priorities and adopted housing and anti-displacement plans, the
proposed policy would not need to be changed to reflect each new housing plan.
C.Proposed Eligible Uses. CAN proposes the following categories and eligible uses for Funding Our Future
housing program funds. They are divided into those that serve residents who rent their homes (including
some people emerging from homelessness), and those that help residents build equity, reach
homeownership, and remain in homes they own.
1.Tenant Housing Assistance: Programs and activities that provide
- landlord/tenant mediation;
- eviction prevention;
- tenant-based rental assistance;
- emergency rental assistance;
- tenant and homelessness- related supportive services;
- utility assistance;
- tenant relocation; and
- tenant navigation and resource coordination.
2.Equity and Homeownership Assistance: Programs and activities that provide:
- mortgage assistance;
- equity sharing;
- foreclosure prevention;
- homeownership preparedness; and
Page | 3
- home repairs necessary to meet code requirements, meet habitability standards, and for
energy/water conservation.
D.Relevant Goals of Current Plans. The transmittal includes a list of relevant goals and objectives from
the current housing and anti-displacement plans, Housing SLC and Thriving in Place.
1. Protect the Most Vulnerable from Displacement
a. Develop a Tenant Relocation Assistance Program
b. Improve and Expand Tenant Resources and Services [including resources for
unsheltered individuals in need of housing]
c. Help Tenants Become Owners
2. Increase housing stability throughout the City by dedicating funding to:
a. Mitigate displacement
b. Serve renter households
c. Serve family households
d. Increase geographic equity
e. Increase physical accessibility
3. Provide affordable homeownership and wealth and equity building opportunities to a minimum
of 1,000 low-income households.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the Council support changing the annual distribution process for Funding Our Future
funds from the existing RFP-based selection process to one that is based on a competitive
application and is combined with annual HUD allocation process?
2. Does the Council agree with proposed eligible uses for Funding Our Future housing
program funds (see Section C, above): 1. Tenant Housing Assistance and 2. Equity and
Homeownership Assistance?
Item B3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 15, 2024
RE: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX REPORT
Proposed Tax Increase in 2025
MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer to the District’s Board of Trustees
December 19 meeting for a public hearing and action.
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: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:October 15, 2024
RE: MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX REPORT
Proposed Tax Increase in 2025
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District (SLCMAD) is reporting on its plan to increase property taxes for
Salt Lake City residents, intended to take effect in 2025. SLCMAD states that the tax increase is necessary due to
inflationary increases on supplies and mosquito abatement services, to fund the construction of new
infrastructure and facilities (Phase II), the acquisition of a helicopter for in-house aerial treatment applications,
and day-to-day operational expenses.
The increase would generate $1,370,667 in additional revenue for the District and is needed because the annual
“new growth” revenue has not kept pace with inflation. Although the percentage increase to the certified tax rate
is high, 19.7%, the impact to an average valued-residential property is $0.83 cents per month or $9.95 per year.
For businesses, the impact for each $1 million in value is $2.42 per month or $29.00 per year.
Current Proposed
2024 2025
Certified Tax Rate: 0.000147 0.000176 0.000029 19.7%
Total Tax Revenue 7,029,062 8,399,729 1,370,667 19.5%
Increase to Property Owners - ANNUAL
Residential Property -
Average Value of $623,900 50.44$ 60.39$ 9.95$ 19.7%Note: monthly increase is $0.83
Commercial Property -
Average Value of $1m 147.00$ 176.00$ 29.00$ 19.7%Note: monthly increase is $2.42
Difference
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing: October 15, 2024
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
The 2025 proposed budget that the District submitted is anticipating a relatively flat budget through the coming
fiscal year (calendar year 2025), because any property tax revenue from the increase would affect their 2026
fiscal year.
A few options for smaller increases to the certified tax rate were considered, but after additional review, the
Board supported the current proposal a larger increase. The proposed budget would also and recognize interest
income benefits from investing the money as well.
The Salt Lake City Council serves as the appointing Legislative body, which appoints members to the SLCMAD
Board. According to State Code, information is shared with the Council as the elected officials, but the Council’s
roles is not to make final policy or budget decisions for the District. Those decisions, along with its operations,
are made by SLCMAD Board of Trustees and staff.
Goal of the briefing: to fulfill requirements set forth by state law, which mandate that the Salt Lake City
Mosquito Abatement District inform the City Council of its intention to pursue a tax increase. State Code also
requires that the Council take an opportunity for public comment before proceeding with a public hearing and
vote by the District Board of Trustees.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Although the District has the authority to propose and execute property taxes, the Council may raise
some questions about timing. Several other tax increases are on the horizon from other taxing entities
(County, School, sales tax, etc.), and the Council has considered the impact of all these on property
owners.
2. The Council may ask about changes the District is making to operations, how the helicopter and other
purchases may affect their budget, including any efficiencies or cost-savings that could be realized.
3. The Council may ask for an update on construction plans, Phase II.
4. The Council could ask the District to expand on how it intends to notify Salt Lake City residents of its
proposed tax rate increase and opportunities for input.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed 2025 tax increase would provide SLCMAD with additional revenue to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of mosquito control efforts in Salt Lake City while keeping up with inflation. SLCMAD states that it
has experienced cost challenges due to inflation and double-digit increases in the consumer price index (CPI) at
a rate of 19.4%. While the city has experienced new growth, SLCMAD states that new growth has only captured a
6.63% increase in revenues over the last three years.
In addition to the challenges faced by rising costs, SLCMAD plans to boost its capabilities by expanding its
facilities and developing a new in-house aerial operation program. The expanded facilities would allow the
District to increase its surveillance and control programs, provide laboratory and field research capabilities, and
house its future aerial operations.
SLCMAD currently relies on contracted aerial services based out of Ogden Airport, which uses fixed-wing
aircraft for mosquito control operations. However, the District plans to transition to an in-house aerial program
by purchasing a helicopter and increasing unmanned aerial systems. SLCMAD expects this will provide the
District with greater control over treatment applications compared to that of fixed-wing aircraft, leading to more
targeted and effective mosquito control efforts which will reduce adult mosquito control applications.
Page | 4
The Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District (SLCMAD) is a Special Service District with its own mission,
bylaws, taxing status, and governing authority. Its board members are appointed by the City Council, and as a
non-elected Board, the Salt Lake City Council serves as its legislative body. The SLCMAD Board of Trustees is
responsible for overseeing the District’s budget, mission, and daily mosquito abatement activities related to
public health and nuisance hazards. It may also take all necessary and proper steps to exterminate of
mosquitoes, flies, crickets, grasshoppers, and other insects and to abate as nuisances all stagnant pools of water
or other breeding places.
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: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: October 15, 2024
RE: Title 16 Amendment related to the Airport
NEW INFORMATION
The proposed ordinance amendments are designed to outline Airport operations to be consistent with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, especially among legislative, administrative and
federal decision-making roles involved in the Airport. In April of 2023, the Council initially discussed
this item and requested re-evaluation of items moved into the Airport’s Rules and Regulations
document, and how to address items within legislative authority and oversight. Following the briefing,
staff worked with the Airport and Attorney’s Offices on updates to the ordinance to address that policy
direction.
Since this was last discussed, the Airport received feedback from members of the general aviation
community. Additionally, while updating the ordinance, Airport staff found some discrepancies
between the general city and airport parking fine. Proposed changes have been included in this draft
to address those issues.
The proposed parking fine change will require a new public hearing, which is on tonight’s consent
agenda to set the date of November 12th. The Council held a hearing on April 18, 2023, during its
initial review of the proposal; no one spoke during that first hearing.
Policy Questions
1)Legislative Authority & Oversight – based on requests from the Council, staff has
reviewed the transmittal to ensure that the Council’s role is clearly established without
minimizing the Airport’s ability to efficiently operate and make decisions. See page 2 for a list
of proposed edits that address the Council’s oversight role on topics such as conflicts with
Federal regulations, budgeting, service delivery, and overall City Policy priorities. Some items
may be sufficiently addressed and other may need additional edits – staff would appreciate the
Council’s review and direction on those items.
a)Does the Council find the changes made to ensure legislative oversight
have adequately addressed council concerns?
Item Schedule:
Briefing 1: April 4, 2023
Briefing 2: October 15, 2024
Public Hearing 1: April 18, 2023
Public Hearing 2: Nov 12, 2024
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
2
3
0
7
9
b)The Council may review the list beginning on page 2 to provide any
direction to staff and the Attorney’s office for further edits.
2)Airport staff found conflicting parking penalties between the airport and general city parking
regulation sections. Staff recommended implementing the fines from Chapter 16, which are
higher that what is currently charged.
a)Does the Council support charging higher parking fines? Since this is
technically an increase in the fines, does the Council support holding
another public hearing? See chart in Key Issues/Parking section below.
3)The Airport is a City enterprise fund, meaning it is financially self-sustaining with revenue
generated from airline and other fees.
a)The Council may wish to ask for clarification from the Administration, if
the Airport is subject to any impact fees that are established in that area of
the City? If not, would it be appropriate for the airport to be subject to any
impact fees established?
Key Changes
The transmittal letter notes the key changes include:
a. Removal of language regulated by the FAA, or that is operationally focused and managed
through the Department of Airport’s Rules and Regulations
b. Creation of a standalone Commercial Aeronautical Minimum Standards documents
c. Removal of the majority of ordinances regulating ground transportation businesses to
consolidate those regulations into one Chapter 5.71
d. General updates
e. Parking Penalty changes
Section A - Removal of Redundancies
o Sections controlled by the FAA are removed from city code
o Many sections removed from City code and placed in the Rules and Regulations and
Minimum Standards document. (see discussion in “Legislative Authority” below)
Section B – Creation of Commercial Aeronautical Minimum Standards
o Some sections removed from City code and Minimum Standards document is created.
Section C - Consolidation of Ground Transportation Ordinances into Chapter 5.71
o Language in title 16 that applies to ground transportation regulations are consolidated into
Chapter 5.71 – Ground Transportation.
Section D – General Updates
o Since Title 16 has not been update for years, many text cleanups are proposed, such as;
correction of airport names in the airport system, removal of outdated property boundaries
and removal of airline, cargo, and airline service provider fees language.
Section E - Parking Penalty Changes
o Staff found conflicting parking penalties between Chapter 12.56 Stopping, Standing And
Parking, and Chapter 16.64 violation, penalty and enforcement,
o The transmittal recommends removing Chapter 12.56 and keep the Airport parking
regulations in Chapter 16.
Page | 3
2
3
0
7
9
c) Additionally, they recommend implementing the penalty from Chapter 16, which are
higher that what is currently charged. They anticipate this will be a stronger deterrence for
illegal parking.
Current Penalty
(Chapter 12)
Proposed Penalty
(Chapter 16)
Parking in unauthorized areas $45 $200
Parking in violation of posted signs $38 $100
Legislative Authority and Role Clarified
At the April 2023 work session briefing, the Council ask for changes that would maintain the Council’s
legislative oversight of the Department of Airports without conflicting with FAA regulations. This
section highlights the proposed changes that would implement that policy direction.
Summary – the Council’s direction was to review any amendment that removes the Council’s
role as the oversight body on issues, especially related to budget and policy. This included:
o Federal regulations that may change and conflict with City Code
o Budget Authority
o Service Delivery
o City Policy Priorities
FAA Regulation Changes & Conflicts
o Airport director’s ability to expediently resolve conflicts:
Updating Rules and City Code - The purpose of proposed section 16.10.030
Authority to Adopt Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards, is to
clarify the role and authority of the Airport Director to make changes to this
section of City Code. According to the transmittal letter, currently, when
changes are made pursuant to federal regulations, updates need to be made to
Title 16.
To resolve this, the draft ordinance removes items that are found in
Federal regulations, from City code, and places them the Rules and
Regulations and Minimum Standards where they can be updated
without Council action.
The ordinance delegates this ability to the Airport Director as outlined in
16.10.030: Authority to Adopt Rules and Regulations and Minimum
Standards.
o Reporting to the Council: language (16.10.080) that the Airport director will review any
conflict with the City Attorney. The Council could request a memo to report on
these items so that the Council can be aware of the conflicting topics,
outcome, and, if desired, request a briefing.
Budget items
o Final adopted budget
Confirm that department-wide salaries are adjusted consistent with the City’s
annual adopted budget, and individual adjustments may be handled as needed
considering the Airport’s unique comparison market.
Page | 4
2
3
0
7
9
i) Fee setting – there is nothing proposed that would change the Council’s role in
approving all fees through the Consolidated Fee Schedule.
ii) Other fees, such as administrative fees, impact fees, payment in lieu of taxes
(PILOT) - nothing changes how these are handled, but the Council could
schedule a separate briefing to review these fee categories.
o Financial Audits
o Proposed: Section 16.10.030 includes language that specifically provides that the
Director’s authority is subject to the City Council’s budget authority.
The Council could include additional language that would further
clarify that all Airport operations, whether in rules or FAA
regulations, are executed within the properly adopted budget and
consistent with the citywide policy decision and require additional
Council review and approval if changes are needed.
The Council may also wish to ask staff to identify whether there is
any clarification that would be appropriate in Title 2 of City Code, as
part of the Council staff’s separate project.
Service Delivery – in the past, there have been conversations about services provided at the
Airport, such as ADA assistance.
o The Council could request further clarification on whether the Council’s
role in those discussions is adequately established in the proposed
ordinance, and/or whether the Council’s ability to establish broad policy
direction on such topics belongs in another section of City Code.
o The Council could also ask that customer service survey results be shared
on an ongoing basis.
Citywide Policy priorities – the Council may want to review this Title or Title 2 for
opportunities to clarify the broad policy setting role they hold, including any
clarification about how decisions are made in light of environmental issues,
transit, and lobbying efforts on legislative or other topics.
The following information was provided for the April 4, 2023, work session briefing.
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Administration proposes updates to the Salt Lake City Code Chapter 16, which regulates the
Airport.
The proposed update includes changes in the following categories:
a) removal of sections separately addressed by Federal regulations,
b) merging ground transportation regulations into Chapter 5.71 of City Code,
c) utilizing a separate document to cover minimum standards for “commercial aeronautics”, and
d) general updates.
The changes take a number specific regulations listed in the existing ordinance and relocate them to
an Administrative Rules & Regulations document, which is referenced in the existing and amended
ordinance. Moving or consolidating these items to a separate document is described as consistent with
industry best practices, and makes updates and consistency easier.
The proposed ordinance amendment is being reviewed by the Council, because the amendments will
shift some regulations and authority out of a Council-adopted ordinance and rely solely on an
Administrative rules document. Many of the proposed amendments seem reasonable for
consolidation purposes, “housekeeping” type of improvements, and to remove items that are more
Page | 5
2
3
0
7
9
operational in nature and should not be referenced in the Code. However, the Council may prefer to
review the list of changes more closely (from categories c and d especially), because there may be a
smaller list of items that are proposed for removal from the Code that should remain in the ordinance
and with a step of Legislative oversight.
KEY ITEMS
The existing chapter is proposed for total repeal, and replacement with the amendment. For this
reason, every part of the ordinance is being removed and rewritten.
In categories ‘c’ and ‘d’ of the proposal, some regulation items in ordinance would either be eliminated
or shifted to the administrative document. Many of these are already delegations in the existing Code
to the Airport Director (so that delegation would shift, or the specific carve out would be eliminated
altogether). Some examples:
process for event permitting (freedom of expression permits) – the existing ordinance includes
a reference to the administrative Rules & Regulations document, and the proposed ordinance
amendment would remove the reference.
the existing Code includes specific references to solicitation of charitable contributions for
religious, political or other activity. The proposed update would include removing this specific
regulation from the ordinance and replacing it with a blanket delegation that instead refers to
the existing and updated list in the Department’s Rules & Regulations document.
removing “minimum standards” and technical and regulatory language from the Code. The
regulations are covered in other sources such as federal aviation requirements. The minimum
standards involve commercial requirements for operators using the Airport for commercial
activity. These standards are outlined at length in the last two sections of the administrative
transmittal.
removes entirely the minimum standards language from the ordinance, and places it in these
administrative documents shown in the transmittal. These standards have to do with
commercial aviation operators, airlines and others doing business at the Airport.
the ordinance currently delegates to the Director the power for “policing and protection” of the
public to guarantee safety at the Airport. The update proposal instead references the
administrative rules which say the Department or an authorized law enforcement agency can
remove people from the Airport if they are not complying with rules. (This may be an example
of an item that should retain a Legislative role and remain in the ordinance.)
Provisions related to ground transportation permits and fees are proposed to be removed because 1)
they occur in the City’s section of Code that regulates business fees and licensing or 2) the rules appear
also in the administrative document. Where the rules are in the administrative document the update
would eliminate them from the existing Airport Code and rely instead on the document. The
ordinance expressly allows the Director to set these and other fees.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1) Based on the four categories of changes, the Council may wish to provide direction further
conversation and review.
Page | 6
2
3
0
7
9
d) For items that have included either a reference or full process in City Code, and are proposed
for removal – is the Council supportive of the amendments or would a more thorough review
be preferred? Would the Council like to discuss the value of leaving any set of these regulations
in ordinance rather than fully delegating them to the department?
e) For proposed changes related to consolidating ground transportation regulations into another
section of Code, does the Council have any questions or concerns?
f) For proposed changes to remove Airport operations that are governed by federal regulations,
does the Council have any questions or concerns?
2) The existing ordinance outlines the Director’s role in setting some fees, however the Council does
review and adopt the Consolidated Fee Schedule where these fees are located. This practice would
be maintained in the proposed ordinance amendments. For any proposed amendments related to
fee-setting authority (either within ground transportation or otherwise), would the Council like to
review those?
3) Existing Code includes a section, like a preamble, to the Airport chapter. That introductory policy
statement is pasted below for your reference, but is proposed to be eliminated in the amended
ordinance. Would the Council like to discuss maintaining this previous policy language or
something similar in the proposed ordinance?
“The city council finds that:
A.Aircraft transportation of all kinds is rapidly accelerating and expanding in all its fields and
requires and will require increasingly larger areas for landing facilities, terminal facilities,
warehouse facilities, hangar and other facilities to accommodate such transportation;
B. Salt Lake City International Airport and Airport II are situated in the center of the great
intermountain west, and as such will attract and serve an ever expanding aircraft
transportation system and efforts are being made to increase the number of airlines using said
airports;
C. In order to meet the needs of the aircraft industry using such airports, it is necessary that
immediate steps be taken to enlarge the airports and their facilities;
D. It is necessary that the city make plans for the enlargement of the airports to provide the
necessary accommodations and to protect the air space needed therefor;
E. It is further necessary to adopt a master plan which will define and fix the exterior
boundaries of the area necessary for the orderly and convenient expansion of such airport
facilities in order to keep abreast of the needs and requirements of the air transportation
industry which the airports should and will serve. (Ord. 88-86 § 12, 1986: prior code § 2-17-1)”
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Airport Director role: The proposed update lists the amended powers of the Airport Director,
including the following:
adopt rules and regulations, as well as standards for any commercial activity (aeronautical and
non-aeronautical)
“regulate the development, construction, use, occupancy, management, security, control,
operation, care, repair and maintenance of all the land, structures and facilities within the
airport system”
“establish reasonable time, place and manner guidelines for the exercise of First Amendment
rights”
“regulate the operation of passenger and vehicle traffic, ground transportation”
Page | 7
2
3
0
7
9
“establish and set rates, fees and charges as shall be necessary to meet the needs for operating
the airport system”
any other purpose approved by the Mayor.
Fees: The ordinance currently outlines formulas for many air carrier fees that are instead now posted
in the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). The Rules and Regulations document also refers to the
Airport section of the consolidated fee schedule. The change would consolidate the setting of the fee to
the rules document and the CFS.
Waivers: The proposed update also maintains language from the existing chapter that allows the
Airport Director to waive certain requirements and regulations with permission from the Mayor and
notice to the Council, under a range of circumstances listed in the amendment.
Other items:
The existing and amended ordinance spell out that by using the Airport, users are bound by the rules
and regulation laid out in that separate document.
The ordinance currently prohibits disclosure of confidential information related to Airport facility
access. The update would instead refer to the Administrative Rules & Regulations document, which
has a section on security and access control with more detail than the ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Administrative Transmittal
2.Administrative Rules & Regulations Document
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Victoria Petro, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on October 15, 2024 in a hybrid
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 anindividual;
§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 andPublic 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
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic 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: : Electronic 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
X
X X
Victoria Petro (Oct 23, 2024 14:21 MDT)
Oct 23, 2024
Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting - October
15, 2024
Final Audit Report 2024-10-23
Created:2024-10-21
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA_PpJ26fxJkyIVI1rKbqvmTB0Ry-0VGBX
"Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting - October 15, 2024" Histor
y
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2024-10-21 - 10:21:21 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slc.gov for signature
2024-10-21 - 10:22:17 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slc.gov
2024-10-21 - 10:25:59 PM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slc.gov entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-10-23 - 8:21:56 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2024-10-23 - 8:21:58 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-10-23 - 8:21:58 PM GMT