HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2025 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
January 7, 2025 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Victoria Petro
District 1
Alejandro Puy
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 09:18:16
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session and formal meeting minutes of October
15, 2024 and November 12, 2024.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items B1 & B2 will be heard as one public hearing.
1. Grant Application: Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Sustainability Department to the Environmental Protection Agency. If awarded, the grant
would fund the asbestos remediation portion of the Northwest Pipeline building
rehabilitation.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
2. Grant Application: My Brothers Keeper Accelerator Communities
Cohort Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Community and Neighborhoods Department to the Obama Foundation. If awarded, the
grant would fund a pilot program called ‘My Brother’s Keeper’ in an effort to increase
high school graduation rates for boys and young men of color (BYMOC). Efforts will
include student navigator support, outreach/communications,
translation/interpretation, travel, background checks, events, meetings and trainings,
and student/advocate stipends/incentives.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 333 West 700 South
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning map for a portion of the property located at approximately 333
West 700 South. The property is currently “split-zoned” with one portion zoned CG
(General Commercial) and the other zoned D-2 (Downtown Support). The request is to
rezone the CG portion to D-2, so the entire parcel is within one zoning designation. The
project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: TAG SLC, representing the property
owner, Bestway Investors, LLC. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00923.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/333W700SRezone.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 238 South Concord Street and 1255
West Pierpont Avenue
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that
would amend the zoning of the properties at approximately 238 South Concord Street
and 1255 West Pierpont Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to
RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The stated intent of the
proposed amendment is to build five to seven family-sized units on the property. The
combined properties contain 0.25 acres with one single-family home. The project is
within Council District 2. Petitioner: Anthony Wright, the property owner. Petition
No.:PLNPCM2024-00389.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. Ordinance: Northpoint Light Industrial Zoning Text Amendment
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance 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.
Petition No.:PLNPCM2024-00333.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 3, 2024; Tuesday, October 15, 2024; and Tuesday,
December 10, 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 - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1. Motion: Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2025
The Council will consider a motion to ratify the election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Salt Lake City Council for calendar year 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
2. Advice and Consent: Chief Human Resources Officer - David Buchanan
The Council will consider approving the appointment of David Buchanan as the Chief
Human Resources Officer.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
3. Advice and Consent: Director of the Community and Neighborhoods
Department - Tammy Hunsaker
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Tammy Hunsaker as the
Director of the Community and Neighborhoods Department.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
4. Legislative Action: Height Restrictions Hedges and Fences
The Council will consider adopting a legislative action that would initiate a zoning
petition for City staff to research and draft an ordinance that would update the Salt Lake
City Code to increase the maximum hedge height to 6 feet (currently 4 feet) in the front
and side yards in front of the primary façade. The request arises from residents' concerns
about the current code, which may unintentionally limit safety, privacy, and functionality
for properties incorporating ADUs or pursuing higher-density living solutions. In
addition, the maximum height of a fence, wall, or hedge located behind the primary
façade would be increased to 7 feet (currently 6 feet).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Ordinance: Campaign Finance Amendments
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Chapters 2.46 and
2.68 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to campaign finance disclosures and City
elections. The proposal would remove the political action committee and political interest
committee reporting components and other housekeeping items, including definitions,
removal of specific contribution limits mentioned in the code, and declaration
clarifications.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Resolution: Council Compensation Change
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would amend the Salt Lake City
Code 2.06.070 pertaining to the City Council Annual Salary. The proposal would provide
leadership stipends on an annual basis, to the Chair and Vice Chair of both the Council
and the Redevelopment Agency.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/CouncilCompensation.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 27, 2024; Tuesday, September 10, 2024; and Tuesday,
November 12, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the budget for the
Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Budget amendments happen several times each
year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes re-appropriating $190,000 in the
Library’s FY25 budget from unused employee benefits to help pay for the Main Library
roof renovation project.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission – Nancy
Strahan
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Nancy Strahan to the
Accessibility and Disability Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
3. Board Reappointment: Art Design Board – Michael Mejia
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Michael Mejia to the Art
Design Board for a term ending January 7, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
4. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Lisia Santini
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Lisia Santini to the Racial
Equity in Policing Commission Board for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5. Board Reappointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission – Amy
Carmen
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Amy Carmen to the
Accessibility and Disability Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Reappointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission – Pamela
Mower
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Pamela Mower to the
Accessibility and Disability Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
7. Board Reappointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission – Leah
Lobato
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Leah Lobato to the
Accessibility and Disability Commission for a term ending December 28, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 2, 2025, 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.
Item B1 & B2
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-2 to a future
Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: January 7, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
January 7, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
& and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested
By
1.No None EPA Brownfields
Grant
To provide asbestos
remediation and
construction at
Northwest Pipeline Bldg.
Site at 315 East 200
South) Note:
Remediation will take
place only on the portion
of asbestos disturbed by
the renovation. See the
Administration’s response
below in 1.b.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $3,385,728 EPA
(Environ-
mental
Protection
Agency
Sustainability
2.Yes: $44,100
Source:
(waiting for
response from
Admin.)
2 FTEs and 1
part-time
Navigators
My Brothers Keeper
Grant
To implement a pilot
program including
support and resources to
elevate the graduation
rate for boys and young
men of color (BYMOC) at
East High School.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $200,000 The Obama
Foundation
Community &
Neighborhoods
The following information provided by the Administration in response to Council Staff’s questions:
1. EPA Brownfields Grant – Northwest Pipeline Bldg. Site at 315 East 200 South
Questions:
a) What are the estimated start and completion times for this project?
Here are some important milestones related to this grant.
May 2025 - Award notification is expected
June 15, 2025 - Updated asbestos survey has to be completed by June 15, 2025. This task is not included in the grant and will
be paid for by the Housing Authority.
Fall/Winter 2025 – Estimated timeframe to finalize cooperative grant agreement
Winter 2025/Spring 2026 – Procurement process for hiring an environmental consultant to manage remediation efforts and
assist with grant management
Spring/Summer 2026 – Estimated timeframe to start asbestos abatement
Early 2027 – Estimated completion of asbestos abatement
Grant has a 4-year period of performance
b) Please provide details/description of the construction and which part of the building it relates to.
Asbestos containing material (ACM) is found throughout the building, but only the ACM disturbed by the renovation will be removed.
The environmental consultant will work with the architects to prepare plans and specifications for asbestos abatement based on the
renovation plan. In general, asbestos is found in the drywall, plaster/lathe, and thermal pipe insulation, spray-on fireproofing, and other
materials.
c) Does the Administration anticipate proposing additional budget requests for redeveloping the property in partnership with
the selected private development team? If yes, then are funding gap estimates available to share with the Council?
There are no additional budget requests related to asbestos abatement for this project. However, the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality has abatement standards that will have to be met. A certified abatement professional prepared the cost estimate
in the grant application, taking into account these standards and input from the project’s architects. Final project costs will be
determined by the abatement bids that will be obtained after the grant is awarded but before construction. While it is not expected that
City funding will be required, the City may be required to fill any financial gap that may arise. Of note, abatement is expected to occur
when the building is still under the City’s ownership, but with contracts in place for the redevelopment of the property by the
development team that was selected through the 2024 RFP process (Housing Authority and Xylem Properties). If additional budget is
needed to complete the abatement, CAN will work with Finance to bring a budget request forward to the City Council and/or structure
a way for the financial obligation to be placed on the development team.
In regard to additional budget requests to redevelop the property, CAN is preparing to bring a public benefits analysis to the Council
for consideration of a discount on fair market value of the property. The redevelopment of the project includes not only the historic
Northwest Pipeline Building, but also the development of new buildings on the surrounding property. Additional City participation will
be required to ensure the financial viability of the project with the significant amount of affordable housing and other public benefits
currently proposed.
2) My Brother’s Keeper Accelerator Communities Cohort Grant Program (East High)
Questions:
a. Please say more about the Navigator Initiative.
For instance, how many student navigators will be assisting the BYMOC students at East High?
The grant funding for this program at East High will provide two full-time equivalent (FTE) student navigators and one part-
time navigator. This team will work collaboratively to provide consistent, individualized support to BYMOC students,
complementing the efforts of the five existing FTE staff members at East High School.
b. Is this a full-time or part-time capacity for the student navigators?
As noted, two navigators will be full-time employees, dedicating their efforts entirely to the initiative. The part-time navigator will
provide additional support, helping to address specific needs or gaps in service.
c. Will the student navigators help BYMOC East High students only, or will they also provide support at intermediate or
elementary schools?
At this stage, the focus of the navigators will primarily be on BYMOC students at East High School. However, we are committed to
developing a collaborative infrastructure that aligns with broader community needs. Future iterations of the program may expand
to include support for younger students at intermediate or elementary schools.
d.b) What is “MBK backbone support” from the City listed as the local match of $44,100?
The "MBK backbone support" listed as the local match of $44,100 represents an estimated figure intended to sustain the
implementation of the Navigator Initiative and other MBK efforts over three years. This funding is allocated to essential
activities, including:
Facilitating meetings to coordinate efforts and align stakeholders.
Providing and maintaining data infrastructure to track student progress, attendance, and outcomes, ensuring timely and
effective interventions.
Supporting communication and collaboration among schools, community partners, and local government to create a cohesive
support network for BYMOC.
It’s important to note that the $44,100 is an approximate figure, reflecting projected costs associated with these activities. This
backbone support is critical to ensuring the initiative operates efficiently and achieves its objectives by addressing both immediate
needs and long-term goals.
Item B1 & B2
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 and B-2 to a future
Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: January 7, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
January 7, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
& and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested
By
1.No None EPA Brownfields
Grant
To provide asbestos
remediation and
construction at
Northwest Pipeline Bldg.
Site at 315 East 200
South) Note:
Remediation will take
place only on the portion
of asbestos disturbed by
the renovation. See the
Administration’s response
below in 1.b.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $3,385,728 EPA
(Environ-
mental
Protection
Agency
Sustainability
2.Yes: $44,100
Source:
(waiting for
response from
Admin.)
2 FTEs and 1
part-time
Navigators
My Brothers Keeper
Grant
To implement a pilot
program including
support and resources to
elevate the graduation
rate for boys and young
men of color (BYMOC) at
East High School.
Needs
Public
Hearing
No $200,000 The Obama
Foundation
Community &
Neighborhoods
The following information provided by the Administration in response to Council Staff’s questions:
1. EPA Brownfields Grant – Northwest Pipeline Bldg. Site at 315 East 200 South
Questions:
a) What are the estimated start and completion times for this project?
Here are some important milestones related to this grant.
May 2025 - Award notification is expected
June 15, 2025 - Updated asbestos survey has to be completed by June 15, 2025. This task is not included in the grant and will
be paid for by the Housing Authority.
Fall/Winter 2025 – Estimated timeframe to finalize cooperative grant agreement
Winter 2025/Spring 2026 – Procurement process for hiring an environmental consultant to manage remediation efforts and
assist with grant management
Spring/Summer 2026 – Estimated timeframe to start asbestos abatement
Early 2027 – Estimated completion of asbestos abatement
Grant has a 4-year period of performance
b) Please provide details/description of the construction and which part of the building it relates to.
Asbestos containing material (ACM) is found throughout the building, but only the ACM disturbed by the renovation will be removed.
The environmental consultant will work with the architects to prepare plans and specifications for asbestos abatement based on the
renovation plan. In general, asbestos is found in the drywall, plaster/lathe, and thermal pipe insulation, spray-on fireproofing, and other
materials.
c) Does the Administration anticipate proposing additional budget requests for redeveloping the property in partnership with
the selected private development team? If yes, then are funding gap estimates available to share with the Council?
There are no additional budget requests related to asbestos abatement for this project. However, the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality has abatement standards that will have to be met. A certified abatement professional prepared the cost estimate
in the grant application, taking into account these standards and input from the project’s architects. Final project costs will be
determined by the abatement bids that will be obtained after the grant is awarded but before construction. While it is not expected that
City funding will be required, the City may be required to fill any financial gap that may arise. Of note, abatement is expected to occur
when the building is still under the City’s ownership, but with contracts in place for the redevelopment of the property by the
development team that was selected through the 2024 RFP process (Housing Authority and Xylem Properties). If additional budget is
needed to complete the abatement, CAN will work with Finance to bring a budget request forward to the City Council and/or structure
a way for the financial obligation to be placed on the development team.
In regard to additional budget requests to redevelop the property, CAN is preparing to bring a public benefits analysis to the Council
for consideration of a discount on fair market value of the property. The redevelopment of the project includes not only the historic
Northwest Pipeline Building, but also the development of new buildings on the surrounding property. Additional City participation will
be required to ensure the financial viability of the project with the significant amount of affordable housing and other public benefits
currently proposed.
2) My Brother’s Keeper Accelerator Communities Cohort Grant Program (East High)
Questions:
a. Please say more about the Navigator Initiative.
For instance, how many student navigators will be assisting the BYMOC students at East High?
The grant funding for this program at East High will provide two full-time equivalent (FTE) student navigators and one part-
time navigator. This team will work collaboratively to provide consistent, individualized support to BYMOC students,
complementing the efforts of the five existing FTE staff members at East High School.
b. Is this a full-time or part-time capacity for the student navigators?
As noted, two navigators will be full-time employees, dedicating their efforts entirely to the initiative. The part-time navigator will
provide additional support, helping to address specific needs or gaps in service.
c. Will the student navigators help BYMOC East High students only, or will they also provide support at intermediate or
elementary schools?
At this stage, the focus of the navigators will primarily be on BYMOC students at East High School. However, we are committed to
developing a collaborative infrastructure that aligns with broader community needs. Future iterations of the program may expand
to include support for younger students at intermediate or elementary schools.
d.b) What is “MBK backbone support” from the City listed as the local match of $44,100?
The "MBK backbone support" listed as the local match of $44,100 represents an estimated figure intended to sustain the
implementation of the Navigator Initiative and other MBK efforts over three years. This funding is allocated to essential
activities, including:
Facilitating meetings to coordinate efforts and align stakeholders.
Providing and maintaining data infrastructure to track student progress, attendance, and outcomes, ensuring timely and
effective interventions.
Supporting communication and collaboration among schools, community partners, and local government to create a cohesive
support network for BYMOC.
It’s important to note that the $44,100 is an approximate figure, reflecting projected costs associated with these activities. This
backbone support is critical to ensuring the initiative operates efficiently and achieves its objectives by addressing both immediate
needs and long-term goals.
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: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 333 West 700 South
PLNPCM2023-00923
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 333 West 700 South
PLNPCM2023-00923
BRIEFING UPDATE
Council Members did not have any questions or express concerns with the proposal during the November
19, 2024 briefing.
The following information was provided for November 19, 2024 Council meeting. It is
included again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for a portion of the approximately
half acre parcel at 333 West 700 South in Council District Four. The property is currently “split-zoned”
with approximately 0.37 acres zoned CG (General Commercial) and the remaining 0.14 acres zoned D-2
(Downtown Support). The request is to rezone the CG portion to D-2, so the entire parcel is within one
zoning designation, indicated in the following image.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: November 19, 2024
Set Date: December 3, 2024
Public Hearing: January 7, 2025
Potential Action: January 21, 2025
Page | 2
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
No development plans have been submitted to date, but potential future development will be simplified
with one zoning designation for the property. An art studio, and a business that designs and fabricates
museum exhibits currently occupy the site’s existing building.
As shown in the map below, area zoning is primarily D-2 fronting the west side of 300 West, Kilby Court,
and portions of 700 South. CG zoning is found on 700 South west of the subject property. FB-UN2 (Form
Based Urban Neighborhood) is to the south and east of the property. The Fleet Block is located on the block
to the south.
Area zoning map with subject parcel highlighted in blue.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its February 14, 2024 meeting and held a public
hearing at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if housing is planned for the site. If so, would they be
willing to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject site and enter
into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units?
Page | 3
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Affordable Housing Incentives may
impact this petition or development potential on the property.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-6 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – Compliance with City Goals, Policies, and General Plans
Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports several initiatives in Plan Salt
Lake (2015) including Growth, Housing, Transportation & Mobility, Air Quality, and Beautiful City. In
addition, the (2016) Downtown Plan calls for more residential development in this portion of the Granary
District, though as noted above, no development plans have been submitted to date.
Consideration 2 – CG vs. D-2 Zoning District Comparison
As previously mentioned, and shown in the zoning map above, area zoning is primarily CG and D-2. Both
allow for mid-rise development consistent with the Downtown Plan.
Attachment D (pages 18-21) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the zoning
districts. A portion of the table is included below. For additional information please see the staff report.
CG (Current)D-2 (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 75 feet (up to 105 feet with
design review and outdoor
usable space)
65 feet (up to 120 feet with
design review)
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet None
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet None
Minimum Front Yard 5 feet None
Minimum Rear Yard 10 feet None
Landscape Yard 5 feet 10 feet (for areas not occupied
by a structure)
Design Standards
Durable Building Materials:
ground floor
70%80%
Durable Building Materials: -50%
Page | 4
upper floors
Glass: upper floors 25%50%
Reflective Glass: upper
floors
40%50%
Lighting: exterior -X
Screening of Mechanical
Equipment
-X
Parking garages or
structures
-X
Height transitions: angular
plane for adjacent buildings
-X
Horizontal articulation -X
Parking
Minimum and maximum
off-street parking
General Context Urban Center Context
Parking location and
setbacks
Parking prohibited between
lot line and building.
Parking prohibited between lot
line and building. Surface
parking must be located behind
the principal structure.
Consideration 3 – Neighborhood Analysis
Planning staff reviewed the property and proposed zoning map amendment by considering proximity to
current and planned amenities, infrastructure, and the historic district.
The property is close to the downtown central business district and area amenities such as Pioneer Park,
TRAX station, main library, Gateway, and Delta Center. Nearby potential future amenities include the
Green Loop project, Fleet Block, and possible TRAX line extensions.
It is not anticipated that future development at the site would result in significant additional demand for
infrastructure, though proposals will be reviewed to determine if upgrades are needed. The property
owners and developers would be required to upgrade offsite utilities if needed to ensure capacity is
sufficient to meet needs.
The property is within the Salt Lake City Warehouse National Historic District which does not require
preserving the building as a local historic district might. The National Register of Historic Places classified
the building as non-contributing, meaning it does not add to the historic significance of the district.
Analysis of Standards
Attachment E (pages 22-24) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
Page | 5
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Complies
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Some City public
facilities and services
may need to be
upgraded and
improved if the
density changes or if
land use changes to a
more intense use.
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• November 21, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• November 29, 2023-Petition assigned to Andy Hulka, Principal Planner.
• July 3, 2023-
o Notice sent to Granary District Alliance, Ballpark Community Council, and Downtown
Community Council.
o Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
• November 2023-January 2024-Online open house hosted to solicit public comments on the
proposal.
• February 2, 2024-
o Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on the property and mailed to
property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject properties.
Page | 6
o Notice of public hearing posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning
Division listserv.
• February 14, 2024- Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment.
• February 29, 2024-Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• March 11, 2024-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• March 26, 2024-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item B4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: 238 South Concord Street and 1255 West Pierpont Avenue Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00389
MOTION 1 (close and defer)
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 2 (close and adopt (if the Council would like to adopt tonight))
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (continue hearing)
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: 238 South Concord Street and 1255 West Pierpont Avenue Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2024-00389
BRIEFING UPDATE
During the November 19, 2024 briefing, a Council Member asked what price point for the proposed homes.
The applicant said it hasn’t been determined yet, but he wants to keep them affordable. No other Council
Members had any questions or expressed concerns.
The following information was provided for November 19, 2024 Council meeting. It is
included again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for abutting properties at 238 South
Concord Street and 1255 West Pierpont Avenue in City Council District Two from their current R-1/5,000
(single-family residential) zoning to RMF-30 (low-density multi-family residential). Combined, the
properties total approximately 0.25 acres.
A single-family home is on the Concord Street parcel which the owners stated they would like to retain.
However, the home’s foundation was damaged in the 2020 earthquake and repairs may be cost prohibitive.
In that case, the home would be removed as part of the site redevelopment. The Pierpont Avenue parcel is
vacant.
This proposed zoning map amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 14, 2024
meeting and a public hearing was held at which no one spoke. Planning staff recommended and the
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: November 19, 2024
Set Date: December 3, 2024
Public Hearing: January 7, 2025
Potential Action: January 21, 2025
Page | 2
As shown in the map below, area zoning is R-1/5,000 and predominantly single-family homes, though
there are several legal, non-conforming multi-family uses in the vicinity with R-1/5,000 zoning.
Area zoning map with the subject parcels outlined in blue.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant what the anticipated selling price of proposed units at
this site would be, depending on dwelling type.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Page | 4
Amending the zoning map as requested would increase development potential of the properties. Under
current R-1/5,000 zoning, a single-family home and a detached accessory dwelling unit could be built on
each of the subject parcels. The applicant’s stated objective is to construct five to seven family-sized for sale
units on the property. Smaller minimum lot sizes allowed under the proposed RMF-30 zoning would
accommodate a modest density increase and provide options for additional housing types such as attached
single-family, cottage, and tiny homes.
The subject zoning map amendment petition was deemed complete before the City Council adopted the
community benefit policy on March 5, 2024, so the petition is not subject to the new ordinance.
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-7 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1 – How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in
Adopted Plans
Planning staff reviewed how the proposal aligns with Plan Salt Lake and the Westside Master Plan. They
found that the proposed zoning map amendment supports initiatives in the plans that call for promoting
infill and redevelopment of underutilized land, increasing the number of medium-density housing types
and options, and enabling moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods, among others.
Consideration 2 – Neighborhood Context
When Interstate-80 was constructed, it divided neighborhoods, including Poplar Grove. Pierpont Avenue
was built parallel to the interstate, but no homes front on the street, and it appears to be a frontage road.
The applicant provided photographs showing broken vehicle windows, drug paraphernalia, and arson on
the land between the freeway and Pierpont Avenue. Their intent is to create a development that increases
activity on the street, and hopefully reduces unwanted activity. Smaller lot sizes noted above would allow
more housing units to front Pierpont Avenue than could be built under the current zone.
The nearby neighborhood node at 400 South and Concord Street provides access to grocery stores, a
restaurant, auto repair, and a laundromat that serve the surrounding community. In addition, the subject
properties are within walking distance of Sherwood Park, the Jordan River trail, Franklin Elementary
School, and the Lied Boys and Girls Club. Planning staff stated, “The small-scale nature of the RMF-30
district would allow a development that fits within the existing fabric of the community while providing
more diverse housing options for families.”
Consideration 3 – Development Potential Comparison R-1/5,000 vs RMF-30
As noted above, the main difference between the current and proposed zones is allowed use. With smaller
minimum lot sizes, a variety of housing types including tiny homes, twin homes, single-family attached,
and multi-family dwellings are permitted within RMF-30. As mentioned above, R-1/5,000 zoning would
allow a single-family home with a detached accessory dwelling unit on each parcel for a total of four units.
Design standards in the RMF-30 zoning district help ensure that new development is a similar scale and
compatible with existing the current low-density development pattern in the neighborhood.
Page | 5
Attachment D (pages 47-49) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the
zoning districts. It is replicated below for convenience.
R-1/5,000 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 28 feet 16 feet for tiny houses.
30 feet for all other structures.
Minimum Lot Size 5,000 square feet 1,500 square feet per unit for
cottages and tiny houses.
2,000 square feet per unit for
other residential uses.
5,000 square feet per unit for
non-residential uses.
Maximum Lot Size 7,500 square feet No maximum
Lot Width Minimum 50 feet No minimum
Lot Width Maximum No maximum 110 feet
Minimum Front Yard Average of block
face or 20 feet.
Average of block
face or 20 feet.
Minimum Corner Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet
Minimum Interior Side Yard Four feet on one side, and 10
feet on the other.
Single and two-family: four feet
on one side, and 10 feet on the
other.
Row houses: four feet.
Sideways row houses: six feet
on one side, and 10 feet on the
other.
Cottages and tiny homes: four
feet.
Multi-family structures: 10 feet.
Minimum Rear Yard 25% of lot depth or 20 feet.20% of lot depth, not to exceed
25 feet.
Maximum Dwelling Units
Per Form
-Eight multi-family units.
Page | 6
Eight cottage units (per
development)
Six row homes.
Landscape Yard -Front and corner side yards.
Landscape Buffers -10 feet for multi-family, row
house, and non-residential
uses.
Design Standards
Building Materials: Ground
Floor
-50%
Building Materials: Upper
Floors
-50%
Glass: Ground Floor -20%
Glass: Upper Floors -15%
Building Entrances -X
Blank Wall: Maximum
Length
-15 feet
Screening of Mechanical
Equipment
-X
Screening of Service Areas -X
Entry Features -X
Analysis of Standards
Attachment E (pages 50-52) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map 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 map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
Page | 7
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Complies
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal but stated additional review, permits, and utility upgrades would be required if the property is
developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April 3, 2024 – Application for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• April 18, 2024 – Petition assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner.
• April 23, 2024 –
o 45-day notice sent to recognized community organizations.
o Early notification announcement sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of
the project site.
• April 24, 2024 – Applicant presented the proposal to the Poplar Grove Community Council. No
comments or concerns were voiced by attendees. The community council is supportive of the
proposed zoning map amendment.
• April 29, 2024 – The proposal was posted for an online open house.
• June 18, 2024 – Public hearing notice posted on property.
• July 31, 2024 –
o Public hearing notice mailed and posted on City and State websites, and Planning Division
listserv.
o Public hearing notice mailed.
• August 14, 2024 – The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing.
The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of approval as
proposed.
• August 27, 2024 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• September 11, 2024 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• October 31, 2024 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Item C1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET – Text Amendment: Northpoint Light Industrial
(M-1A) Zoning District Petition PLMPCM2024- 00333
MOTION 1
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 2
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: Jan 7, 2025
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
Briefing 3: Dec 10, 2024
Set Date: Sept 3, 2024
Public Hearing: Oct 1, 2024
Potential Action: Jan 7, 2025
NEW INFORMATION
At the December 10 work session, the Council supported the changes to the Jordan River buffer presented
by the planning staff. No concerns or questions were raised.
Those changes have been incorporated into the final draft the Council will consider adopting on January 7.
The following information was provided for the December 10 work session briefing.
At the October 15 work session briefing, the Council did not support removing the 300’ buffer from the
code to be addressed in future development agreements. However, the Council did instruct staff to work
with the administration to come up with potential options for the council to consider about potential
additional allowed uses within the 300’ buffer. Based on that direction, Planning worked with Public
Utilities on the following option for the Council to consider.
The buffer from the River would be divided up into three sections from the annual high-water mark. The
permitted uses are outlined in the tables linked below or in Attachment A.
No Disturbance Area: 0-100 ft.
o No development at all
Page | 2
o Permitted uses are outlined in Area A of Table 21A.34.130-3 (Undeveloped lots)
Structure Limit Area: 100-200 ft
o Very minimal development, like trails, patios, and fencing, allowed.
o Permitted uses are outlined in Area B of Table 21A.34.130-2 (Developed lots)
Buffer Transition Area: 200-300 ft
o Changes to Area C of Riparian Corridor Overlay (RCO), which allows most uses in the
underlying zone as long as they follow all other requirements in the RCO zone
o Permitted uses are outlined in Area C of table 21A.34.130-2 (Developed lots)
Attachment C is the draft ordinance with the potential edits highlighted so they can easily be identified. It
shows the draft language for the buffer changes as well as the edits the Council previously approved:
adding painted texture concrete to the list of allowable building materials and clarifying maximum building
height in relation to the loading dock.
If the Council supports these changes, they will be included in the final draft for potential adoption on
December 10.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Some have raised a concern with the city’s ability to limit large distributors from building in this area. Staff
believes the design standards, such as maximum lot size and maximum length of blank walls, will
disincentivize the large-scale distributors from building within this zoning district.
Additionally, M-1A zoning permits Wholesale Distribution but not Distribution Centers. Both definitions,
see below, clarify that businesses can allocate part of their building for storage and distribution to
businesses or customers. However, this accessory distribution use must comply with specific requirements
in the code, including the stipulation that it be subordinate in area—meaning the space dedicated to this
use cannot exceed 50% of the total structure.
Wholesale Distribution (permitted in M-1A):
A business that maintains an inventory of materials, supplies and goods related to one or more
industries and sells bulk quantities of materials, supplies and goods from its inventory to
companies within the industry. A wholesale distributor is not a retail goods establishment. The
term "wholesale distribution" does not include accessory distribution that is subordinate and
incidental to a primary land use (e.g., manufacturing, industrial assembly, or other type of primary
commercial or industrial use).
Distribution Center (not permitted in M-1A):
A facility that is used for the receipt of products and the storage, separation, and distribution of
those products on an individual basis to individual end-user consumers. This includes e-commerce
activities. A distribution center is not a retail goods establishment. The term "distribution center"
does not include accessory distribution that is subordinate and incidental to a primary land use
(e.g., manufacturing, industrial assembly, or other type of primary commercial or industrial use).
The following information was provided for the October 15 work session briefing.
WORK SESSION SUMMARY -OCTOBER 15
Page | 4
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.
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
Page | 5
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.
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.
Page | 6
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
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
Page | 7
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
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
Page | 8
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:
Jordan River Buffer
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
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’.
Page | 9
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
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.
Page | 10
Maximum Building Footprint
Electric Vehicle
Parking
Sustainable Roof
Designation of
Natural Open Space
Public Amenities:
Stormwater
All electric property
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.
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
o 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
Page | 11
text amendment aligns with the goals and vision of the newly adopted Northpoint Small
Area plan.
1. 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.
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.”
Page | 12
o Response: Planning staff recommends that request is better addressed in the Riparian
Corridor overlay amendments Public Utilities will bring forward.
Item F4
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: Legislative Action Related to Hedge and Fence Heights
MOTION 1 (legislative action)
I move that we pass a legislative action that would initiate a zoning petition for City staff to
research and draft an ordinance that would update Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence and
hedge heights. The amendments would include:
increasing the maximum allowed hedge height to 6 feet along side yard property lines in
front of the primary structure’s primary façade, exclusive of defined clear view standards.
increasing the maximum height of a fence, wall, or hedge located behind the primary
structure’s primary façade to 7 feet.
Item F1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: Campaign Finance Amendments
MOTION 1 – ADOPT THE ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending chapters 2.46 and 2.68 of Salt Lake City Code relating to
campaign finance disclosures and city elections.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
Item F2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Council Director
DATE:January 7, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET – Resolution: Council Compensation Change
MOTION 1
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 2
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/11/2024 7:24 Sara F Taggart Ranked Choice Voting Thank you for approving use of ranked-choice voting for the 2025 municipal election. I’d love to see ranked-choice
voting in most elections someday!
12/11/2024 16:39 Laurel Hiatt Dec 10 City Council Comments Dear City Council, My name is Laurel Hiatt, and I have been a resident of District 4 for four years, and Salt Lake City
for about six years. I wanted to write today regarding Gov. Cox's announcement that he will support the incoming
Presidential Administration's plans to escalate deportations. In the two weeks since this baffling social media
statement, there has been no response from the mayor or the city council of Salt Lake, which as our Capitol city
has significant political capital and standing. I want to add my voice to those making the demand that the City
Council make a public statement of support for Salt Lake City’s undocumented community members and
denounce Gov. Cox's hostile rhetoric and unsubstantiated policies. Immigrants make up much of the essential
infrastructure of our city, and to deny them their humanity while profiting from their labor is not an acceptable
stance. We can make it clear where Salt Lake City stands now, so that we can live true to our word when the time
comes. Thank you.
12/11/2024 16:41 James Miska Dec. 10th meeting comment; Please support
undocumented residents!
Hello City Council, My name is James Miska, I'm a resident of District 4. I'm a homeowner and small tourism
business owner in Salt Lake. I feel strongly to write to you in lieu of being present tonight at the Council meeting,
December 10th at 7 pm. I want to urge the City Council to make a unified public statement in support of the
undocumented, non-U.S.-citizen residents of our city. I want so badly for the Council to collaborate with the
people here, with your community. This is what we, the people, want. We have thousands upon thousands of
neighbors and friends among our population in this city who need, and who will need, fortified support in the
coming weeks/months/years of the upcoming presidential administration. This is very much a local issue, though it
is talked about upon a national stage. This is very much a humanitarian issue because you all can help ensure the
well-being, and the continued well-being, of these targeted peoples. These people are not just a labor force; they
are invaluable folks who deserve to be here on this land as much as any of us do, even though they may not
currently hold the specific title of "U.S. citizen". It is imperative and powerful that Salt Lake City Council and Mayor
Mendenhall make a joint statement; that they will: A) not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
B) ensure that the SLC Police Department will not cooperate with Federal Immigration Agents. C) actively use their
ability to direct resources to help shield, shelter and protect undocumented residents of our city. Please rally
together and do this immediately. The sooner the better. Salt Lake City can lead the vanguard of other City
Council's who may wish to rally to do the same courageous work. Please set an example of how great a U.S. city
can truly be, and what true leadership can look like. Thank you, James Miska SaltLakeBicycleTours.com
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/13/2024 10:06 Nedra Carroll Act Now to Fight Climate Change Climate change is already being felt by every community across the country–from intense heat waves and flooding
to extreme storms and uncontrollable wildfires. The climate crisis is putting the health and safety of our families
and the survival of our local wildlife at risk. It’s time to invest in climate solutions so our community can fight for
our future and develop resilience to climate change’s impacts. In recent years Congress passed historic climate
legislation including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act that makes federal funding
available for every state down to the local level. This funding can be used to invest in local clean energy projects
that will create jobs and lower energy costs while making our air and water cleaner and reducing climate-altering
pollution. This funding can also be used to build local climate resilience and reduce carbon in our atmosphere
through natural climate solutions. Restoring carbon-storing habitats like prairies and forests removes carbon from
the air and creates wildlife habitat, re-establishing wetlands and floodplains can protect communities from
flooding and improve our water quality, and installing green infrastructure and green spaces in cities helps clean
the air while creating recreational spaces for people and fighting climate change. Similarly, investing in renewable
energy, battery storage, and electrification can keep jobs in-state while making businesses more efficient and
drastically reducing planet-warming emissions. Later is too late – we must use the funding at our disposal to act on
climate for our wildlife, water, air, and future generations. Sincerely, Nedra Carroll
12/13/2024 12:00 Cindy Cromer Urban Meyer contributes to the Title 18
discussion
Council Members-It is obvious that the current fee schedule provides no punishment for owners who fail to take
care of their properties. Urban Meyer, yes former Utah Coach Urban Meyer, made some relevant comments after
the recent flag planting episode, suggesting that $100,000 is not a deterent in Big 10 football. Coach Meyer said.
"The money, $100,000, where does that money go? I always crack up about that, oh it’s a $100,000 fine? Ok, it’s
$100,000 fine. OK, Big Ten conference, tell me exactly where that $100,000 goes and who cares? That’s not going
to deter anybody." There's a video embedded in the link worth listening to, The Triple Option. (Coach Meyer still
looks dapper!) Urban Meyer Proposes Drastic New Punishment for Teams in Flag-Planting Skirmishes
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/urban-meyer-proposes-drastic-new-punishment-for-teams-in-flag-
planting-skirmishes/ar-
AA1vkZp4?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=2af2e7817b9a47bc8d4d051f4c9b2bbd&ei=67
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/27/2024 9:19 Bernie Hart Rules are rules...Wayne, My Rules. No one joins us when the program is running or interacts with the folks we work with while we are
doing our thing without talking to me first. We function in public spaces and anyone can join us and participate, but
if an organization tries to engage with people in the group without creating a formal relationship, they will have to
deal with the not so nice me. The Ambassadors stopped by yesterday on Main Street and joined us in the middle of
a session. That's OK, but no one talked with me. I have tried to engage with the Ambassadors a number of times in
the past about creating a working relationship. My only request was that we work together and set up a way of
measuring outcomes. No one ever got back to me. Now here they are again. One of our people mentioned they
were talking to their therapist at Valley. It seems a number of our people are their clients. A number of their clients
were coming our way and I thought that developing a working relationship could help us both and the clients we
both serve. Nothing ... nothing. No one ever returned my calls. And now I hear that there is talk about Valley sending
clients... uninvited.. our way. Same with Odyssey House. And now I see a Corn Hole thing in front of First Step.
What is the saying about imitation being.... but the imitation is never as good as the original. Wayne, you all on the
Oversight Committee seem to want to blame Salt Lake City for not effectively dealing with the homeless... yet your
group, and the Downtown folks who seem to be well represented on the Board, just can't seem to walk the talk. The
Ambassadors are not gathering data and Scott Howell and members of the Downtown Alliance and his associates,
as well as members of the Oversight Group control the effort. Unless the Ambassadors want to walk the talk and
work with us... please keep them away. And before anyone blames Salt Lake City for anything... or moves the
problem you all could not deal with in Salt Lake into another community... it might be a good idea to start gathering
data on just about anything related to overall outcomes from programs working with the homeless. Rule No. 1. If
you want to join us, please be prepared to walk the talk and measure outcomes .... Bernie
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/27/2024 9:21 Christine Chastain 1/2 Marmalade - Zoning Merger comments Dear Mr. Barlow, Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I hope you had a lovely Christmas with family and
friends - happy new year! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed merger of the multi-
family zoning districts, which includes adjustments to minimum lot sizes, the removal of lot width and street
frontage requirements, allowances for multiple buildings on a property, unit bonuses, and other changes that
promote intensive development. While I understand the need for thoughtful urban planning to accommodate
growth, I have significant concerns regarding the long-term sustainability and impact of these proposed changes
on our community and specifically, the historic Marmalade district. Water and Environmental Sustainability Utah
is one of the driest states in the nation, and Salt Lake City is no exception. Our current water resources are already
under strain, and adding more residential units without clear strategies to secure sustainable water supplies
exacerbates this issue. Further, increased development contributes to ongoing environmental degradation,
including loss of open spaces and increased urban heat island effects. These cumulative impacts threaten the
ecological balance of our city. I would much rather see us tackling systemic issues that will allow for sustainable
growth in the future. Quality of Life Concerns The proposed changes do not adequately address critical quality-of-
life issues, such as: • Clean Air: Salt Lake City already struggles with poor air quality, particularly during inversion
periods. Increased density is likely to worsen this issue through higher traffic and energy consumption. • Parking
and Infrastructure: Allowing higher-density developments without sufficient parking requirements places undue
burden on existing residents and infrastructure, leading to congestion and reduced livability. We already have
significant issues with traffic patterns, speeding and related safety issues, even with recent traffic calming efforts.
• Historic Preservation: Our historic neighborhoods are a defining feature of Salt Lake City, characterized by
irregular lot sizes and architectural diversity. These areas offer a unique charm that distinguishes our city from the
"cookie-cutter" developments seen in other regions. Overdevelopment risks erasing this identity and undermines
the heritage we should strive to protect. • Affordable Housing: During my time at 554 N Wall Street, I have seen the
development in and around the neighborhood. Some of it is good e.g. local Marmalade library and some of it simply
unused. My strong feeling is that many of the 'affordable' housing units completed or currently under construction
aren't sold or filled. And if they are, many are rentals that I wouldn't consider affordable to the average person.
Many of the retail spaces have not been filled - in years. More development won't change that. Instead, I suggest
we care for what others have already done to uplift the neighborhood. I have renovated and cared for my property
and assisted elderly homeowners in upkeeping theirs only to see them have to sell when they retire or can no
longer afford taxes and upkeep.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/27/2024 9:21 Christine Chastain 2/2 CONTINUED!! Marmalade - Zoning Merger
comments
These are people whose homes often become multi-unit rentals that are on the higher side in terms of rent. My
point here is that we may want to consider affordable housing for our retired and elderly, many of whom live in their
childhood homes built by their pioneer ancestors or first Salt Lake City immigrants, rather than building yet more
"affordable" apartment complexes that are primarily rented, often with high turnover and lack of sustained,
consistent investment in our neighborhood. Preserving the Character of Salt Lake City Salt Lake City's appeal lies
in its balance of modern development and historic preservation. This balance fosters a sense of community and
individuality. By removing safeguards such as lot width and street frontage requirements, we risk losing this
distinct character in favor of unchecked uniformity. Development for its own sake, without regard for its impact on
history, aesthetics and livability, does not serve the public interest longer term. In conclusion, I urge the Planning
Commission to reconsider this proposal and prioritize a more balanced approach to zoning and development.
Thoughtful policies that preserve our city's historical character, address environmental sustainability, and ensure
quality of life for all residents must guide future decisions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be
happy to discuss my concerns further or provide additional input. Sincerely, Christine Chastain
12/27/2024 9:22 Akiva E Toren New Zoning Feedback Dear SLC Planning Division, I know looking at the timeline that is very late in the game, but I just got a mailed flier. I
think the consolidation of zoning makes sense, as does the encouragement of mixed use. I think that's better for
the city. If anything, I don't think enough of the city is being rezoned to mixed use--there's still a LOT of single-family
house zoning (is that R-1?). I live on the West Side in Rose Park, and it would be nice to have a more walkable
neighborhood. I'm excited about the road changes coming to 600/700 N, and think adding more to the potential for
mixed use along that street (and 1000 N) would be great! Those are my two cents, perhaps to be considered in the
future. All in all, this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for putting the work towards it, knowing the many
clamoring voices. Akiva Toren, District 1
1/3/2025 2:13 PM Bernie Hart I am still waiting ....Mayor Mendenhall and the Salt Lake City Council, I have one goal for the upcoming year... and that goal is to have
both the Council and or the Mayor's Office answer a very simple question: How effective are the programs we use
when we try to help the mentally ill and addicted chronically homeless folks living on our streets? If they do in fact
help people... how many people do they actually transition off our streets and into something better? When I stand
silently before you all at future Council Meetings, it will just be my way of reminding you all that no one has
answered my question. Sad, Bernie
1/3/2025 14:55 Steve SCOTT Water & Sewer Rate Stabilization Fees Steven Scott called and wanted to learn more about the reasoning behind the water and sewer rate stabilization
fees implemented by Public Utilities for FY25. He also wanted to make clear his opposition to the use of the
stabilization fees and does not want to see them become permanent if not necessary moving forward.
1/5/2025 12:07 Anonymous Constituent Hotel Vouchers?Hello, I just want to make light of some interesting things I noticed while being in the shelter system recently, and it
seems like a LOT of embezzlement is going on, like some of these shelters are pulling in multiple 8 figures and they
claim they have no resources, can't afford food?!, and are "Broke" certain things do not add up! also some of the
shelter staff at the road home based shelters steal donations for themselves and then turn around and yell at you (
the homeless) when you ask if they have either a blanket or a snack possibly because its been a day or so since you
ate. Also I believe if possible giving out Hotel vouchers may help the situation with all the overflow, obviously only
hand them out to the clean , sober and working homeless, of which there are plenty. Thank you
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/23/2024 12:25 Hilary Jacobs Summary of comments re RMP project in SLC
Foothills **Attachment 1 - 5 pages
Dear Council Representatives, Attached you will find my comments from the Nov. 12, 19, and Dec. 3 meetings
which address the impacts of the Rocky Mountain Power pole project crossing the Foothills natural lands. This
project was planned in partnership with Salt Lake City’s Public Utilities and Public Lands departments.
Unfortunately, Rocky Mountain Power contracted Newman Construction (newmanllc.com) a company whose
specialty is earthmoving and grading construction sites, not specialists who have the skills or equipment
necessary to work in vulnerable ecosystems. This has resulted in unprecedented damage to the Foothills habitats.
Also attached is the cover letter I gave to the Mayor with constituent postcards (image attached) and petitions at
your Dec. 3 meeting. What you saw was only a small portion of the nearly 2000 postcards we have given to the
mayor so far. Constituents in every district of the City continue to wonder why basic stewardship steps—trail
inventory, land use and recreation management plans, way-finding and education signs, and basic trail maps—
have never been provided. Visitors from all corners of our country and the world marvel at Salt Lake City’s setting,
and wonder why the hillsides aren’t better managed or protected. What we are blessed with is so unusual yet we
who live here don’t seem to recognize how lucky we are. The Foothills are suffering from indifference and
ineptitude. And we are rapidly losing the very nature we purport to value. Now RMP, in partnership with Public
Lands, has engaged Surface Trails, Inc. (http://surfacetrails.com), a company specializing in mountain bike trail
building, to do “reclamation” of the ransacked slopes. They intend to use the graded road cuts to build mountain
bike trails, a violation of the City’s mandated trail building pause. The Council provided significant funding for the
SE Group to review the 2020 plans and prepare a final report that included basic management and planning
recommendations that Public Lands stated they would follow. These steps have not been taken. In addition the
recommended stakeholders advisory group still has not been formed. Why isn’t the essential work of restoring the
Foothills natural lands being advanced? Instead, trail builders—not restoration specialists—have been promoted
by Public Lands to do “reclamation” of the bulldozed lands, not environmental restoration. Trail building is not a
substitute for actual restoration of the ransacked Foothills. And it is a violation of the City’s pause in trail building. I
hope that vital rehabilitation of the Foothills natural lands is a top priority with the New Year so that the extensive
damage to the Foothills ecosystems can be addressed by ecologists and restoration specialists who can take
actions to begin the long process of recovery. Thank you, Hilary Jacobs Save Our Foothills
Comments to the Salt Lake City Council, 11/19/2024
Hello Council and Mayor,
I am Hilary Jacobs, resident of Salt Lake City and a co-founder of Save Our
Foothills. As you know Rocky Mountain Power, Public Utilities and Public Lands
have partnered to upgrade power poles across the Foothills. With a green light
from Public Lands and Public Utilities, Rocky Mountain Power worked outside
their 20-foot easement—in theory to minimize environmental damage. They
hired a construction company who aggressively bulldozed and graded 20-foot
wide road cuts. They have displaced untold tons of soil, gravel, and rock, and
caused significant destruction, hugely impacting the wildlife habitats. This is not
minimal damage; rather, the damage caused by excessive heavy construction
on the fragile ecosystems is extreme.
Rocky Mountain Power and Public Utilities have promised to fix the damage—
with the caveat that they intend to retain all the new roads. Rather than hire a
restoration specialist for this complex, delicate work Rocky Mountain Power
has, with Public Land’s approval, contracted Surface Trails, Inc., a company
specializing in building mountain bike trails, and Kay-Linn Enterprises, a Boulder,
Colorado trail consulting company with limited experience in the Salt Lake City
Foothills, to provide oversight. Neither company specializes in habitat
restoration or rehabilitation. And neither has the qualifications needed to rectify
the enormous damage inflicted on these arid, fragile lands. These companies
build trails.
Why has this happened? Has Public Lands abdicated their responsibility to
provide protective oversight and stewardship of the Foothills even though they
have been charged specifically to do so? If that is the case who is actually
stewarding the lands? The City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to
address ongoing mismanagement of the Foothills. Despite promises to follow
the FOSZ recommendations before building new trails Public Lands has, once
again, circumvented important steps needed to ensure more professional and
holistic management of the natural lands. Engaging trail builders to rectify the
catastrophic damage in the Foothills, in the name of restoration, is duplicitous at
best. Please hold Public Utilities and Public Lands accountable to hire actual
land restoration specialists, and to take stewardship of the Foothills natural
lands seriously. Thank you.
Attachment 1 - Page 1
Public Comments to Salt Lake City Council, November 12, 2024
Hello Council. I am Hilary Jacobs, resident of Salt Lake City, and a cofounder of Save
Our Foothills.
After receiving several alarming messages regarding the Rocky Mountain Power pole
upgrade project in the Foothills, and after hearing Rocky Mountain Power’s work plan
presentation at last Wednesday’s Greater Avenues Community Council meeting, I
decided to look for myself. There are no words to describe the catastrophic damage
that has resulted from their activities in the Foothills Natural Lands. Huge graded roads,
20 feet wide, have been bulldozed up and across slopes, from Bonneville Blvd, through
the 18th Avenues meadows, and to the top of the ridge above Terrace Hills. Nothing
has been spared as the bulldozers have slashed through steep slopes with 15 foot
embankments, grading multiple roads fanning out to single poles. Rocky Mountain
Power has diverted far from their twenty foot easement because, they said, it would
cause less environmental damage. In fact this damage is truly unfathomable and
unconscionable.
As partners with Rocky Mountain Power, Salt Lake City Public Lands and Public
Utilities have allowed this to occur. Public Lands have been assigned stewardship over
the Foothills natural lands yet they permitted this disaster. In this arid and fragile
environment cutaway hillsides will slump, invasive plants will readily occupy the huge
scars… The native ecosystem foundation has been scraped away. We will witness a
repeat of consequences after the misguided 2020 Trail System Plan trails were cut into
the vulnerable slopes, but on a scale that is difficult to even imagine.
Who is to be held accountable for this assault on our public lands? Who has the
responsibility to oversee or ensure environmental protections of the natural lands?
Public Lands must be held accountable for their promise to follow the
recommendations in the SE Group Report, and for the fact they have not done so. Too
many promises have been made and then broken. The Foothills natural lands have
been irreparably harmed. How much more has to be sacrificed before this group is
finally held accountable?
Attachment 1 - Page 2
Comments to City Council, 12/3/2024
Hello Council,
My name is Hilary Jacobs. I am a resident of Salt Lake City.
Save Our Foothills continues to collect petition signatures and cards that we
deliver to the Mayor with regularity. The signees ask that Salt Lake City take
steps to protect the Foothills by completing essential scientific and cultural
studies prior to taking actions that will impact our fragile public lands.
Why am I making this delivery here at the City Council meeting instead of
directly to the Mayor’s office? So that you can see that people across the City,
as well as visitors from around the world, recognize the intrinsic value and
beauty of these extraordinary Foothills, and continue to advocate for
environmental protections. The stack you see here is only a fraction of what we
have, and continue, to collect.
As you know Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Public Lands partnered with
Rocky Mountain Power to upgrade power poles in the Salt Lake City Foothills.
This has resulted in unprecedented damage to the Foothills slopes and
ecosystems, and caused an increasing distrust of the City’s ability to manage
natural lands without negative impacts. The negative impacts of the Rocky
Mountain Power project could have been prevented if the City had a
comprehensive Land Use Management Plan, clearly establishing the City’s
management priorities, setting forth specific management rules, and enforcing
the rules to protect the lands.
Without a Land Use Management plan Public Lands (the designated steward) is
flailing in the dark, getting tripped up by itself and others, the ecosystem suffers,
and no one is held accountable as one disaster unfolds after another. This
pattern has to stop. The Foothills are being irrevocably compromised. We must
now ask ourselves, do the Foothills have intrinsic value? Or is their value
measured only by our immediate gratification as we challenge the ecosystems?
And the flora and fauna? If we don’t recognized their intrinsic value what have
we become?
The City needs an expert Land Use Manager, a dedicated steward of the
Foothills natural lands, who will advocate tirelessly for the fragile ecosystems
that too many seem now to take for granted.
Thank you.
Attachment 1 - Page 3
Attachment 1 - Page 4
December 3, 2024
Dear Mayor Mendenhall,
Enclosed please find a stack of petitions and post cards from residents who ask that Salt Lake City
prioritize longterm stewardship of the Foothills natural lands over rapid recreational development. The
signees recognize how incredibly fortunate Salt Lake City residents are; we live adjacent to the Foothills
and enjoy ready access to beautiful nature. However, they also recognize that this proximity can
negatively impact the environmental integrity of these vulnerable lands.
Actions—and inactions—that the City has engaged in over the last four years has cost the City hundreds
of thousands of dollars in efforts to mitigate damage that would not have occurred if the City had been
guided by a comprehensive Land Use Management Plan. Stewarding the Foothills natural lands is
complex and requires foundational planning. As a consultant, the SE Group outlined a basic to-do list to
help the City implement a recreation plan (and one that should not replace a robust, comprehensive Land
Use Management Plan) and yet, despite promises from Public Lands to follow the recommendations, this
has not occurred. Additionally Salt Lake City has contracted a communications specialist to help Public
Lands form a stakeholders group; this too has never happened.
And now, as partners with Rocky Mountain Power, Public Lands and Public Utilities have allowed
irreparable damage to the steep Foothills slopes and their fragile ecosystems. In the name of “minimizing
environmental damage” they have permitted huge bulldozers to cut twenty foot-wide graded roads that
fan across the slopes to reach each pole. Tons of rock and soil have been pushed downslope, unearthing
flora and fauna bedded down for the winter. This is not stewardship; it is an abdication of responsibility
that Salt Lake City touted with regard to the public lands.
In addition, Rocky Mountain Power, with the approval of Public Utilities and Public Lands, is hiring a
company that specializes in mountain bike trail building to undertake reclamation of the damaged lands.
They will be supervised by another trail building consultant who has no known expertise in restoration,
nor in the ecology, biology or geology of the Salt Lake City Foothills. Reclamation is the “reclaiming
of…wasteland for…other use.” What has been proposed by Rocky Mountain Power and Public Lands is
not restoration of the Foothills and should not be billed as such.
It is time for Salt Lake City to hire a professional land use manager to oversee stewardship and
management of the Foothills natural lands, and who:
1.Understands the complexity—and vulnerability—of the arid ecosystems of the Foothills;
2.Understands that not all activities are sustainable—or appropriate—on all lands; and
3.That any actions taken can have consequences later, including erosion, washouts and the spread of
invasive species.
Land use management requires the collection and assimilation of scientific data. It requires user data. And
it requires experts who know how to prepare, implement and manage the plan.
It is time Salt Lake City take stewardship of the Foothills natural lands seriously, and administer them
accordingly.
Sincerely,
Hilary Jacobs
Save Our Foothills
Attachment 1 - Page 5