HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
March 4, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 08:45:26
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Mayor’s Recommendations: Fiscal Year 2025-26 for One-year
Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other
Federal Grants
~ 2:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Mayor will present recommendations to the Council regarding proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding,
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding, and Housing Opportunities
for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) funding budgets.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: Yalecrest-Upper Yale Local Historic District ~ 2:45 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map to
apply the H-Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local
Historic District. The district would include 24 homes at approximately 1802 to 1885
East Yale Avenue, along both sides of Yale Avenue. The proposal would also update the
2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey. Local Historic Districts are designed to
maintain the historic character of a neighborhood by protecting historic features and
preventing out-of-character alterations. The properties are located in Council District 6.
Petitioner: Patricia Goede.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
4.Ordinance: Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial
Districts ~ 3:05 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance amending various sections of Title
21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts. The
proposal would permit live performance theaters, either indoor or outdoor, within the CG
(General Commercial) District and other districts that may be appropriate based on
intensity, scale, and location. Currently, only indoor live performance theaters are
permitted. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
5.Informational: Water and Snowpack Report ~ 3:25 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Public Utilities about the
status of water runoff, snowpack and water supply projections.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Cold Plunge
Coffee, LLC.~ 3:45 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $100,000
loan for Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC. at 475 East 300 South from the Economic
Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC. offers craft coffee and cold
plunges or cold-water immersion therapy. This loan will assist in the creation of nine new
jobs in the next year and the retention of one current job.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
7.Tentative Break ~ 3:50 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
8.Informational: Initial Citywide Parking Policy Discussion ~ 4:10 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from a group of three Administration department
representatives about proposals for updates to Citywide parking policy. The group
requests Council discussion and guidance in the early stage of designing these potential
parking policy changes, since they may lead to some significant changes.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
9.Advice and Consent: Salt Lake City Police Chief – Brian Redd ~ 4:30 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will interview Brian Redd prior to considering appointment as the Salt Lake
City Chief of Police.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
10.Advice and Consent: Director of Public Lands – Kim Shelley ~ 4:40 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will interview Kim Shelley prior to considering appointment as the Director
of Public Lands.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
11.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board – James Alfandre ~ 4:50 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview James Alfandre prior to considering appointment to the
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending
March 4, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
12.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board – Eric Mcgill ~ 4:55 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Eric Mcgill prior to considering appointment to the Parks,
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending March 4,
2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
13.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Richard
Leverette ~ 5:00 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Richard Leverett prior to considering appointment to the
Planning Commission for a term ending March 4, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
15.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
16.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 27, 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.
KEITH REYNOLDS
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.
Administrative
Updates
March 4, 2025
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in Place
•New Planning Engagement Items
•Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Plan
•Rio Grande District and Downtown Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
•Update to Adaptive Reuse Incentives
•Text Amendment Related to Fence Height
•Northwest Community Plan Update
•Thursday, March 13 | 5:30-7:30 p.m. | Day-Riverside
•Wednesday, March 19 | 5:30-7:30 p.m. | Northwest Community Center
•Heading to Planning Commission
•Multi-family Merger: RMF-35/RMF-45 Consolidation (March 12)
•Separating Residential Zones from High Impact Land Uses (Not scheduled
yet)
Planning Updates
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlaceHousing Stability and Public Lands
•Salt Lake City HUD 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and
2025-2026 Annual Action Plan
•Public Comment Period Feb. 13 - March 25
•Mayor's Funding Recommendations and Consolidated Plan
Public Hearing Today
•First Funding Briefing, March 18
•Second Funding Briefing, March 25
•Fairmont Park Improvements (D7)
•Thursday March 6 from 4 – 7 p.m.
•Forest Dale Golf Course Clubhouse
•Gobondparks.com/fairmontpark
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlaceMayor's Office
Homeless Resource Center
Utilization "At Capacity"
https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/
Encampment Impact Mitigation/ Rapid
Intervention
•EIM- Wed-Thur Victory Rd
•RIT- JRT Backman- Day Riverside,
Guadalupe-City
Creek, JRT 700 S -1300 S
Resource Fair:
Friday Mar 14th @ SLC Rescue Mission
Homeless Outreach Court:
Friday Mar 7th 9am @ DWS 720 S 200 E
Homelessness
Update
Shelters: 801-990-9999
Additional System Information:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org/
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless
Services (OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
Community and Neighborhoods Department
Housing Stability Division
FY 25-26 HUD Applications
Mayor’s Recommendation
March 4, 2025
Advancing the Draft Goals & Strategies
of the Consolidated Plan
Housing
Priorities
Homeless
Services Transportation
Business and
Workforce
Development
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
Environmental
Remediation
Community
Services
NEXT STEPS
•Public Comment Period (February 13 –March 25)
•Mayor’s Funding Recommendations & Con Plan Public Hearing (March 4)
•First Funding Briefing (March 18)
•Second Funding Briefing (March 25)
•Third Funding Briefing, If Needed (April 1 or 8)
•Council Final Recommendations (April 15)
•HUD Submission Deadline(May 15)
Consolidated Plan 2025 -2029
CDBG Allocations Page 1
CDBG Allocations Page 2
ESG Allocations
HOME Allocations
HOPWA Allocations
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:March 4, 2025
RE: Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District
PLNHLC2023-00571
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about the proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest
neighborhood, including progress since the December 5, 2023 work session report from planning.. The
Council will then have a public hearing and consider action on the LHD request.
Boundaries of the proposed Upper Yale LHD are 1800 to 1900 East on both sides of Yale Avenue as shown
in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 24 properties with homes.
Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area,
which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final
steps in the process.
The Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions reviewed the proposal at their June 5
and June 26, 2024 meetings respectively, and held public hearings. Both Commissions
followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted unanimously to forward positive
recommendations to the City Council to create the LHD.
On January 8, 2025 the Planning Commission reviewed a recommendation from Planning
staff to update the reconnaissance level survey for the subject area in which three homes
were incorrectly identified as non-contributing. The Commission voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the status of those
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
properties to contributing. (The Historic Landmark Commission voted on the survey update
matter at their previous meeting on June 5, 2024.)
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members
may have and prepare for a public hearing and decision.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District
will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the upcoming R-1 residential district
consolidation.
2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some discussion among constituents with
opposing perspectives. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received
any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections.
Proposal Upper Yale local historic district outlined in red.
Other local historic districts in the vicinity are shaded in blue.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report.
LHD Creation Process
•Pre-application meeting.
•Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district.
•Application submittal.
•Notice of application letter mailed.
•Planning Director’s report to the City Council (December 5, 2023)
•Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and
requirements.
Page | 3
•Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about
the proposal.
•Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
•Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
•Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation.
•City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step)
A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found that 19 of
the 24 homes (~79%) within the proposed Upper Yale LHD were rated as contributing structures. In June
2023 staff from the City Planning Division and State Historic Preservation Office met to review the 2005
RLS. They confirmed the 19 homes listed as “contributing” on the RLS retain that status. They also
identified 3 homes were incorrectly identified as “non-contributing” and found the 3 homes’ rating should
be changed to “contributing.” If the City Council adopts the draft ordinance that includes these properties
22 of the 24 structures in the proposed LHD (~92%) would be listed as “contributing.”
Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating
historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties.
Following the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for
LHD creation were mailed August 5, 2024 ,to all property owners within the proposed Upper Yale LHD.
Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The
City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot September 12, 2024, which
contained the following results:
Ballots in Support ...............................13
Ballots Opposed...............................3
Did Not Vote ..........................................8
Undeliverable/Did Not Receive ......0
Returned but Did Not Vote .............0
Returned After Due Date.................0
Total Ballots Returned..........16 of 24
Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (66%) equals the required two-thirds
threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (54%) represents more than 50% of the number of
parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should
be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated.
•May 25, 2023 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1)
•June 12, 2023 – Property owners sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros and Cons”
informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of
interest in creating a new local historic district. (Step 2)
•July 18, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning Division. (Step 3)
Page | 4
•August 11, 2023 – Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District
Pros and Cons” information letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an
application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local
historic district. (Step 4)
•December 5, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning
staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5)
•January 30/March 18, 2024 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood
information meeting to be held February 21 and April 1, 2024. (Step 6)
•February 21/April 1, 2024 – Property owner meetings held at Anderson Foothill Library.
Approximately 13 property owners attended. (Step 6)
•April 4, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online
open house notification. Open house ran from April 40May 20, 2024. (Step 6)
•April 9, 2024 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Foothill-Sunnyside Community
Organization, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6)
•May 23, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark
Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
•June 5, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7)
•June 12, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
•June 26, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD.
(Step 7)
•August 5, 2024 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners
within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were
required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by September 3, 2024. (Step 8)
•September 12, 2024 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 13 property owners were
in support, 3 were opposed, and 8 did not vote. (Step 8)
•October 8, 2024 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•November 5, 2024 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•December 23, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice for updated RLS ratings mailed
to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of
Page | 5
the Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites. (Step 7)
•January 8, 2024 – Item returned to Planning Commission for a recommendation on the 2005
Yalecrest RLS historic status rating updates. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council to update the survey.
•January 21, 2025 – Planning staff requested ordinance that includes the RLS updates from the City
Attorney’s Office.
•February 14, 2025 – Planning received updated ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•February 21, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
•March 4, 2025 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held April 15, 2025, and a
potential Council vote May 6, 2025.) (Step 9)
LHD Designation Process Flowchart
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council –March 4th, 2025
PLNHLC2023-00571
LOCAL HISTORIC
DESIGNATION //
YALECREST –UPPER YALE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
YALECREST – UPPER YALE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
YALECREST – PROPOSED AND
ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA
CHAPTER 21A.51.040
Requests are evaluated on historic significance,
historic integrity, eligibility on the National Register,
public interest, and established planning policies.
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS
CHAPTER 21A.50.050
Requested Amendments are evaluated on whether
they further the adopted plans, policies, and zoning
code, and how the amendment affects surrounding
properties.
MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
RECOMMENDED UPDATES
2005 RLS SURVEY
1820 East Yale Avenue
Update to “A”
(eligible/significant)
1828 East Yale Avenue
Update to “B”
(eligible)
1833 East Yale Avenue
Update to “B”
(eligible)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Nan Larsen // Senior Planner
nannette.larsen@slc.gov
801-535-7645
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:Submission Date:
02/19/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/21/2025Salt Lake City Council Chair
From:
Department*
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:E-mail
Larsen, Nannette nannette.larsen@slc.gov
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Director Signed Date Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/21/2025 02/21/2025
Subject:
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Local Historic District Designation - 1802 to 1885 East Yale Avenue
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, Planning Division
Document Type Budget Impact?
Ordinance Yes
No
Recommendation:
The City Council adopt the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Please see document attached to background/discussion
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This petition is a request that the City Council designate a new local
historic district that includes 24 homes (24 properties) located at approximately 1802 Yale Avenue to
1885 East Yale Avenue, along both sides of Yale Avenue. The Yalecrest Neighborhood was designated
as a National Register Historic District in 2007.
On July 18, 2023, Patricia Goede submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the
Yalecrest neighborhood of the city. The application was submitted with approximately 70% of property
owner’s signatures (representing a majority ownership interest in a given lot) in the proposed district, which
exceeds the required 33% necessary to initiate a petition of this nature. As required by ordinance, a report
regarding the proposed district was presented to the City Council on December 5, 2023, at which time the
Council instructed Planning Staff to proceed with processing the request.
The submitted designation request included a written description of the proposal and the reason for pursuing
a designation request. It was stated in the narrative that there is concern over preserving the historic
character of the Upper Yale neighborhood, between 1800 to 1900 East along both sides of Yale Avenue,
after a demolition permit was petitioned early last year for a principal structure at 1836 E Yale Ave. There
is concern that this demolition petition and the growing demand for housing will result in unprotected
historic structure losses in the area and that the existing zoning and the National Register Designation of
the Yalecrest Neighborhood isn’t sufficient to protect the historic character of Upper Yale.
Historical Significance of Yalecrest: The Upper Yale neighborhood aids in telling the story of the
expansion of the City toward the east bench during the early 20th century. It represents the development
of streetcar suburbs with the growing availability of automobiles. Within the proposed designation
boundaries, houses were constructed between 1928 and 1939, with a distinctive architectural type in the
larger Yalecrest neighborhood. Yalecrest has the highest concentration of Period Revival homes in the state
of Utah. The most popular styles within this type in the Upper Yale boundaries are Colonial Revival,
English Tudor, and English Cottage style.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
The Yalecrest neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Being
listed on the National Register is an honorary designation that provides property owners with the ability to
seek state and/or federal tax credits for appropriate repairs or restoration work on contributing buildings but
does not provide protection from demolition or additions that may not be compatible with the historic
character of the area.
Protection of Historic Resources: The H – Historic Preservation Overlay district that would be applied to
the proposed district, if the local historic district were approved, would add an additional layer of regulation
that requires design review for exterior alterations and imposes stringent regulations on demolition of
contributing buildings.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS: Property Owner Opinion Ballot Results: On August 5, 2024, the
Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed
local historic district. Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they
support or oppose the designation of the Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District. On September
12, 2024, the City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot, which
contained the following results:
Ballots in Support…………………………….…13
Ballots Opposed……………….………………...3
Did not Vote……………………………………..8
Undeliverable or Did Not Receive……………....0
Returned but did not Vote……………………….0
Returned After Due Date………………………...0
Total Ballots Returned………………………......16 of 24
Since the Property Owner Opinion Ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of
returned property owner support ballots, and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels
within the proposed local historic district, the City Council may designate a local historic district by a
simple majority vote. It is noted that the City Council is not bound by the results of the Property Owner
Opinion Ballot.
Updates to the Historic Resource Survey The majority of the principal structures in the proposed upper
yale district designation have maintained a high level of integrity and maintain a contributing status;
although minor alterations may have occurred to homes in the past, they are generally reversible. For a
structure to be considered to be “contributing” it requires that a building has retained its major character
defining features and its architectural elements are intact. The most recent survey on file for this area, the
2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS),.indicates that of the 24 principal structures within
the district designation 19 are listed as contributing, or 79% of the homes in the proposed district.
On June 9th, 2023, a member of the State Historic Preservation Office staff, along with Planning Staff,
evaluated the proposed local historic district and confirmed that the 19 structures listed in the 2005 RLS
retain their contributing status. They also identified 3 structures that were incorrectly rated as
noncontributing that should be changed to contributing, these recommended survey updates are included
in the attached ordinance. With these historic resource survey updates, approximately 91% of the homes
are contributing to the historic character within the boundaries of the Yalecrest-Upper Yale District. If
Council agrees to the updated historic status ratings for these properties, the 2005 RLS will be updated to
reflect the recommended rating changes. These historic ratings will be used to implement the standards of
the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, should the local historic district be adopted.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
•Initial Notification of Affected Property Owners: Section 21A.34.020(C)(4) requires Staff to
notify affected property owners by sending a neutral informational pamphlet to each property
affected by the potential application. The informational pamphlet was mailed to property owners
within the proposed district on June 12, 2023.
The informational pamphlet contained a description of the process to create a local historic district,
as well as a list of the pros and cons of a local historic district. The pamphlet was mailed after the
applicant submitted and finalized the proposed boundary for the Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local
Historic District.
•Application Notification to Affected Property Owners: The application was submitted on July
18, 2023, and the subsequent Notice of Designation Application Letter was mailed to affected
property owners within the proposed Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District on August 11,
2023. Property owners were sent the notice of application and “Local Historic District Pros and
Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an application,
including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation, of a new local historic
district.
•
•
Planning Director Report to the City Council: Staff prepared and transmitted the Planning
Director Report to the City Council. The Planning Director Report included the requirements found
in 21A.34.020(C)(7)(A-F). The City Council accepted the Planning Director Report on December
5, 2023, instructing Planning Staff to move forward with the proposal.
Property Owner Meeting: On February 21, 2024 and April 1, 2024, the Planning Division met
with owners of property located within the proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Upper Yale
Local Historic District. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the property owners about the
designation process and to discuss how local historic district designation would impact the property
owners. The meeting included discussions regarding the process for obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the adopted historic preservation standards and design guidelines. There was also
a discussion on common over-the-counter approvals and the process of applying for approval.
Approximately 13 property owners attended these meetings.
•
•
•
Open House: On April 4, 2024, the Planning Division established an online Open House to solicit
public comment regarding the proposed designation. All property owners and residents within 300
feet of the proposed local historic district, as well as those individuals on the Planning Division e-
mail listserve were notified of the open house. An email was also sent out to the Yalecrest
Neighborhood Council, Foothill-Sunnyside Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with
notification of the on-line open house.
Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: On June 5, 2024, the Historic Landmark Commission
held a public hearing regarding the proposed Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District and
accompanying survey historic status updates. Following the public hearing, the Historic Landmark
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to create
the proposed local historic district and update the survey. The agenda, minutes, and staff report of
the June 5, 2024, Historic Landmark Commission meeting are bookmarked below for reference.
Planning Commission Meeting: On June 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which would add the H – Historic
Preservation Overlay zoning district to the properties within the proposed local historic district.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of the proposed local historic
district. This item returned to the Planning Commission for a specific recommendation on the
survey historic status rating updates recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office. The
Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to approve the survey updates. The
agenda, minutes, and staff report of the June 26, 2024, and January 8, 2025, Planning Commission
meeting are bookmarked below for reference.
•Property Owner Opinion Ballot: On August 5, 2024, the Property Owners Opinion Ballot
(Support Survey) was mailed to property owners within the proposed local historic district.
Property owners were given thirty days to submit a ballot indicating whether they support or oppose
the designation of the Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District. On September 12, 2024, the
City Recorder issued the Official Canvass of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)
which proved favorable to the proposed district. Of the 16 ballots returned, 13 were in support of
the proposed district, 3 were opposed.
Historic Planning Commission (HLC) Records
a) HLC Agenda June 5, 2024
b) HLC Minutes June 5, 2024
c) Historic Landmark Commission Staff Report June 5, 2024
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of June 26, 2024
b) PC Minutes of June 26, 2024
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 26, 2024
d) PC Agenda of January 8, 2025
e) PC Minutes of January 8, 2025
f) Planning Commission Staff Report of January 8, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Original Petition
5) Official Canvass Results
6) Mailing List
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2025
(An ordinance creating the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local Historic District and updating the 2005
Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey)
An ordinance creating the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local Historic District and updating
the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2023-00571.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark
Commission”) held a public hearing on June 5, 2024 on a petition submitted by Patricia Goede
(“Applicant”) to (1) amend the city’s zoning map to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay
District to properties located on Yale Avenue between 1800 East Street and 1900 East Street,
which area shall be known as the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local Historic District, and (2) update
the 2005 Yalcrest Reconnaissance Level Survey; and
WHEREAS, at its June 5, 2024 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in
favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
(“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 26, 2024 as to the
zoning map amendment and at said meeting voted in favor of forwarding a positive
recommendation to the City Council as to the zoning map amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2025 as to the
Reconnaissance Level Survey update and at said meeting voted in favor of forwarding a positive
recommendation to the City Council as to the Reconnaissance Level Survey update; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on these matters the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
1
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to all buildings,
structures and real property within the boundaries described and depicted on Exhibit “A”. The
areas described and depicted on Exhibit “A” shall be known as the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local
Historic District.
SECTION 2. Updating the Historic Resource Survey. The 2005 Yalecrest
Reconnaissance Level Survey shall be and hereby is updated as depicted on Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2025.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
2
Exhibit “A”
Legal Description of Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 13, Upper Yale Third Addition, as recorded in Book 'I',
Page '4', Salt Lake County Recorders Office, and running thence East 730.90 feet to a point on the
west line of 1900 East Street and the Northeast Corner of Lot 24, said subdivision; thence South
287.10 feet along said west line to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, said subdivision; thence West
120.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 2, said subdivision; thence South 40.00 feet; thence
West 54.50 feet; thence South 0.50 feet; thence West 421.50 feet; thence North 40.50 feet to a
point on the south line of Lot 10, said subdivision; thence West 134.90 feet to a point on the east
line of 1800 East Street and the Southwest Corner of Lot 12, said subdivision; thence North 287.10
feet along said east line to the point of beginning.
Contains 5.259 Acres, more or less.
4
Exhibit “B”
Updates to 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey
Begins on following page.
6
2. PROJECT
CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Yalecrest – Upper Yale – Local Historic District
Petition PLNHLC2023-00571
June 12, 2023 Property owners were sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros
and Cons” informational letter indicating that the Planning Division
had been notified by a property owner of interest in creating a new
local historic district.
July 18, 2023
August 11, 2023
Application submitted to the City by property owner, Patricia Goede.
Application Notification - Property owners were sent a notice of
application and “Local Historic District Pros and Cons” informational
letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an
application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the
designation of a new local historic district.
December 5, 2023 Planning Director’s Report to the City Council for a new proposed local
historic district. The City Council directed Planning Staff to move
forward processing the proposed local historic district.
Property Owner Meeting Notification – Property owners were sent a
notice for the required “Neighborhood Information” meeting to be
held on February 21, 2024 and April 1, 2024.
January 30, 2024;
March 18, 2024
February 21, 2024;
April 1, 2024
April 9, 2024
Property Owner Meeting held at the Anderson Foothill Library.
Owners of approximately 13 properties attended the meeting.
Open House Notification to Recognized Organizations – An email was
sent out to the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Foothill-Sunnyside
Community Council, and KEEPYalecrest with notification of the on-
line open house.
April 4, 2024
May 23, 2024
Open House Notification – Property owners and residents within 300
feet of the proposed local historic district boundaries were mailed
notification of an on-line open house. The on-line Open House ran
from April 4, 2024, to May 20, 2024.
Notice of the Historic Landmark Commission June 5, 2024 Public
Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of
the subject property. Listserve notification of the Historic Landmark
Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning
Division and State websites.
June 12, 2024 Notice of the Planning Commission’s June 26, 2024 Public Hearing
mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites.
June 5, 2024
June 26, 2024
August 5, 2024
The Historic Landmark Commission heard the proposal in a public
hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City
Council for consideration.
The Planning Commission heard the proposal in a public hearing and
voted to forward a positive recommendation on to the City Council for
consideration.
A “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” was mailed to
all property owners asking if owners were in support, or if they were
opposed, to the designation. Ballots were required to be submitted to
the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by September 3, 2024.
September 3, 2024 The “Property Owners Opinion Ballot (Support Survey)” period ended
at 5:00 p.m.
September 12, 2024 The City Recorder’s Office issued the “Official Canvass”, or official
results of the support survey. 13 property owners were in support, 3
opposed, and 8 did not vote.
September 25, 2024 Planning Staff requested a legal description of the designation
boundary from the Public Services Department.
October 7, 2024
October 8, 2024
November 5, 2024
LHD boundary legal description received from Public Services.
Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
Ordinance received from the City Attorney.
December 23, 2024 Notice of the Planning Commission’s January 8, 2025 public hearing
mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites.
January 8, 2025 Item returned to Planning Commission for a recommendation on the
2005 Yalecrest RLS Survey Historic Status Rating Updates. Planning
Commission heard the item in a public hearing and voted to forward a
recommendation to update the survey updates.
January 21, 2025 Planning Staff requested an ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office
with the survey updates included.
February 14, 2025
February 19, 2025
Updated ordinance received from the City Attorney.
Transmittal was submitted to the Community & Neighborhoods Office.
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNHLC2023-00571 – Yalecrest – Upper
Yale – Local Historic District – Patricia Goede, a property owner, submitted a petition to
designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The
proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District are approximately
1802 East Yale Avenue to 1885 East Yale Avenue, along both sides of Yale Avenue. The
subject property is located in Council District 6 represented by Dan Dugan.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME:7:00 p.m.
PLACE:451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and
County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more
information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the
24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slc.gov. All
comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public
record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slc.gov
The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the
“Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNHLC2023-00571.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slc.gov , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. ORIGINAL
PETITION
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 1 of 34
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Project Description
1. Written Description of the Proposal.....................................
Significance of Area in Local, Regional, State or National History
Physical Integrity of houses in the area
3
Commercial Properties
Developers, Builders, Architects
Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research
Significant Persons in the Area
Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction
Importance to Salt Lake City history
2. Physical Integrity...................................................................
Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship,
Feeling and Association
9
3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places
4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History
13
13
5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With
Adopted City Planning Policies ...........................................24
276. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation....................
B. Photographs (attached separately)...........................................
C. Research Materials.....................................................................
D. Landmark Sites...........................................................................
E. Boundary Adjustment ................................................................
29
29
29
29
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 2 of 34
Page
APPENDICES
A. Maps
1. Original Plat of Yalecrest and Upper Yale 3rd addition Subdivision
within Yalecrest........................................................................
2. Upper Yale Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in
Yalecrest Neighborhood ..........................................................
3. Expanded street map view of proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale
Heights LHD boundary ............................................................
31
32
33
34B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS ..........................................
C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
(original vs. 2023)..........................................................................
See photos in a separate attached document
35
36D. Research Materials (References)..................................................
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 3 of 34
A. Project Description
1. Written Description of the Proposal
Significance of Area in Local, Regional or State History
In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the
center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and
west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City
settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the
“mechanics and artisans” of the city.1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the
northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five-Acre Plat “C” of the Big
Field Survey1
The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20
lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks
are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700
and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic
Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five-Acre Plat “A” and the
area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of
strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”.1
Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in
raising crops and farming.1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875
maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond
1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to
appear in the 1870s1. Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside
Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East.
Alice Felkner owned the land that was platted as Upper Yale Addition (Feb 1926, Lot 6,
Block 28, 58 parcels) and Upper Yale 2nd Addition (Apr 1927 Pt Lot 7, 30 Parcels) and
Upper Yale 3rd addition (current proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD, in July
1928, Lot 17, Block 28, 24 parcels). Alice Felkner was prominent in Utah mining and
industrial pursuits. She was born in 1854 in Indiana and moved to Idaho with her brother,
William H. Felkner, in 1886 to engage in stock, mercantile and mining businesses. The
siblings moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and lived on 270 East South Temple Street. At
the time of her death in 1937 she was a director of the Consolidated Music Company, a
large stockholder of the Silver King Coalition Mines Company, and director of several
large mining companies. The Upper Yale Additions extend along the north and south
sides of Yale and Herbert Avenues from 1700 East to 1800 East. Houses were
constructed in the late 1920s and 1930s. IN the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights
LHD, Philip Biesinger and Herbert Biesinger, two well-known and admired Yalecrest
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 4 of 34
builders built 11/24 houses. Six subdivisions were platted in the 1930s. A number of
factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the
population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the
valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300
East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in-state and
out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily
accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part
of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East.1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest
area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900
South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The
former State Prison on 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park.
1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005)
The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general and Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during
this era. There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly
decreased during this time period.12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood
although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside
Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major
streets. Fifty-one duplexes are original to the Yalecrest neighborhood: there is one
duplex in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD, located at 1884-88 E Yale
Ave on the corner of 1900 East. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature
street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped
yards and continue to be a desirable residential area.1
The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a
residence 3-4 times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods
galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000-2005. A zoning overlay
ordinance was created called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was
passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is:
to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the
existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several
aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current
City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished
above ground (teardowns) or complete removal of an existing house above and below
ground (demolition) and replaced with new construction of out-of-size, mass, scale and
material incompatible housing (the often referred to described, “McMansion”).
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 5 of 34
The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2023) aims to
increase multifamily housing citywide independent of proximity to transportation
corridors. To erect multifamily housing in fully-established neighborhoods will require
demolition of current housing. Demolition will be automatically approved over-the-counter
approval of any existing house whether “historically contributing” or “historically
contributing” in areas listed on the National Register of Historic Places, since that federal
honor status provides no protection from local zoning codes. In contrast, local historic
districts provide some local protection by limiting demolitions of historically contributing”
houses, but not “historic noncontributing” houses. Nonetheless, any new construction in
a local historic district must be reviewed and approved for compatibility in mass, scale
and material by the Historic Landmarks Commission.
Further complicating the potential destruction of the city’s historic neighborhoods is the
proposed re-assessment of all structures for “historic noncontributing status” in the text-
modification of Historic District Designation in city’s code (PLNPCM2023-00123 Overlay
District : 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District). Depending on the criteria
established for “historic noncontributing” assessment, previous historic neighborhoods
designated as local historic districts and those listed on the National Register of Historic
Places may lose their “historic” status if the percent of ‘historic contributing” houses fall
below 75%. Without a reasonable period of time for homeowners to rehabilitate their
houses to re-establish their “historic contributing” status, many current protected local
historic neighborhoods and those listed on the National Register of Historic Places will
be lost and not able to apply for a local historic district designation in the future. With the
proposed over-the-counter demolition approval of “historic noncontributing” dwellings in
currently established local historic districts or any house (historically contributing or not)
on the National Register of Historic Places, Salt Lake City will lose all historic
neighborhoods. Designation of a local historic district is the only current legal option to
minimize demolition in historic single-family houses and insure if demolition does occur,
that new construction must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmarks
Commission in an established, mature and historic neighborhood.
Yalecrest remains a desirable residential area with mature street trees and well-
maintained historic houses and yards. It has a significant concentration of historic
houses, fifty-nine percent of which are period revival cottages, built by
prominent architects and developers in subdivisions from the 1910s through the 1940s
with some infill and development in the 1950s. Its historic houses retain their historic
integrity to a remarkable degree, ninety-one percent (91%) and contribute to the historic
association and feeling of the area In the spring of 2007. The proposed Yalecrest-Upper
Yale Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block 30 and encompasses 24 of
the following properties; 12 properties on the North side of the 1800 block of E Yale Ave
(1802-1884/88 E) and 12 properties on the South side of 1800 block of E Yale Ave
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 6 of 34
(1803-1885), (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 23 single- family houses and 1 two-family
duplex (1884-1888 Yale Ave) are contained within the 24 property parcels of the
proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD.
Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area
There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper
Yale Heights LHD. Nineteen of the 24 dwellings or 79.1% are “historically contributing”.
Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) were assessed as either /significant and eligible contributing
(A), and 2 of 24 (8.3%) were considered eligible and contributing (B) for a total of 19/24
or 79.1% contributing houses. Five houses (20.8%) are nonhistorically contributing (C).
The contributory status of other properties in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD were
partially reviewed by Planning before submitting the current LHD application, but some
properties may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. The garages in the
proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD are primarily detached and located behind
the houses. Houses that may no longer have contributory status are listed in APPENDIX
C.
An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was
conducted in 20051, by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places
application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document
comes from that reconnaissance level survey (RLS). The proposed Yalecrest-Upper
Yale Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1928
(1802 and 1813 E Yale Ave) and extending through 1939 (1836 and 1850 E Yale Ave) in
the historic era.
The 1940 and 1950 Censuses list the professions of property owners which include
physicians, business merchants, law (attorney), Insurance and investments.
Commercial Properties
There are no commercial properties in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD.
Developers, Builders and Architects
The street Yale Ave is part of 5 different subdivisions in Yalecrest including 1
unincorporated subdivision area (1300-1400 E Yale Ave on the north side of the street
plus 1300-1500 E Yale Ave on the south side). The Ashton-Jenkins Company, one of the
largest real estate and mortgage banking companies in Utah, recorded three
subdivisions in the survey area: Yale Park (1400-1500 E Yale Ave) in 1913, Yale Park
Plat A in 1915 and Upper Yale Park (1500-1700 E Yale Ave), in 1924. Yale Park was
heavily promoted in the newspapers and attracted prominent homeowners. Upper Yale
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 7 of 34
2nd Addition (1700-1800) and the Upper Yale 3rd addition (1800-10900 E Yale Ave) were
developed in 1927-28.
Alice Felkner owned the land that was platted as Upper Yale Addition, Upper Yale 2nd
Addition and Upper Yale 3rd addition in 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively. Alice Felkner
was prominent in Utah mining and industrial pursuits. She was born in 1854 in Indiana
and moved to Idaho with her brother, William H. Felkner, in 1886 to engage in stock,
mercantile and mining businesses. The siblings moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and
lived on 270 East South Temple Street. At the time of her death in 1937 she was a
director of the Consolidated Music Company, a large stockholder of the Silver King
Coalition Mines Company, and director of several large mining companies. The Upper
Yale Additions extend along the north and south sides of Yale and Herbert Avenues from
1700 East to 1800 East. Houses were constructed in the late 1920s and 1930s, primarily
by Philip Biesinger, another Yalecrest builder and developer.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD contains 24 property parcels. A number of notable
Salt Lake builders were responsible for building exceptional houses in the proposed
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD.
Notable Builders in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Notable Builders
Phillip Biesinger
Herbert Biesinger
AE Jorgenson
TOTAL
8
3
1
The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are outlined in red
(APPENDIX A-1). It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Princeton
Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park-
I, outlined in blue. It will join two additional LHDs currently being in the City process
(Princeton Heights and Laird Heights) for historical district designation outlined in red.
The proposed Upper Yale Heights LHD outlined in purple is the only street amongst the
1800-1900 blocks of Yalecrest with sufficient “historically contributing” status to be
considered for an LHD. To date no other sections of Yale Ave are protected by LHDs.
Further, it is the only street in the 1800-1900 blocks of Yalecrest that has not
experienced the extensive demolition or original housing and replacement by new, larger
“McMansion” replacement construction. A map of the 56 completed demolitions and 2
pending demolition permits approved in Yalecrest can be seen below. The red backhoe
icons represent demolitions of “historically contributing” houses and replacement with
new, incompatible construction.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 9 of 34
Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method Of Construction
Houses within the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD are primarily Colonial
Revival (29%), English Tudors (25.0%), English Cottages (25.0%) and constructed
mainly in brick; either striated (50.8%) or regular (30.8%) over the time period 1928-
1939. These houses contain unique exterior and interior architectural attributes built by
notable City builders and serve as outstanding historical examples of great domiciles for
future generations.
Importance to Salt Lake City History
Yalecrest and specifically the proposed Upper Yale Heights LHD contains many fine
examples of English Cottages and English Tudors (Historically, Yalecrest has been
home to many professional residents who have shaped the city’s development and
economic base. There has been a diversity of professional occupations amongst past
and current property owners in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD; business persons,
lawyers, physicians, bankers, merchants, and builders. A number of notable
professional people lived in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights, who advanced the economic
base of Salt Lake City. Those individuals are listed as a function of the street address at
which they reside in the Notable Persons section below.
1. Physical Integrity
The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is located on the southwest side of the
greater Yalecrest neighborhood on a mature tree-line rolling hill. It contains notable
examples of English Cottages English Tudors, and Colonial Revival architecture by
many famous builders in 1920-30’s of Salt Lake City.
Contributing Status of houses in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights
The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic
and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (%) are eligible/significant (14/24=
70.8%) and eligible contributing (2/24= 8.3%)1 for a total of 79.1% historically
contributing houses. There are 5 “C” or ineligible/noncontributing structures (5/24
=20.8%) and No “D”’ or “X” structures in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD boundaries
listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey.
The number of contributing and noncontributing houses and their eligibility status on
each street in the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is tabulated below.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 10 of 34
Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties
in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHDa,c
Street
1800-1900 E Yale Ave
% Total
Ab
17
70.8%
Bb
2
8.3%
Cb Db Xb
0
0.0%
Total
24
100%a
5 0
20.8% 0.0%
aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 23 single family and 1 duplex residential structures
included in this analysis. The contributing status listed reflects assessment in 2005.
bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of
period, X=demolished
c1928 plat of Upper Yale 3rd addition lists 24 properties.
The number of currently (2023) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures
(B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face facades
including; windows, dormers, roofing materials and/or exterior materials. The number of
contributing structures in 2023 remain to be verified by the City Planning Department /
Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission.
It is interesting to note that Yalecrest in general, and Upper Yale 3rd Addition subdivision
in particular, attracts home buyers that stay in residence for extended periods of time.
Many have lived in these houses for over 20-30 years. This continuity lends consistency,
character and stewardship to the area.
The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD has a variety of trees planted in the
park strip of the vast majority (19/24) of property parcels. Some property parcels park
strips have 2 trees. Only 5 parcels have NO park strip trees. Tree genus species include
a variety of Maples, London Plane, Black locust, and Japanese lilac tree. The largest
diameter trees (>20”) and therefore the oldest trees, are primarily the original Norway
Maples planted on the street. The majority of those trees have been replaced with
smaller diameter and maximal height trees over the last 1-15 years. Tree-lined streets
with streetlights provide shade, shelter and safety in the neighborhood.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 11 of 34
Tree Speciesa in Upper Yale Heights Park Strips
Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter
Genus species Common
Name
Norway
Maple
Field
Maple
Big tooth
Maple
London
Plane
1-4”
1
5-10”11-20”>20”TOTALb
Acer platanoides
Acer campestre
1
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
12
33
Acer grandidenatum
Plantanus acerifolia
2 2
4 9
Robinia pseudoacacia Black
Locust
Syringa reticulata
2 2
Japanese 2 2
Lilac tree
No treeNonec 5
TOTAL 14 5 9 2 30
aaccording to the Urban Forestry website,
bsome parcels have 2 trees of the same genus species type in the parkstrip
csome parcels have 0 trees
Driving access to major interstates I-15 and I-80, and walkability to integrated
infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood
zoning districts (grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library and public parks and schools)
and contributes to making Yalecrest in general, and Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
specifically, one of the safest neighborhoods and most sought real estate property in Salt
Lake City. Houses are well-maintained, and appropriately updated for modern living,
while maintaining their original architectural charm.
Building dates
Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD were built from the late
1920’s through late 1930’s in the current historic era. The 23 single-family and 1 duplex
residences in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD according to the Salt Lake County
Assessor website were built in the late 1920’s (25%) and 1930’s (75%). The distribution
of single family and duplex built dates in the proposed LHD are shown in the table below.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 12 of 34
Construction Yearsa of Original Residences in
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHDa
Street 1920’s 1930’s Total
Single Family
Duplex
6
0
17
1
23
1
Total 6 18 24
% Total 25%75%100%
aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website
(www.slco.org/assessor)
Architectural Types
Houses of the Upper Yale Heights LHD contain a large variety of architectural style types
including 7 main styles with other variations: Neoclassical (25.0%), English Tudor
(20.8%), English Cottage (16.7%), Colonial Revival (16.7%), Period Revival (0.8%),
Minimal Traditional/Ranch (0.8%) and Neo-eclectic (0.4%). Tabulation of the various
house styles with their combinations within the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is
shown below.
Architectural Types in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD Residential Structuresa
Architectural Type
Neoclassical
+Dutch Colonial Revival
+English Tudor
+Colonial Revival
English Tudor
Number TOTAL %TOTAL
1
1
1
3
4
1
3
1
4
2
2
1
24
6 25.0%
5
4
20.8%
16.7%
+Jacobethan Revival
English Cottage
+ English Tudor
Colonial Revival
Period Revival
4
2
16.7%
8.3%
8.3%
4.2%
100%
Minimal Tradition
Neo-eclectic
2
1
24TOTAL
aaccording to RLS 2005.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 13 of 34
Exterior House Materials
Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily
brick: striated brick alone (SB, 16.7%), or with other materials - half timbering (SBHT,
16.7%), with asbestos or other material (SBA or SBO, 12.5%), clapboard (SBCP, 8.3%),
and regular brick alone (RB, 16.7%), and with other materials - half timbering (RBHT,
16.7%), asbestos or other material (RBA, 4.2%), stucco/paster (4.2%). The distribution
of the various exterior construction materials on dwellings is tabulated below.
Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in
Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa
Type Number Total %Total
Striated Brick 8
4
16 66.7%
+Half Timbering
+ other
+clapboard
+asbestosb
1
2
1
Regular Brick 4 7 29.2%
+Half timber 2
+asbestos sidingb 1
Stucco/Plaster 1 1 4.2%
TOTAL 24 24 100%
a2005 RLS assessment
basbestos is likely a different siding material
3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places
As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is located within the
boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007
(#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation.
4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History
The proposed area described by the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD contains a
diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles; English Cottage, English
Tudor, Neoclassical, Colonial Revival, Minimum Traditional/ Early Ranch and Neo-
eclectic. In addition, these homes were built by well-known builders in Yalecrest and
owned by renowned individuals who contributed to the business, medicine, law,
education. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of
the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 14 of 34
search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation
Office.
Notable Houses, builders and their owners in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
(from The State Historic Preservation Office files)
Well-known builders
Phillip Biesinger built 8 houses (1802, 1814, 1821, 1827, 1828,1833,1854,1884-1888
duplex E Yale Ave) and his brother, Herbert Biesdinger built 3 houses (1803, 1813,
and 1820 E Yale Ave), for a total of 11/24 residences or 45.8% of all dwellings in the
proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD. AG Jorgensen, another notable
builder, built 1880. E Yale Ave in the proposed LHD.
Domestic Servants
Seven houses whose owners were employed in the Retail business, Banking,
Insurance, Law Attorney and Investment Companies professions cited
onsite domestic servants in the 1940 census; 1802, 1820, 1827, 1833, 1866, 1880,
and 1884 in their residences.
The birth states associated with the domestic help was five in UT, one in WY, and
one in Germany. No domestic servants/maids were cited on the 1800 block of Yale
Ave in either the 1930 or 1950 census.
Notable Owners
1802 E Yale Ave (1928, Colonial Period Revival “A”)
William Firmage,
James Gibb, Ph.d.
This regular brick Colonial Period Revival styled house was built in 1928 and the first
(along with 1813 E Yale Ave) houses built on the 1800 block of Yale Ave. It is cited
in the application for National Register of Historic Places for its “unusual architecture
type” and suggested for additional research. The house is a Colonial Period Revival
in regular brick built by noted local Yalecrest builder, Phillip Biesinger. The front
façade has two matched Palladian windows.
The original owner listed in the Polk Directory for Salt Lake City was Edward J
Ellison, who lived here 1929-1933.
William Hoag Firmage (1914-1947), his wife Georgia, 2 daughters and a “servant”
are listed as occupants (1940 census) from 1937-1948.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 15 of 34
Mr Firmage was a merchant of a shoe retail
store and died at the age of 33 yo from a
myocardial infarction / cardiovascular
disease. He is buried in Mt Olivet Cemetery.
Mr Firmage was a merchant of a shoe retail
store and died at the age of 33 yo from a
myocardial infarction/cardiovascular disease.
The family lived in the house for 12 yrs.
James Wooley Gibb, Ph.d. his wife LaVon and
2 children lived in the house from 1970-201 7.
After the Canadian from Magrath, Alberta
completed post-doctoral work at the National
Institutes of Health in Bethesa, MD, the family
moved to Utah where he joined the faculty of
the Colleges of Pharmacy and Medicine at
University of Utah in 1968. He later served as
Chair of the Department of Pharmacology and
Toxicology. They resided in this house for 47
years.
1814 E Yale Ave (1929 English Tudor, “A”)
Dallin H Oaks
The beautiful striated brick and half-timbered English Tudor was built in 1929 by
Peter Biesinger. It vacant until 1931, when it was first occupied y was first occupied
by C Gordon Douglas in 1933-1938 then purchased by a variety of owners in 4-5 yr
intervals.
Dallin H Oaks, lived in the house from ~2008-2012., The entry door glass panel is
etched with the first letter of his last name,”O”. He is the current first counselor in the
First Presidency and President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (2018). He graduated from Brigham Young
University (1954) and of the University of Chicago Law School (1957). He practiced
law and taught law in Chicago. He was president of Brigham Young University from
1971 to 1980, and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court from 1980 until his resignation
in 1984 to accept his calling to the apostleship. He is an officer or member of the
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 16 of 34
board of many business, educational, and charitable organizations. He is the author
or co-author of many books and articles on religious and legal subjects. In May 2013,
the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him the Canterbury Medal for
“courage in the defense of religious liberty.”
1828 E Yale Avenue (1938 Period Revival, “C”)
Huron R Free
The original 1930 striated brick Period Revival house built by Phillip Biesinger, had a
2nd story addition added in 1956 and is currently “historically noncontributing”. Huron
R Free owned the house from 1933-1949. Mr Free was vice-president of a
refrigeration company, Hygeia in Sugarhouse, originally located west of Redman
storage on 2100 S.
Hygeia was the place Salt Lakers got their ice. Roy Free started the ice-
making business, and his son, (Huron) Ray, delivered ice via a horse-drawn
wagon at a time when refrigerators weren't common. Built in 1912 by J. Roy and
Huron Free, the Hygeia Ice Company became a major producer of ice, with the
nation’s largest storage locker facility. The name Hygeia stood for the ancient
goddess of purity and cleanliness. At first known as Hygeia Ice and Coal, it was
one of the first businesses on the block and was located on the north side of
Parleys Creek where the hotel now stands. Four wells on the property provided
water for Hygeia Ice Company and later for Carbo Chemical Company, which
produced carbon dioxide for manufacturing dry ice. In 1948, Hygeia Iceland
opened at 1208 E. 2100 South in Sugar House during the record-cold winter of
1948. It was a Utah favorite place.
Hygeia Iceland and later addition Swimland relied on materials and compressors
used in the ice business to become Utah's first ice rink and to create one of its
first heated pools. For many years, the Olympic-size swimming pool, built in the
late 1950s, was the only heated pool in the valley open for public use. Later, the
family put a slick cement surface on the rink for summer roller-skating. At one
point, there also was a miniature golf course on the site.
As late as the 1950s, a 500-pound block of ice cost $2.50, and lasted weeks.
The Hygeia Iceland became the place you just had to go. They put in a warming
hut, with a fireplace. And they had lots of popcorn. Outdoor Skating was big, all
across the nation. Baby boomers had many of their first booms on ice. It was the
perfect place and parents would just come and drop off their kids.
It eventually became a race against warm weather. Once the ice melted in the
summer it became Hygeia Swimland. Later they enclosed it and hockey became
standard fare. But today… it is still a parking lot on 1200 block of 21st
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 17 of 34
South. (“Ice-making business cooled the rink in winter and heated its summertime
partner, Swimland”, by Tom Wharton, SLTribune December 9, 2015.
Hygeia Ice Wagon 1912 Hygeia Ice Co Factory
Photos courtesy from the Sugarhouse Community Council December 2015
1836 E Yale Ave (1939 Period Revival, “A”)
Dr. Hyrum Reid Reichman (1908-1967)
This 1930 striated brick Period Revival ”A”-“historically contributing” house is a
Colonial Revival/Neoclassical architecture type constructed in striated brick and
“asbestos siding” as listed in the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey. The
asbestos siding requires affirmation. The house was owned by Hyrum Reid
Reichman as a physician/surgeon in private practice. He, his wife Virginia, 2
daughters lived in the house for almost 40 years, from 1938-beyond 1975 according
to the Polk directories over that time period. Virginia Stevens Reichman’s obituary is
below
Virginia Stevens Reichman Obituary, SL Tribune Jan 1, 1990
age 81 died January 26 1990 at home in Salt lake City. Born September 1, 1908 In Ogden Utah, a daughter
of Stingam A and Beatrice Farley Stevens. She is a descendent of Utah Pioneers and a member of the
LDS Church. Mrs Reichman was an accomplished pianist and accompanist. In her earlier
years she was the organist in her LDS ward. She graduated from the University of Utah and
taught elementary school before her marriage to Hyrum R Reichman, January 1, 1932
in the Salt Lake City LDS temple. She and Dr. Reichman lived in Evanston, Illinois for 5 years
before returning to live in Salt Lake City. He preceded her in death in 1967.
She is survived by their four children: Ann Reichman, Salt Lake City, Lane S Reichman,
Gillette, New Jersey, Carol R Gray, Wakefield, Rhode Island, Richard C Reichman,
Rochester, NY, six grandchildren and a brother, Robert S Stevens, Los Angeles, California.
Mom was a wonderful example of a wife mother, grandmother and homemaker.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 18 of 34
Family life was always her priority. We will remember her love, her thoughtfulness
and her understanding that one is never too old to learn something new. Travel
was a constant in Mom’s life. She enjoyed seeing new and revisiting familiar places.
Consequently, she has many friends and acquaintances throughout the country who
remember her kindness and her friendship. Funeral services will be held
Wednesday January 31st 12 Noon in the Larkin Mortuary Chapel, 260 East South Temple
where friends may call from 11:30am-12 noon. Interment Salt Lake City Cemetery.
The family suggests a contributing to the American red Cross, 1391 South Park Street SLC, UT 84105
or friends of the Library, U of U Libraries, University & 200 South, SLC, UT 84112
1841 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical, “A”)
Angus Cannon Kirk (1895-1973)
This house is built in the Neoclassic architecture style, characterized by grandeur of
scale, simplicity, geometric forms, dramatic use of columns, and a preference for
blank walls (Britannica.com,: Neoclassical architecture).
Angus C Kirk was born 1895 in Salt Lake City. As a boy he worked as a cash boy at
the Auerbach Department Store, a newspaper carrier. He worked as an office clerk
at Utah Power and Light Co, as well as a book keeper at Utah Railroad and at I Cline
& Bros Wholesale as an accountant. Her served in WWI. After military service in the
army, he was associated in business with the AJ Kirk and Co, a wholesaler business
of dry goods and notions.
He worked there as Treasurer, Director
and Office Manager for 27 years. He
retired after developing spinal
meningitis, s, underwent 2 spinal
surgeries and lived in a wheelchair from
1946-1973. lived here with his wife
Hazel, son and 2 daughters and 1 son
from 1939-beyond 1975. He served in
WWI (Sons of Utah Pioneer Article
May-June 1965)
Kirk family trip to New York May 20, 1926, Family search.org
1842 E Yale Ave (1939 Neo-eclectic, “C”)
Elias Arnold Goff (1908-1975)
The original 1939 house was remodeled in 1985 and currently considered “historically
noncontributing, C”. The current architectural style is a Neo-eclectic
The original owner, Elias Arnold Goff (1908-1975) was an Assistant Secretary at the
Beneficial Life Insurance Company for 42 years, retiring in 1973,
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 19 of 34
He was the Champion of the Utah State Amateur Golf
Tournament in 1944 and 1945. He also won the SLC
Amateur Golf Tournaments in 1938, 1945 and 1946.
He, his wife Lucy Rowland (1911-1998) their two sons
Rowland and Richard and their ward Patricia Pike.
He lived at 1842 E Yale Ave for 37 years, from
1938-1975
1847 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical Dutch Colonial Revival, “A”)
Stanley Newton Child (1899-1989)
This house is designed in the Neoclassic/Dutch Colonial Revival architectural style
with striated brick. It was owned by Stanley N Child, a brick mason. He served in
WWI (1919). Stanley, his wife Elsie, 2 sons and daughter lived here for years, from
1939-1975. Stanley N Child was elected 1935-196 to the Utah House of
Representative and served for two years. He sponsored the first occupational health
bill ever offered in Utah and sponsored the legislation creating the Utah Philharmonic
Orchestra which we now know as the Utah Symphony Orchestra. He later served eight
years (1939-1946) in the Utah State Senate where he was chairman of the Utah
Educational Survey Committee. The efforts of this committee culminated in a complete
reform of both higher education and the school systems of Utah and was instrumental
in obtaining major funding for educatio).
Stanley N Child also devoted his life to his trade, mason contracting. Many great
buildings have been constructed by him. These include: the Greek Orthodox Church in
Salt Lake, the Ogden High School, the original Student Union Building at the University
of Utah, LDS Idaho Falls Temple, Ogden Temple, Los Angeles Temple, Relief Society
Building, Temple Square Visitors Center, many chapels, Prudential Life Insurance
Building in Los Angeles, and many more (Family Search.org obituary)
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 20 of 34
Stanley N Child Elise and Stanley N Child, 1950’s
Family Search.org
1855 E Yale Ave (1938 Neoclassical Colonial Revival “A”)
Milo Scoville Marsden, (1905-1985)
The house was built in the Neoclassical Colonial Revival architecture style in striated
brick. Milo Scoville Marsden (1906-2009) a buyer/ treasurer for a wholesale wool
company, lived in the house with wife Elaine Rampton, son Milo Jr and daughter
Linda for 36 years, from 1939-1975. He registered for WWII draft in 1940.
Milo Scoville Marsden
(familysearch.org)
Milo Scoville Marsden, center in tan suit,
1863 E Yale Ave (1937 Colonial Revival “A”)
William Ernest Frank (1912-1999)
A Colonial Revival architecture built with “asbestos siding” and assessed as “A”-
historically contributing” according to 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. William E
Frank was a lumber salesman for a wholesale and detail lumber company (1940 US
Census). He lived here with his wife Zelma, daughter and son for 40+ years,
documented from 1935-1975.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 21 of 34
1866 E Yale Ave (1938 Colonial Revival, “A”)
This 1938/1978 remodeled 1.5 story Colonial Revival architectural style was built in
striated brick and is assessed as “A”-historically contributing and significant”
according to the 2005 Yalecrest Reconnaissance Survey. Richard L Jensen is listed
as a notable person for this address, but the 1940 census has him living at 1957 E
Yale Ave at that time and employed as a home building contractor, manager of a
brick factory. It is assumed that he is the builder of this house.
Alfred Newton Catrow (1905-1981)
Alfred N Catrow, his wife Dorothy and 2 sons lived at 1866 E Yale Ave for 23 yrs
(1941-1964). He was the son of Henry Catrow, notable Utah mining company owner.
Alfred Newton Catrow was president of Catrow
Finance Co (1939-1969) and worked in Catrow
Insurance until 1976. He graduated from East
High School (1923) University of Utah (1927)
and was active in the Kiwanis Club, President
of Utah Consumers Finance Association,
member of the University of Utah Club
1872 E Yale Ave: (1938, English Cottage “A”)
This 1938 1 story English Cottage built in striated brick is assessed as “historically
contributing, A”.
Daniel L Wolstenholme (1902-1971)
Daniel his wife, Bertha and 2 sons lived here in 1940 census. They or his widow
lived at 1872 E Yale Ave for a period of 36 + years from 1939-1975 or longer. Daniel
Archer Wolstenholme was a salesman in a retail furniture business.
1875 E Yale Ave: (1938 Minimal Traditional “A”)
This Minimum Traditional architectural style house built with regular brick is
“historically contributing, “A as cited in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. In
that Survey James R Jensen, cited with this house is likely the builder, as no
evidence of James Jenson was found in any Polk Directory 1928-1975 associated
with this address.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 22 of 34
A Pratt Kesler (1905-1964)
This Minimal Traditional architectural style house built with regular brick is “historically
contributing “A” is “historically contributing “A” (2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey).
Alonzo Pratt Kesler, his wife Ellen, daughter and son lived at 1875 E Yale Ave for 33
yrs from 1941-1964. A Pratt Kesler (1905-1964) was a lawyer who worked in the
State and Federal Judicial departments.
A Pratt Kesler became only the second person in Utah history to serve as both
U.S. Attorney from the District of Utah and as Utah Attorney General, as well as
the only former U.S. Attorney to return later in his career to work for a substantial
period as an Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Dwight D Eisenhower
Administration. He graduated from the University of Utah with an AB degree in
1930, and from the University of Utah Law School with a JD degree in 1933. After
two years in private practice, he was appointed as Salt Lake City Prosecuting
Attorney (1935-40) and subsequently served as Assistant Salt Lake City Attorney
(1940-53). He was active in the county, state, and national bar associations, and
was active in a broad range of civic and political spheres. He was Republican
State Chairman in Utah from 1950 until his appointment as U.S. Attorney, and had
been a member of the Republican National Committee, 1952-53.
Kesler was appointed U.S. Attorney by President Eisenhower, confirmed by the
Senate, and took office in May, 1953. He was sworn in at an official ceremony on
Friday, May 22, at 10:00 a.m. in Judge Willis Ritter’s courtroom, with Court Clerk
Oliver K. Clay administering the oath. Kesler was elected Utah Attorney General
in 1960 and left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in early 1961. A. Pratt Kesler died at
age 79 on October 13, 1984, in Salt Lake City, of cardiac arrest (History Of The
District Of Utah's U.S. Attorney's Office, Justice.gov).
1885 E Yale Ave: (1938 Minimal Traditional “B”)
This 1938 Minimum Traditional architecture-styled house built with regular brick is
cited in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey for “exquisite brickwork” and
assessed as “historically contributing, B”
Thomas B Child, Jr, masonry contractor
The masonry contractor credited with this house is Thomas Battersby Child, Jr (1889-
1963), the proprietor in a building masonry contracting business (1940 census). He
lived at 452 S 800 E with his wife Bertha and daughter. He is credited as the
foremost masonry contractor in the Mountain West and is responsible for the
exquisite masonry associated with this house. He worked with stone as well,
creating “This is the Place Monument and LDS temples in Los Angeles and Idaho
Falls, He learned the masonry trade from his father, with whom he co-owned the
masonry contracting business. Together they are cited as having done brick work in
every Salt Lake City block (Hortense Child Smith his secretary, Mormonwik.com). He
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 23 of 34
is also the creator of Gilgal Garden, a “visionary art environment” in Salt Lake City.
“One of the most important artistic innovations in Gilgal Garden was Child’s use
of an oxyacetylene torch, like those used to cut steel, for cutting stone. The heat
of the torch removed the waste rock and fused the surface of the remaining
stone, giving it a polished sheen. Child’s son-in-law and assistant, Bryant Higgs,
was a skilled welder and pioneered this sculpting method. Higgs taught well-
known Utah sculptor Maurice Brooks to sculpt with the torch. Following Child’s
careful instructions, Brooks carved features on several of Child’s works, including
The Sphinx, The Monument to the Trade, Daniel II, Malachi, and The Last
Chapter of the Book of Ecclesiastes.” gilgalgarden.com). The garden contains
twelve original sculptural arrangements and over 70 stones engraved with
scriptures, poems, and philosophical texts. Child died in 1963. His neighbor
Grant Fetzer bought the property and the Fetzer family maintained the garden for
35 years, opening it briefly on Sundays for tours. A non-profit group, Friends of
Gilgal Garden, was formed in 1998 with Hortense Child Smith leading the effort
to raise money and purchase the garden, which they did in 2000. Gilgal Park is a
city park open to the public. Restoration of Child’s sculptures continue.
(Mormonwiki.com)
George William (Bill) Shipler, (1906-1956), owner
George William (a.k.a. Bill) Shipler (1906-1956), wife Irene and daughter owned this
house for 16 years (1940-56). George William (Bill) Shipler (1906-1956), was the
father of William Hollis Shipler (1929-2010), son of Harry Shipler (1878-1961)/Jessie
Smith and grandson of James William Shipler (1849-1937). All were involved in
photography and father-son partners in a photographic supplies business over 3
generations. They were famous for their glass plate negative photography of areas
throughout the developing intermountain west (Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and
Wyoming in the early 20th century. The Shiplers were master photographers who
practiced their craft with skill and style. The glass plate negative images in this
collection, especially during the initial years when they used large negative format
(mostly 8 x 10), are among the finest found anywhere. George William Shipler
capture many photographs of Yalecrest as it developed in early 20th century. His
photograph collection (100,000 photo negatives) is housed in the UU Marriot Library
Digital Collections Section in the Utah State Historical Society repository
(history.utah.gov).
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 24 of 34
Guthrie Bicycle store located at 333
South Main Street in Salt Lake City.
SHIPLER COLLECTION, UTAH STATE
HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
1884-1888 E Yale Ave: (1930 English Cottage,”A)
This two-family residency (duplex) English Cottage architectural style house was built
in 1930 by noted local Yalecrest builder Philiip Biesinger (1882-1937) with striated
polychrome brick (a combination of gold green, dark brown, red brown bricks).
Polychrome brick is highly admired and used in a number of fine houses in Yalecrest.
The house is assessed as “historically contributing, A”. Carl E Lind was a film
salesman who worked with a ‘moving picture” company lived in the 1888 side of the
duplex in the 1940 census with his wife, Virginia, a daughter and a sister. This
duplex has a continuous list of renters from 1930 to the current historic era.
5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning
City Policies and Master Plans
Historic Preservation Overlay
21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overay zoning provisions)
A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of
the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H historic preservation overlay district
is to:
1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual
structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance;
2. Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic
districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic
districts or individual landmarks;
3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures;
4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation;
5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City;
6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for
tourists and visitors;
7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and
8. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability.
Adopted Master Plans and City Policies
Community Preservation Plan: The City Council adopted the Community Preservation
Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 25 of 34
City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the
important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure
the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and
established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely
historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. (Click this link to view the Community
Preservation Plan)
Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies
Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are
consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria.
Policy 3.2a: Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary
purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the
primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or
preserve neighborhood character.
Policy 3.2b: The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on
protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development
patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries
based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant
character defining features where possible.
Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts.
Policy 3.2d: Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of
the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation.
Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City
expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed
designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local
designation.
Policy 3.2h: Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure
financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally.
Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to
designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of
historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining
the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource.
Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation
East Bench Community Master Plan (2017): (click this link to view the East Bench
Master Plan)
The proposed Yalecrest –Upper Yale Heights Local Historic District is located within the
area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban
Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a
sense of visual unity within the community.”
The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character:
- Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original
structure or neighboring homes, and
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 26 of 34
- New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes.
In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, the Yalecrest neighborhood is specifically identified
for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural
and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic
district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations
for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of
conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and historic
significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” In the 2017
version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically
contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a
common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Conservation
Districts.
Urban Design Element (1990): The Urban Design Element includes statements that
emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character and maintaining
livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the
following concepts:
-Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the
overall urban design scheme for the City.
- Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and
stability.
- Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character.
- Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the
city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided.
- Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district’s image.
- Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scale are
responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian.
Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000):
Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including
information on technical and financial assistance and incentives.
City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993)
- Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources.
- Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character
as expressed in the built environment.
- Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration.
Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998)
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible.
The proposed Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is currently zoned under the Yalecrest
Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 20073. The
purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction,
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 27 of 34
additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood”. The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and
several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against
demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new
structures.
The City's Preservation Policy was adopted in 20114. The Salt Lake City Community
Preservation Plan was adopted Oct. 23, 2012. Yalecrest was suggested for protection in
both plans. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD (Appendix
A) represents the 1800 block of Yale Ave located in the north/south midsection between
Sunnyside Ave and 1300 S and the Eastern most boundary (1900 East) of the Yalecrest,
neighborhood, also known as the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision. Yalecrest was
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. Recognizing this resource and
protecting it via a Local Historic District designation is consistent with the City's
preservation goals.
2. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation
The Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision. It is
located in the midsection of Yalecrest neighborhood on the 1800-1900 block of Yale Ave.
It contains 24 single-family property parcels with 1 duplex on Yale Ave at 1900 East
Property parcels are zoned R1-7000. The attractive neighborhood of Yalecrest have
mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied well-maintained houses with
landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area. No major roads have
been built through the general Yalecrest neighborhood, although traffic has increased on
the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave (840 S).
6. Public interest in Proposed LHD Designation
To date, 17/24 or 70.8% of the single-family and duplex home owners within the
proposed area of Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD have signed an application petition
in support of opening the process to create a Local History District. The overall support
on the application is 70.8%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required
by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines.
Property Owner Petition Signature to Open the Local Historic District
Designation in Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
# Property
Parcels
24a
# Petition
Signaturesa % SupportStreet
1800-1900 E Yale Ave 17 70.8%
aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have
Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature for Trusts on associated property parcels.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 29 of 34
layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles,
empty-nesters, couples and families that include both small and medium sized single
family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of
designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks,
green space, streetlights, mature shade trees and proximity to infrastructure necessities
such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, child care that encourage
walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made
Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood.
B. Photographs
Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Upper
Yale Heights LHD are listed with addresses and listed separately in APPENDIX C. The
original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site.
Current photographs of residential dwellings were collected by Lynn K Pershing, using an
iPhone 11 camera.
C. Research Material
The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation
for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, and was awarded that
distinction in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture,
history, builders and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County
Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation
Office, Family Search website, Polk Directories, Wikipedia, and newspaper archives (Salt
Lake Tribune and Deseret News) and the KEEPYalecrest website blog (keepyalecrest.org).
Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C. See
(http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/146
D. Landmark Sites Not applicable
E. Boundary Adjustment:
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD is the Upper Yale-3rd Addition subdivision located at the
midsection of the eastern most boundary (1900 East) of Yalecrest. This new LHD in
Yalecrest contains the highest percent of “historically contributing” houses than any other
street on the 1800 block.
The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD containing 24 property parcels
are listed below:
West boundary is 1800 East
East boundary is 1900 East
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 30 of 34
North boundary contains the north side of Yale Ave containing the odd numbered houses,
1803 E to 1885 E Yale Ave.
South Boundary contains the south side of Yale Ave with the even numbered houses,
1802-1888 E Yale Ave.
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 34 of 34
APPENDIX B
Contrary documentation between RLS 2005 text and existing house photographs
1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State
Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website
(www.slco.org/assessor)
1842 E Yale Ave
1847 E Yale Ave
1872 E Yale Ave
2. Possible changes in house contributing status that need to be confirmed by State
Historic Preservation Office, National Register of Historic Places Administrator, Mr.
Corey Jensen.
1803 E Yale Ave
1813 E Yale Ave
1836 E Yale Ave
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 35 of 34
APPENDIX C
Photographs of Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
See separate attached document
Yalecrest-Upper Yale Heights LHD
Page 36 of 34
APPENDIX D
Research Materials (References)
1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005. Utah State Historic
Preservation Office.
2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005.
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&k
eywords=#s928586
3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012
4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov
5. United States Census, 1930, 1940 and 1950.
6. Family Search app online
7. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials,
original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor.
5. OFFICIAL CANVASS
RESULTS
6. MAILING LIST
FULL NAME ADDRRESS CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
Salt Lake City UT
STATE ZIP
UT 84105
ANNETTE K GILLIS; KIMBALL M
GILLIS (JT) GILLIS (JT)
Current Occupant
1011 E BELMONT AVE
1028 S 1900 E
1035 S 1800 E
84108
84108Current Occupant
JOSEPH J M & ELIZABETH ANN
BUSICO FAMILY TRUST
04/06/2018 04/06/2
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
1105 S 1800 E
1106 S 1900 E
UT 84108
84108
LORENA DINIZ PURISSIMO;
JUSTIN DAKOTA ANDERSON (JT)
DERSON (JT)
GELEGOTIS FAMILY TRUST
04/10/2024 04/10/2024
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
1107 S 1900 E UT
UT
84108
1109 S 1800 E
1114 S 1900 E
84108
84108
MMS TR MMS TR 1117 S 1800 E
1121 S 1800 E
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108SCOTT B ROMNEY TT B ROMNEY
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED 1142 S 1900 E
1145 S 1900 E
84108
84108Current Occupant
FOUR M RANCH INC M RANCH
INC
1849 HARVARD HOLDINGS, LLC
LDINGS, LLC
COATES FAMILY TRUST
02/26/2013 02/26/2013
MURDOCK FAMILY
TRUST06/26/2001 T06/26/2001
EMMA JACKSON; LANDON RUUD
(JT) N RUUD (JT)
13417 S AINTREE AVE
1586 E STRATFORD AVE
1660 E 1300 S
DRAPER
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84020
84106
84105
84105
84108
84105
84108
84108
84105
84105
84105
84108
1759 E HARVARD AVE
1761 E YALE AVE
LENA A WARD LENA A WARD
FRANCINE B WILLIAMS; CHARLES
H WILLIAMS (JT) LLIAMS (JT)
1762 E YALE AVE
1763 E HERBERT AVE
1764 E HERBERT AVE
1765 E HARVARD AVE
1766 E HARVARD AVE
1767 E YALE AVE
LISA W NAGEL ISA W NAGEL
JUDY LYNN REGAN LIVING TRUST
02/07/2001 02/07/2001
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
2015 KMM TR 2015 KMM TR
BOONE C COLEGROVE; MARGO L
COLEGROVE (JT) EGROVE (JT)
KRISTIN T STONE FAMILY TRUST
06/08/2023 06/08/2023 1768 E HERBERT AVE
Current Occupant 1768 E YALE AVE Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
84108
ALEXA DUBOIS LEXA DUBOIS
Current Occupant
EMILY BLEYL; STEVE BLEYL (JT)
BLEYL (JT)
1769 E HERBERT AVE
1771 E HARVARD AVE
CITY UT 84108
84108Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1772 E HARVARD AVE
1773 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84105
84105
84108
84108
84108
84105
W&CD FAM TR W&CD FAM TR
CHRISTINE MCSWEENEY E
MCSWEENEY
LITTLE FAMILY TRUST
10/13/2008 10/13/2008
JAY L STONE; KRISTIN T STONE
(JT) STONE (JT)
GUDMUNDSEN RESIDENTIAL
TRUST 11/14/2018 11/14/2018
WILLIAM COULSON WISCOMB;
EMILY WISCOMB (JT) ISCOMB
(JT)
1774 E HERBERT AVE
1774 E YALE AVE
1775 E HERBERT AVE
1777 E HARVARD AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
1778 E HARVARD AVE
1779 E HERBERT AVE
UT 84105
84108Current Occupant
CHRISTOPHER AARON SIMON
LIVING TRUST 02/04/2015
02/04/2015
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
ANDREW D GASSMAN; THERESA
L WERNER (JT) WERNER (JT)
LINDSEY N ARMSTRONG N
ARMSTRONG
JEFF ALBERT ROBISON TRUST
05/18/2020 05/18/2020
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
1779 E PRINCETON AVE
1779 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84105
84105
84108
84105
1780 E HERBERT AVE
1780 E YALE AVE
1783 E HARVARD AVE
1784 E HARVARD AVE
84105
84108
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED 1784 E HERBERT AVE UT 84108
ESTELLE S HARRIS & J ROBINSON
SINGLETON REVOCABLE TRUST
01/18/202
MICHAEL A. WELCH; LONNA L.
WELCH NA L. WELCH
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1784 E YALE AVE UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84105
84105
84108
84105
1785 E HERBERT AVE
1785 E PRINCETON AVE
1785 E YALE AVEJ&CG REV TR J&CG REV TR
MICHAEL MCGRATH; MAUREEN
MCGRATH (JT) CGRATH (JT)
ALLISON H MORGAN; JOSEPH R
MORGAN (JT) MORGAN (JT)
1788 E YALECREST AVE
1802 E YALE AVE
KYLE REGISTER; KATHERINE J
ROBERTSON (JT) ERTSON (JT)
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1803 E YALE AVE UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
84108
84105
84108
84105
EMILY LEWIS EMILY LEWIS
TODD N BOREN; LESLIE A BOREN
(JT) BOREN (JT)
JOSEPH M DOUBEK; ANDREA
DOUBEK (JT) DOUBEK (JT)
SAMUEL BROWN; KATHLEEN
HOLBROOK (JT) LBROOK (JT)
LINDSAY HUMPHREY; RYAN
HUMPHREY (JT) MPHREY (JT)
1804 E HARVARD AVE
1806 E HERBERT AVE
1812 E HERBERT AVE
1813 E YALE AVE
1814 E HARVARD AVE
1814 E YALE AVERBWW BT RBWW BT
RAJENDU SRIVASTAVA; BRETTA A
PIRIE-SRIVASTAVA (JT) ASTAVA
(JT)
KEVEN & SUSAN ROWE TRUST
08/25/1989 08/25/1989
ROBERT & RINA CORSON FAMILY
TRUST 08/27/2018 08/27/2018
MATTHEW & JENNIFER ASAY
JOINT FAMILY TRUST 05/03/2018
05/03/2018
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1820 E HARVARD AVE
1820 E HERBERT AVE
1820 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84105
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
1821 E HARVARD AVE UT
UT
84108
YEE MATHESON LIVING TRUST
10/29/2021 10/29/2021
Current Occupant
1821 E YALE AVE
1826 E HARVARD AVE
84108
84108
PATRICA M PHILLIPS TRUST
05/11/2020 05/11/2020
CHRISTOPHER P HILL &
KATHLEEN A HILL JOINT LIVING
TRUST 03/28/201
EVAN A NOORDA; SUSAN E
SNOW (TC) E SNOW (TC)
ERIC & KATRINA DURHAM TRUST
11/04/2018 11/04/2018
JEFFERY M LILLYWHITE; ANGELA
LILLYWHITE (JT) YWHITE (JT)
MICHAEL LANSPA; ALLYSON
SERVOSS (JT) ERVOSS (JT)
BRANDON MATICH TRUST
01/03/2017 01/03/2017
Current Occupant
1826 E HERBERT AVE UT 84108
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
1827 E YALE AVE UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84105
84105
84108
84108
84108
1828 E YALE AVE
1829 E HARVARD AVE
1831 E HERBERT AVE
1832 E HERBERT AVE
1832 E YALECREST AVE
1833 E YALE AVE
84108
84108
PAGOAGA FAMILY TRUST
04/08/2013 04/08/2013
HERBERT AVENUE LLC AVENUE
LLC
1834 E HARVARD AVE
1835 E HERBERT AVE
UT 84108
84108
SALT LAKE
CITY UT
Current Occupant 1836 E YALE AVE Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
84108
84108
84108
84108
84108
84108
84108
CHRISTOPHER B SNOW; EMILY J
SNOW (JT) J SNOW (JT)
RONDA BADDLEY-DANIELS TRUST
03/14/2022 03/14/2022
ANDREW COOPER TRUST
08/31/2021 08/31/2021
BEAN FAMILY TRUST 02/01/2022
02/01/2022
PIPER C MADSEN; TIMOTHY C
MADSEN (JT) MADSEN (JT)
ROBERT D TINGEY; BONNIE K
TINGEY (JT) TINGEY (JT)
JOHN K III NEWLAND;
MARIANNE PHILPOT (JT) HILPOT
(JT)
1837 E HARVARD AVE
1838 E YALECREST AVE
1840 E HERBERT AVE
1841 E YALE AVE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
1842 E HARVARD AVE
1842 E YALE AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1843 E HARVARD AVE
1845 E HERBERT AVE
1846 E YALECREST AVE
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
DAVID MARVIN DANSIE RVIN
DANSIE
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
ROGER & JULIE DAY FAMILY
LIVING TRUST 09/24/2018
09/24/2018
JEFFREY LEWIS HOWELL; CAITLIN
MARIE HOWELL (JT) HOWELL (JT) 1848 E HARVARD AVE
KARIN JUNE LOCKOVITCH
LOCKOVITCH
Current Occupant
KERRY F LEHTINEN; TONI L
LEHTINEN (JT) HTINEN (JT)
BJN REV FAM TRUST V FAM
TRUST
ROY M SMEAL; KATHRYN R
BYRNE (JT) BYRNE (JT)
DOUGLAS & KARREN HAMMER
FAMILY TRUST 06/05/2019
06/05/2019
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1847 E YALE AVE UT
UT
UT
84105
84108
1848 E HERBERT AVE
1849 E HARVARD AVE
84108
84108
1850 E YALE AVE UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
1851 E HERBERT AVE
1852 E YALECREST AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY1854 E YALE AVE
1855 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
84105
84108
PHILLIP S BRENARD FAMILY
LIVING TRUST 02/03/2010;
RCHEL J WOODS F
SALT LAKE
CITY
HEATHER HUGHES HAYES
REVOCABLE TRUST 09/06/2018
09/06/2018
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1856 E HARVARD AVE
1856 E HERBERT AVE
1857 E HARVARD AVE
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
JOHN M SNOW JOHN M SNOW
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
BRADLEY & SUSAN HERTZ TRUST
04/06/2015 04/06/2015
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1860 E YALECREST AVE UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
DBD FAM LIV TRUST M LIV TRUST 1861 E HERBERT AVE
PAUL S STEVENS; TONYA C EGAN
(JT) C EGAN (JT)
KESHAV ANAND; SRAVANTHI
VEGUNTA (JT) EGUNTA (JT)
Current Occupant
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
BPJ46 REVOCABLE TRUST
9/27/2016 T 9/27/2016
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
HEDIYEH BARADARAN H
BARADARAN
PATRICIA A GOEDE REVOCABLE
TRUST 01/31/2023 01/31/2023
JEAN PAUL BRUMMER; GRACE
COLLINS BRUMMER (JT)
RUMMER (JT)
1862 E HARVARD AVE
1862 E HERBERT AVE
1863 E YALE AVE
84108
84108
1865 E HARVARD AVE
1865 E HERBERT AVE
1866 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84105
84108
84108
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1866 E YALECREST AVE
1869 E YALE AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
1870 E HARVARD AVE
1870 E HERBERT AVE
UT 84108
84108Current Occupant
MATTHEW G KEANE; CORINNE M
KEANE (JT) KEANE (JT)
Current Occupant
1871 E HARVARD AVE
1872 E HERBERT AVE
CITY UT 84108
84108Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
ROBERT P JR HAIGHT JR HAIGHT 1872 E YALE AVE
THOMAS W CLAWSON; SUSAN A
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
84105
84108
84108
CLAWSON (JT) LAWSON (JT)1872 E YALECREST AVE
NANCY STARK NANCY STARK
ARTHUR J SWINDLE FAMILY
TRUST 03/13/1989 03/13/1989
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
1875 E HERBERT AVE
1875 E YALE AVE
1876 E HERBERT AVE
1877 E HARVARD AVE
RICHARD A ELORREAGA A
ELORREAGA
DANIEL M JOHNSON; BROOKE
STEVENS JOHNSON (JT) OHNSON
(JT)
JUSTIN RAY SPANGLER; SARAH
JANE SPANGLER (JT) ANGLER (JT) 1878 E YALECREST AVE
MAIRIN RYTTING; CHAD HILL (JT)
D HILL (JT)
Current Occupant
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
1878 E HARVARD AVE UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
1880 E YALE AVE
1883 E HERBERT AVE
84108
84108
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
Salt Lake City UT
MGS REV LIV TRUST V LIV TRUST
Current Occupant
Current Occupant
1884 E HERBERT AVE
1884 E YALE AVE
1885 E HARVARD AVE
UT 84108
84108
84108
MICHAEL & MEGHAN WILCOX
FAMILY TRUST 08/09/2024
08/09/2024
TRACY ANN STEVENS LIVING
TRUST 08/08/2023 08/08/2023
Current Occupant
SCOTT & CHRISTINA DALTON
TRUST 01/23/2018 01/23/2018
ADAM B SHAW; ASHLEY SHAW
(JT) Y SHAW (JT)
KYLIE S. MIMITZ; MICHAEL K.
MIMITZ (JT) MIMITZ (JT)
BAO WANG; HUIMIN YAN (JT) IN
YAN (JT)
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
Salt Lake City UT
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
1885 E YALE AVE UT
UT
84108
1903 E HERBERT AVE
1903 E YALE AVE
84108
84108
1904 E HERBERT AVE
1904 E YALECREST AVE
1906 E YALE AVE
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
84108
84108
84108
84108
84105
84108
84105
84108
84105
84108
84105
84108
84108
84105
84108
84108
84108
84108
1911 E HERBERT AVE
JUSTIN L CALDWELL L CALDWELL 1911 E YALE AVE
STEPHEN W OWENS HEN W
OWENS 1912 E HERBERT AVE
JANUARY MARSH; MATTHEW
THAYNE MARSH (JT) MARSH (JT)
AMY F HODSON; AMY FAY
SORENSON AY SORENSON
JAMES R HOWELL; JANE J
HOWELL NE J HOWELL
RUAIRI CHAPMAN; LISA
CHAPMAN (JT) HAPMAN (JT)
STEVEN M RHONDEAU; SUSAN H
RHONDEAU (JT) ONDEAU (JT)
MYLES & CAROLYN GREEN BERG
TRUST 02/18/2021 02/18/2021
MARY J FREY; THOMAS K FREY
(JT) K FREY (JT)
1912 E YALE AVE
1917 E HERBERT AVE
1919 E YALE AVE
1920 E HERBERT AVE
1920 E YALE AVE
1925 E HERBERT AVE
1926 E HERBERT AVE
1927 E YALE AVE
KIM LOUIE; CAROLYN H LOUIE
(JT) LOUIE (JT)
MARK B ERICSON; BETHANY
ROBINSON (JT) BINSON (JT)
ERIC MORRISON; ALYSSA
MORRISON (JT) RRISON (JT)
BELZER FAMILY REVOCABLE
TRUST 03/12/2021 03/12/2021
HANSEN PROPERTIES LLC PERTIES
LLC
1928 E YALE AVE
1932 E HERBERT AVE
2009 E HERBERT AVE
2034 E LAIRD DR
T RICHARD DAVIS; ALTA K L
DAVIS (JT) DAVIS (JT)
1826 HARVARD, LLC ARVARD, LLC 2121 E GREENBRIAR WY
LEE SMITH; SALLY SMITH (JT)
SALT LAKE
CITY
MILLCREEK
SALT LAKE
CITY
2066 E HUBBARD AVE UT
UT
84108
84109
SMITH (JT)2400 E SUNNYSIDE AVE
30 N GOULD ST
UT
WY
84108
82801GSE GLOBAL LLC GLOBAL LLC
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED
IDENTIFIED
SHERIDAN
34552 CALLE CAMBIO CAPO BEACH CA
SALT LAKE
92624
84111
84150
84106
84158
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT
LAKE CITY T LAKE CITY 440 E 100 S
50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST
#2225
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT
UT
UT
UT
YALECREST CORP ECREST CORP
MCCOY TRUST 08/10/1989
08/10/1989
HARMEL G RIDDLE; ROMA R
RIDDLE (JT) RIDDLE (JT)
623 E 2100 S
PO BOX 58954
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•New definition of “theater, live performance”:
An indoor or outdoor venue whose principal use is any combination of music, theater, or
dance performed by one or more persons.
•Permit outdoor live performance theaters in CG, G-MU,
OS, PL-2, and all Downtown Districts (D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4)
•Expanded buffer for outdoor live performance theaters
to include all Residential Districts.
•Existing buffer for indoor live performance theaters will
remain in place and be clarified
PROPOSED CHANGES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•CG, Downtown Districts (D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4)
•These districts already permit indoor live performance
theaters.
•G-MU, OS, PL-2
•These districts currently permit formal amphitheaters.
•Outdoor live performance theaters will replace the
amphitheater use.
•Indoor Live Performance Theaters
•Not included in this proposal.
PROPOSED CHANGES
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:Submission Date:
02/20/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/21/2025Salt Lake City Council Chair
From:
Department*
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:E-mail
Elmore, Noah noah.elmore@slc.gov
Department Director Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Director Signed Date Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/21/2025 02/21/2025
Subject:
Text Amendment - Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type Budget Impact?
Ordinance Yes
No
Recommendation:
Recommendation to approve.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Please see attachment under "background/discussion" section above
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At their Formal Meeting on May 7, 2024, the Salt Lake City Council
initiated a petition to research and draft an ordinance to amend sections 21A.33.030 (Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and 21A.62.040 (Definitions of Terms) of the Salt Lake
City Zoning Ordinance to permit live performance theaters, either indoor or outdoor, within the
CG General Commercial District and any other district that may be appropriate based on its intensity,
scale, and location. Currently, only indoor live performance theaters are permitted.
This proposal will allow for both indoor and outdoor live performance theaters in CG General
Commercial Districts, instead of just indoor live performance theaters. It will also permit outdoor live
performance theaters in the G-MU Gateway-Mixed Use District, OS Open Space District, PL-2 Public
Lands District, and all four D Downtown Districts (D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4). These other districts either
already permit indoor live performance theaters or permit formal amphitheaters, which are of similar
function and impact to outdoor live performance theaters. Outdoor live performance theaters will replace
formal amphitheaters as a permitted use in the corresponding districts, OS and PL-2.
In addition to the changes to the land use tables, a footnote will be added prohibiting outdoor live
performance theaters within 1,000 feet of residential zoning districts.
Finally, the definition of live performance theater will be updated to reflect both indoor and outdoor uses.
Formal amphitheater will also be deleted where it is replaced by outdoor live performance theater.
Some of the proposed changes by this text amendment have already been included in the mixed-use
zoning district consolidation. The CG General Commercial District is proposed to be consolidated into
the new MU-11 District as part of the commercial and mixed-use zoning district consolidation
(PLNPCM2024-00707). The new MU-11 District is currently proposed to permit outdoor live
performance theaters (along with MU-6 and MU-8). The footnote included in this amendment prohibiting
outdoor live performance theaters within 1,000 feet of residential districts is also proposed as part of the
zoning consolidation.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations
on June 4, 2024, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The
recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with
them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on
March 25, 2024.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from June 11, 2024 to July 26, 2024. No public
comment was received.
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 9, 2024.
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed
amendment.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of October 9, 2024
b) PC Minutes of October 9, 2024
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 9, 2024
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Original Petition
This page has intentionally been left blank
1. ORDINANCE
Project Title: Text Amendment to Permit
Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
February 14, 2025
Date: ___________________________Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00595
Version: 1 By: _______
K , e r City Attorney
Date Prepared: February 14, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended 10/9/2024
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments to Title 21A. Zoning:
Amends the land use tables to make outdoor live performance theater a permitted use in
commercial districts, subject to spacing requirements from residential districts.
Amends section 21A.62.040 to amend the definition of “theater, live performance”.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is
existing with no proposed change.
1
2
1. Amending Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential
Districts by amending the use category “Theater, live performance” only, as follows:
1
Permitted And Conditional Use By District
FR-1/
43,560
FR-2/ FR-3/ R-1/
21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000
R-1/R-1/SR- SR- SR- R-2 RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R-RO
C13
Use 1 2 3 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU
35
C13
45
C13Theater, live
performance
(Indoor)
C13 C13
3
4
5
2. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 13 to Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, as
follows:
6
7
8
13. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
9
10
3. Amending Table 21A.33.030 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts by amending the use category “Theater, live
performance” and creating a new use category “Theater, live performance (Outdoor)” only, as follows:
11
Permitted And Conditional Use By DistrictUseCNCB
P12
CS1
P12
CC
P12
CSHBD1
P12
CG
P12
P25
SNB
Theater, live performance (Indoor)
Theater, live performance (Outdoor)
12
13
14
15
4. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 12 and add a new qualifying provision number 25 to Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and
Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts, to be listed in numerical order with the other qualifying provisions, as follows:
16
17
18
19
20
12. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
25. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of Residential Districts (21A.24).
5. Amending Table 21A.33.035 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts by amending the use category “Theater,
live performance” only, as follows:
Permitted And Conditional Use By District
Use TSA-UC
Transition
C4
TSA-UN
Transition
C4
TSA-MUEC
Transition
P4
TSA-SP
Transition
P4
Core
P4
Core
P4
Core
P4
Core
P4Theater, live performance (Indoor)4
21 2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
6. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 4 to Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, as follows:
4. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
7. Amending Table 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown
Districts by amending the use category “Theater, live performance” and creating a new use
category “Theater, live performance (Outdoor)” only, as follows:
Permitted And Conditional Use By
DistrictUse
D-1
P9
D-2 D-3
P9
D-4
P9Theater, live performance
(Indoor)
P9
Theater, live performance
(Outdoor)
P21 P21 P21 P21
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
8. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 9 and add a new qualifying provision
number 21 to Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown
Districts, to be listed in numerical order with the other qualifying provisions, as follows:
9. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
21. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of Residential Districts (21A.24 of this title).
9. Amending Table 21A.33.060 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway Districts
by deleting the use category “Amphitheater, formal”, amending the use category “Theater,
live performance” and creating a new use category “Theater, live performance (Outdoor)”
only, as follows:
Permitted And Conditional Use By
District
G-MU
P
Use
Amphitheater, formal
Theater, live performance
(Indoor)
P4
Theater, live performance
(Outdoor)
P11
47
3
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
10. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 4 and add a new qualifying provision
number 11 to Table 21A.33.020 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Gateway
Districts, to be listed in numerical order with the other qualifying provisions, as follows:
4. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
11. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of Residential Districts (21A.24 of this title).
11. Amending Table 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose
Districts by deleting the use category “Amphitheater, formal”, amending the use category
“Theater, live performance” and creating a new use category “Theater, live performance
(Outdoor)” only, as follows:
4
Permitted And Conditional Use By District
Use RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-
20
OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU
Amphitheater,
formal
P P
Theater, live
performance
(Indoor)
Theater, live
performance
(Outdoor)
C15 C15 C15 C15
P
C15 C15 C15
P
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
12. Amending only “Qualifying provisions” number 15 to Table 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special
Purpose Districts as follows:
15. Prohibited on lots located within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
67
68
13. Amending Table 21A.33.080 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts by amending the use category
“Theater, live performance” only, as follows:
69
Permitted And Conditional Use By DistrictUseFB-UN1 FB-UN2 FB-MU11
P
FB-SC FB-SE
Theater, live performance (Indoor)
70
5
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
14. Amending Section 21A.62.040 only as to the definition of “Theater, Live Performance” as
follows:
THEATER, LIVE PERFORMANCE: An establishment for musical, theatrical, dance or any
other combination thereof, performed by one or more persons, whether or not they are
compensated for the performance, in a privately owned premises that is open to the public,
whether or not admission is charged. An indoor or outdoor venue whose principal use is any
combination of music, theater, or dance performed by one or more persons.
[end]
6
2. PROJECT
CHRONOLOGY
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
Project Chronology
Petition: PLNPCM2024-00595
May 7, 2024 Petition initiated by City Council.
May 20, 2024 Petition was deemed complete.
May 21, 2024 Petition assigned to Noah Elmore, Associate Planner.
May 2024 – October Staff drafted language to support goals of the petition.
2024
June 4, 2024 Notice of petition sent to all city recognized community organizations.
June 11, 2024 Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House
webpage. Public comment period ended July 26, 2024
November 27, 2024 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the
listserv.
October 3, 2024 Staff Report posted to Planning’s webpage.
October 9, 2024 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing held. A positive
recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
February 14, 2025 Ordinance received from City Attorney’s office.
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-00595. At their Formal Meeting on May
7, 2024, the Salt Lake City Council initiated a petition to research and draft an ordinance to amend
sections 21A.33.030 (Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) and
21A.62.040 (Definitions of Terms) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit live performance
theaters, either indoor or outdoor, within the CG General Commercial District and any other district
that may be appropriate based on its intensity, scale, and location. Currently, only indoor live performance
theaters are permitted. Other related provisions in Title 21A may also be modified as part of this proposal.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue
will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of
the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME:7:00 pm
PLACE:Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person that
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451
South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx
connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be
provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the
Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Noah Elmore
at (801) 535-7971 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at
noah.elmore@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by
selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2024-00595.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate
formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,
(801) 535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. ORIGINAL
PETITION
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY
AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
1. Legislative Action: Consider Allowing Outdoor Events in The General
Commercial Zone
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 allow live
performance theater use in the General Commercial Zone either indoors or outdoors.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Dugan to
initiate a legislative action starting the process for City staff to research and
draft an ordinance that would allow live performance theater use either
indoors or outdoors in the General Commercial zone and other districts that
may be appropriate based on the intensity, scale, and location of the district,
by changing the title “theater, live performance” to “theater, live
performance (indoor or outdoor)” in the land use tables.
AYE: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah
Young, Eva Lopez Chavez
Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass
2. Legislative Action: Amend City Ordinance For The Amount of Time A
Reconstructed Historic Building is Protected
The Council will consider a Legislative Action that would initiate a zoning petition for City
staff to research and draft an ordinance that would change the years reconstructed
historic buildings must be protected from 25 to 50 years.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
27
1.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation -
Item K1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Analyst
DATE: May 7, 2024
RE:Legislative Action: Outdoor Live Performance Events General Commercial Zone
Motion to Initiate Legislative Action
I move the Council initiate a legislative action starting the process for city staff to research and draft an
ordinance that would allow live performance theater use either indoors or outdoors in the General
Commercial zone and other districts that may be appropriate based on the intensity, scale and location of
the district, by changing the title “theater, live performance” to “theater, live performance (indoor or
outdoor)” in the land use tables.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
5.7.2024
Announcements
Legislative Action: Consider allowing outdoor events in the CG (General
Commercial) zone.
Issue Summary
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 allow live
performance theater use in the CG (General Commercial) zone either indoors or
outdoors. Currently they are only allowed indoors.
If the Council supports this action, it may consider formally adopting the legislative
action in the May 7 formal meeting.
Motion to Initiate Legislative Action
I move the Council initiate a legislative action starting the process for city staff to
research and draft an ordinance that would allow live performance theater use in the CG
(General Commercial) zone either indoors or outdoors by changing the title “theater,
live performance” to “theater, live performance (indoor or outdoor)” in the land use
table for commercial districts in Chapter 21A.33.030 of Salt Lake City Code.
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City Water Supply Outlook
Salt Lake City Council MeetingMarch 4th , 2025
Salt Lake City’s Water Service Area
•We providedrinking water to more than 364,000
people
•Our water service area includes all of Salt Lake City
and large portionsof Mill Creek,Holladay,and
Cottonwood Heights as well as small portions of
South Salt Lake,Murray,and Midvale
•Stormwater and sanitary sewer service are within Salt
Lake City’s corporate boundary.
•***Service A rea Map:https://www.slc.gov/utilities/
2
3
Determining Annual Water Supply Outlook
•Numerous resources including: CBRFC, NRCS, Drought Monitor,
CUWCD, NOAA, USBR, USGS, UDNR, SLCo, SLCDPU
•Snowpack, Snow Water Equivalent, Soil Moisture, Weather
Forecasts, Reservoir Levels
•Current Conditions (looking good –water supply & runoff
management):
•Normal snowpack (snow water equivalent) in our watersheds.
•Recent storms put us at > 95% of median for our local
Wasatch Mountain watersheds
•Moderate drought in the valley and abnormally dry in the
mountains
•Soil moisture less than last year
•Reservoirs are high
•We still have ~2 months left to add to build supply in our
snowpack
Storage in Snowpack as
of March 3, 2025
Lookout Peak elev: 8150’
Louis Meadow elev: 6750’
Precipitation and Temperature Outlook
•Seasonal precipitation and temperature are factors in
both water supply and water demand.
•The three-month outlook March, April, May
projects above normal temperature for our region.
•Higher temperatures cancause greater water
demand in the spring,and a faster runoff.
•The three-month precipitation outlook for March,
April, May projects chances for leaning below normal
precipitation.
1-7 Day Forecast Radar and Short-Term Narrative Forecast
Looking Favorable for Additions to our Snowpack
Reservoirs
Reservoirs store water
to help us through
drought years and to
meet annual system
water demands.
Deer Creek Reservoir is
critical to Salt Lake City,
providing between 30-35%
of our water supplies
annually and providing
reliable water during
droughts.
Deer Creek Reservoir
is 84% full as of Feb
25th
Salt Lake City has access to Deer
Creek water through the
Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake and Sandy participation in
the federal Provo River Project
and the Central Utah Project.
Little Dell and Mountain
Dell Reservoirs in Parleys
Canyon are also
important for water
supplies and flood control.
Great Salt Lake –current level 4193.1 feet
8
Nov 2023:4,192.1'Current 4,193.1’
3.6’1’
•Nov 2022: 4,188.5' –record low
•Change
•high of 4,212 in 1986
•March 3, 2024 4193.7’
Ongoing Monitoring of Our Snowpack
Understanding
Dynamics of
the Snowpack
in Our
Watersheds is
Key to Helping
Us to Predict
Our Water
Supply and
Runoff
Characteristics
Continuing a Long-Standing Effort to Predict
Water Supply in Salt Lake City Using Snow Data
Salt Lake Tribune 8/14/1910
Item E1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:March 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO COLD PLUNGE
COFFEE, LLC, AT 457 EAST 300 SOUTH
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Cold Plunge
Coffee, LLC from the Economic Development Loan Fund.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:March 4, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO COLD PLUNGE
COFFEE, LLC, AT 457 EAST 300 SOUTH
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC, at 457 East 300 South, which offers craft coffee and cold plunges, or
cold-water immersion therapy. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council
approve a $100,000 loan at an 11% interest rate over seven years. This loan will assist in the creation of
nine new jobs in the next year and the retention of one existing job. Funds will also pay for building renovation,
machinery & equipment, furniture & fixtures, working capital, and contingencies.
The interest rate reflects the 8% prime rate at the time of the application (September 24, 2024) plus the
standard EDLF four percentage points. The project qualified for a one-percentage-point reduction based on
sustainability (see section B below).
Goal of the briefing: Review a proposed $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to Cold
Plunge Coffee, LLC, before taking action during the March 4 formal meeting.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by
the City from this and other loan funds and whether it makes sense to reevaluate how interest rates are
determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique
information about this business that would help Council Members evaluate how this application compares
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: March 4, 2025
Page | 2
to others. For example, are risk factors evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in
business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the
number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Interest Rates. For context, the nationwide median rates for urban small business commercial and
industrial loans in the second quarter of 2024 (the most recent data available) were 7.77% for fixed-rate
loans and 8.88% for variable rate loans, according to the most recent U.S. Federal Reserve Small Business
Lending Survey*. In the second quarter of 2022, these rates were 4.50% and 5.55% respectively. Interest
rates for EDLF loans consider an assessment of the risk level of different applicants, among other factors,
and include potential interest rate reductions. Interest rates have ranged from 7.25% for nearly all 2022
EDLF loans to an average of 9.55% in 2023 and 2024.
*Source: Small Business Lending Survey, New Small Business Lending Declines as Credit Standards
Continue to Tighten. Consulted on January 27, 2025, at
https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/new-small-business-lending-
declines-as-credit-standards-continue-to-tighten/.
B.Interest Rate Reductions. The bases for potential reductions are as follows:
1.Location within a priority area: RDA Project Area; Opportunity Zone; West of I-15; or
Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP, previously known as Façade Improvement)
target area.
2.Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (SEDI)-Owned Businesses: 51%
of the business is owned by at least one SEDI individual.
3.Low Income Business Owner: Income does not exceed 80% of Salt Lake County average
median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD).
4.Sustainability: Either,
a. Membership in SLC Green’s E2 Business Program; or
b. Loan proceeds will be used for the purchase of electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging
stations and infrastructure, renewable energy including but not limited to wind and solar, heat
pumps, high efficiency equipment, and/or energy efficiency.
Page | 3
The interest rate reductions applied to this application are detailed below:
Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
8.0% prime rate
+ 4% ELDF charge
– 1% for sustainability
___________________________
11.0% final interest rate
C.Program. The EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the program's goals. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed
before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on
successful applications is transmitted to the Council to consider for final approval.
D.Available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Department reported that the Fund’s
available balance was approximately $7,900,000 on January 30, 2025, and outstanding loans totaled
$4,758,163.35 on January 30, 2025.
E.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development lists nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees Community Volunteers
1. Finance Director, Community and
Neighborhoods Department
2. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
3. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 4. Banker
5. Salt Lake City employee at large 6. Community lender
7. Representative of the Division of Housing
Stability
8. Business mentor
9. Director, Department of Economic
Development
10.
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
02/12/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/13/2025
From:
Department *
Economic Development
Employee Name:
Wright, William
E-mail
william.wright@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
02/13/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/13/2025
Subject:
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
Additional Staff Contact:
Peter Makowski; peter.makowski@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
William Wright; Peter Makowski
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
$100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
Recommendation:
The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $100,000 loan to Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LORENA RIFFO-JENSON
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________________ Date Received: __________________________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _____________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 11, 2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
STAFF CONTACTS:
Peter Makowski, Business Development Deputy Director, Peter.Makowski@slc.gov
Will Wright, Project Manager, William.Wright@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $100,000 loan to Cold
Plunge Coffee, LLC
BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On January 30, 2025, a loan request from Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC,
was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Cold Plunge Coffee offers craft
coffee and an easy, accessible way to make cold plunging a daily ritual.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
Address: 457 E 300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Loan Amount Requested: $100,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 11%
Use of Funds: Building Renovation, Machinery & Equipment, Furniture & Fixtures, Working Capital,
Contingencies
Loan Type: (Start-up/expansion) Start-up
Council District: D4
Reasoning behind staff recommendation
Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application process
consisting of pre-screening, underwriting analysis and an economic impact statement. Only after the loan
applicant goes through these processes, is the loan recommended to be reviewed by the Loan
Committee. Upon thorough review by the Loan Committee members, a recommendation is made before the
loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the
Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Open Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely
with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the
public process is followed.
In addition, the EDLF loans must meet the goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the
EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas.
• Increase employment opportunities,
• Stimulate business development,
• Encourage private investment,
• Promote economic development,
• Enhance neighborhood vitality, and
• Boost commercial enterprise.
This loan will assist in the creation of 9 new jobs in the next year and retention of 1 current job.
This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval.
EDLF Loan Balances
• As of January 30, 2025, the EDLF available fund balance is approximately $7,900,000
• As of January 30, 2025, the total amount of outstanding loans is: $4,758,163.35
EDLF Loan Committee,
There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members.
City Employees:
1. Community and Neighborhood’s
Finance
2. Mayor’s Office
3. Employee at large
4. Housing Stability
5. Economic Development
Community Volunteers:
6. Business Advisory Board (BAB)
member
7. Banker
8. Community lender
9. Business mentor
Attachments:
• Terms Sheet for Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
• Ordinance
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2025
(Ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC, at 457 East 300 South, Salt Lake
City, UT 84111 from the Economic Development Loan Fund)
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund
(“EDLF”) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance
neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City.
WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”)
and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan
Committee.
WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached
loan term sheet for a $100,000 loan to Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC, at 457 East 300 South, Salt Lake City,
UT 84111.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that:
SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet
attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City
hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any
other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating such other terms and
agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of
_____________________, 2025.
Chris Wharton, Council Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2025.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
Sara Montoya, City Attorney
February 10, 2025
This page has intentionally been left blank
LOAN TERM SHEET
Applicant: Cold Plunge Coffee, LLC
Address: 457 East 300 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Proposed Loan Terms
Loan Amount: $100,000
Monthly Payment: $1,712.24
Loan Terms: 7 Years
Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 8% (at the time of application fee payment and
initiation of Part B of the Application on September 24, 2024)
Plus EDLF Charge: 4%
Less Discount: 1% for each
• Sustainability (e2 Business Program)
Final Interest Rate: 11%
Use of Funds: Building Renovation, Machinery & Equipment, Furniture & Fixtures, Working Capital,
Contingencies
Loan Type: Start up
Collateral: Equipment
Personal Guarantees: John Caleb Fritz
Conditions for Closing
• Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel
and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff.
This page has intentionally been left blank
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: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:March 4, 2025
RE: INFORMATIONAL: INITIAL CITYWIDE PARKING POLICY DISCUSSION
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
In early 2024, the Council indicated its desire for a broader discussion on City parking policies after allocating
funds for a new generation of parking kiosks. As a first step in this broader discussion, several departments
worked together to assemble a set of questions for Council discussion (see section A, below). These are designed
to provide policy guidance to the Administration on a first set of potential parking policy changes and,
ultimately, to lead to a significant update to City parking ordinances. The goal is also to help address several
issues identified in the 2022 parking study commissioned by the Administration (see Exhibit A of the
transmittal). The Administration plans to follow up this first discussion with an in-depth analysis of how the
options preferred by the Council would affect revenue and resource needs. At that point, the Council would have
the opportunity to review the language of proposed ordinance changes and could vote on whether to adopt
them. The transmittal also includes a memo with a recommendation for resolving residents’ parking difficulties
in the Fairpark area (see Exhibit C of the transmittal, and section C below). This mechanism could potentially be
applied to other neighborhoods where periodic commercial events cause difficulties for neighborhoods.
Goal of the briefing: Discuss and indicate initial preferences for changes in City parking policy.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Citywide Parking Challenges and Proposed Solutions. As a first step in a broader discussion of
parking challenges, the Administration requests the Council consider the list of six specific topics and
options for City response in the transmittal’s Exhibit B, titled Parking Issues and Options Table (pages 82
to 89). In summary, the topics are:
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
1.Meter Fee-Structure Issues: Customization of parking options for changing Central
Business District needs.
2.Event Impacts: Potential responses to periodic special events that complicate parking
in certain residential neighborhoods. (See also the transmittal’s pages 92 and 93 for the
Exhibit C. Fairpark Parking Memo.)
3.Delivery Service Impacts: How to regulate problems caused by the growth of package
and food service delivery, as well as rideshare services in certain areas of the City.
4.Pay-by-Space Issues: Options for potentially shifting from the current pay-by-space
meter system to a pay-by-license-plate arrangement.
5.Citation Structure Issues: Potential to increase parking compliance by raising fees for
some or all citations.
6.Implementation Schedule: Timing options for implementing any changes.
The Council’s discussions on these items are intended to provide direction to the Administration on a series
of potential policy changes, which could to lead to a significant update to City parking ordinances. Once the
Council indicates its preferences, the Administration would follow up with an in-depth analysis of how the
various recommendations would affect revenue and resource needs, including additional FTEs, software,
and equipment.
B.Policy Topics for Potential Future Consideration. In its transmittal the Administration also
suggested several broader parking policy topics that may interest the Council for future discussion. Some
specific examples are:
1.Expanding parking meters to new areas. In the short-term this might include West
Downtown, Station Center, Granary District, Central Ninth, and parts of Central City. In
the medium-term it could include the Sugar House business district.
2.Updating the fee schedule and fines. This could potentially include new zones with
different fees and rate structures.
3.Adjustments to times and days of the week. This could include changing time
limits, reducing free parking times, and increasing days of the week and time of the day
for enforcement, and
4.New policies for special events and special overlay areas. (See section C below
for Fairpark Neighborhood Information and Proposal).
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to schedule a separate briefing on one or more
of these topics, or to discuss the 2022 Parking Study more generally?
The Administration also plans to draft recommendations for change from the recently-adopted Connect SLC
Master Plan, and consider Salt Lake City Library parking fee rates, the impacts of construction on parking,
and Downtown residential parking.
➢Policy Question: Are there any other parking-related items that the Council would like
to refer to the Administration for study?
Page | 3
C. Fairpark Neighborhood Information and Proposal. In response to comments from Fairpark
neighborhood residents, who report having difficulty parking near their homes during major events at the
Fair Park, the Administration proposes developing a new “Event Parking Management District” program
(see the transmittal's Exhibit C, page 91 and 92). This is type of district would be limited to neighborhoods
where high demand is linked to periodic major commercial events, which is a situation not currently covered
in code. The proposal is to address the problems in the Fairpark neighborhood by establishing a boundary
within which visitors would be required to purchase a parking permit corresponding with their vehicle’s
license plate, which potentially could be paid for via an app or at pay stations. This arrangement would open
the potential for surge-pricing during these events, which also would encourage carpooling and use of public
transportation. The revenue generated by these visitor fees is proposed to be used for subsidizing the cost of
an annual parking permit for neighborhood residents, since many of them have long been marginalized
from other City programs and economic opportunities, and any revenue in excess of that amount would
accrue to the City’s general fund.
➢Policy Question: Does the Council support the recommendation to implement the new
parking zone in the Fairpark area on a trial basis?
➢Policy Question: Would Council like to request the Administration calculate an
estimated cost for implementing this system?
➢Policy Question: Would the Council like to request analysis like that in Exhibit C to
assess the viability of establishing these parking zones in certain other City
neighborhoods, where periodic commercial events affect residents’ ability to park near
their homes? If so, are there any specific parameters the Council would like to consider
for selection of these areas (for example, the scale of increased parking on event days,
whether most homes in a neighborhood have alternatives to street parking, like
driveways and garages, etc.)?
D.Background. The Council had voted to fund new pay stations on April 16, 2024, as part of BA#3 of FY24.
At that time, full payment of just over $1.6 million was authorized, as an alternative to using a payment plan
which would have included interest charges as well. This change was completed in September 2024, with
260 parking pay stations replaced. Two additional pay stations will be installed on 200 South between 300
West and 400 West in the coming days. The Compliance Division notes, “These locations have not
previously had pay stations, but a recent study by the Transportation Division determined that they were
needed.”
The updated pay stations are expected to provide more reliable and cost-efficient service to the City and to
users. The new stations will have the capability to support a variable rate structure, to pay for parking
periods of varying time periods, and to allow space for sidewalk or curbside vendors. They will also be able
to support display of regional information (like items of interest nearby) along with advertising of events
and local businesses. In addition, they offer an option for parking-citation payments, and for the sale and
reloading of public transportation cards. The current practices for temporarily reserving a parking spot will
likely continue, through a user request for a reservation through the Transportation Division, which
provides the mechanism for a meter spot, or spots, to be “bagged.”
The Administration does not plan to switch to using the parking app only (that is, removing pay stations
entirely) because the 2022 parking study found that there are enough cash and card transactions at the pay
stations to make it worthwhile to retain them. The study also noted that pay stations help ensure equity of
access to parking for those who prefer to use cash, or have other reasons for not using the app.
Parking Policy Discussion
City Parking Policy (Chapter 12.56)
Parking as a Critical Service
Project Overview
•Parking Study
completed, which
included several
recommendations
•Council approved funding for pay
stations
•Council requested policy level discussion on
parking policies
•Pay stations were
replaced city-wide
•Multi-department collaboration to develop list for
council of parking policy issues
2022 SPRING 2024 FALL 2024
Parking Issues
•Meter & fee structure
•Event impacts
•Delivery service impacts
•Pay by space
•Citation structure
•Implementation schedule
Staff Report Policy Questions
•Would the Council like to schedule a separate briefing on one or more of these topics, or to discuss the 2022 Parking Study more generally?
•Are there any other parking-related items that the Council would like to refer to the Administration for study?
•Does the Council support the recommendation to implement the new parking zone in the Fairpark area on a trial basis?
•Would Council like to request the Administration calculate an estimated cost for implementing this system?
•Would the Council like to request analysis like that in Exhibit C to assess the viability of establishing these parking zones in certain other City neighborhoods, where periodic commercial events affect residents’ ability to park near their homes? If so, are there any specific parameters the Council would like to consider for selection of these areas (for example, the scale of increased parking on event days, whether most homes in a neighborhood have alternatives to street parking, like driveways and garages, etc.)?
Other Potential
Issues
•Compliance w/ State Code and
ambiguity
•Recommendations from Connect
SLC Master Plan
•Library Fee Rates
•Construction impacts on parking
•Expanded metered parking areas
•Downtown residential parking
Issues & Options
Meter & Fee Structure Issues
Meter & Fee Structure Options
A
RECOMMENDED
Extend metering
into evenings
and Saturdays
B
RECOMMENDED
Increasing the
meter rate
C
RECOMMENDED
Create Flexible
Time & Variable
Pricing Zones$0.10 for 2 minutes, $0.25 for 6
minutes, $1 for 27 minutes,
$2.25 for 60 minutes
Event Issues (Fairpark)
Parking utilization on non-event day Parking utilization during Fairpark event
Event Options
A
RECOMMENDED
Create a new
Event Parking
Management
Program
Modify the
current Parking
Permit
Program
Convert areas
around event
centers to
metered parking
B C
Delivery Service Issues
Car parked in freight zone downtown Car parked in bike lane downtown
Delivery Service Options
A
Allow Delivery
& Rideshare to
obtain Freight
Permits
RECOMMENDED
Create a
delivery permit
system
Simplify our
Freight Loading
Zones
B C
Pay by Space Issues
Pay by Space Options
A
RECOMMENDED
Convert to a
pay by plate
system
B
Swap meter
heads for
larger heads
C
Remove all
double meter
heads
Citation Structure Issues
Car parked at Sunnyside Park during U of U football game Time-limited parking area
Citation Structure Options
A
RECOMMENDED
Raise citation
fines
RECOMMENDED
Create
“targeted”
citation fines
RECOMMENDED
Create a
“systematic
parking violation”
fine
B C
Implementation Schedule Options
A
RECOMMENDED
Update code to
address all issues
and create an
implementation
schedule
Update code
multiple times
with
incremental
changes
Make all
changes at once
B C
Thank you!
Transportation (CAN), Finance, & Compliance (PS)
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
02/10/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/19/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Lynn Jacobs
E-mail
lynn.jacobs@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
02/18/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/19/2025
Subject:
Citywide Parking Policy Discussion
Additional Staff Contact:
Julie Crookston (julie.crookston@slc.gov)Jordan Smith (jordan.smith@slc.govArturo Garcia (arturo.garcia@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Information to the City Council seeking further communication in regards to parking policy.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Please see the Parking Transmittal PDF under "background/discussion"
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
DEPARTMENT of Finance DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC SERVICES
Mary Beth Thompson Jorge Chamorro
Chief Financial Officer Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In 2022, Salt Lake City commissioned a study to evaluate our parking challenges and needs
(Exhibit A). During the study, the City determined that our parking pay stations in the metered
area downtown were obsolete and in need of replacement. As a result, in 2024, Salt Lake City
upgraded our parking pay stations to replace aging infrastructure. The Administration convened
several small group meetings and budget amendment briefings with City Council to identify
funding for the pay station replacements. The study and discussions with City Council identified
that the parking ordinances (Chapter 12.56 of City Code) had several deficiencies that would
need to be addressed in the future. This transmittal serves as the initial step in discussing the
changes to City Code Chapter 12.56 to address the deficiencies. The Administration seeks input
from City Council prior to embarking on drafting these changes.
The changes need to address current issues as well as meet the needs of the City moving forward.
Salt Lake City is growing at a rapid pace and is evolving to accommodate more arts, culture and
entertainment uses in addition to traditional commuter traffic. Salt Lake City is embarking on an
exciting chapter of new growth. Examples of this growth include the Power District, residential
growth downtown, increased density in Sugar House and throughout the city, the downtown
Sports, Entertainment, Culture and Convention District, and the 2034 Olympics. The dynamics
of our Downtown Central Business District (CBD) are also changing. Parking policy is an
important element of ensuring that our future is more sustainable with a better quality of life.
One clear example of where our current parking code is struggling to meet the needs of our
residents is in the Fairpark neighborhood where residents must cope with pressures around
event-goers parking in their neighborhood. More details on this issue and a proposed solution
can be found in Appendix C.
To prepare for this conversation, representatives from the Transportation Division, Compliance
Division, and Finance Department have met and developed a set of issues in the current parking
policy along with potential solutions for these issues. Note that several of these issues and
solutions are not mutually exclusive and the most successful update to our City’s policy will be a
comprehensive implementation that addresses the issues identified. Please note that for each
problem identified, one of the options is to “do nothing” and stay with the status quo. For
brevity, the option to maintain the status quo is not presented. A summary of the issues and
opportunities is presented below, with a more robust analysis presented as Exhibit B.
The Administration has prepared for this conversation with City Council by completing some
cursory analysis of these issues. Based on the direction received from Council, we plan on
completing a more in-depth analysis of these issues including an evaluation of how the various
recommendations impact revenue and resource needs such as additional FTEs, software and
equipment. This final analysis will then be presented back to the City Council along with draft
language to update the applicable sections of City Code at a future date.
Issues & Options
1.Meter Fee Structure Issues
Issue: The Central Business District’s needs have evolved, and the current meter structure
does not meet those needs as well as it could. More customization is needed to address
unique challenges in this area.
Option A: Extend active metering to include evenings and Saturdays
Option B: Increase the meter rate
Option C: Create Flexible Time and Variable Pricing Zones based on demand
Recommendation: A, B, and C
2.Event Impacts
Issue: As the City is hosting more events, neighborhoods around these event venues are
experiencing unintended impacts.
Option A: Create a new Event Parking Management program to manage these
areas, starting with the Fairpark area
Option B: Modify the current parking permit program (Chapter 12.64 of City
Code) so that it could be used to address these issues
Option C: Convert areas around these event centers to metered parking year-
round
Recommendation: A
3.Delivery Service Impacts
Issue: Delivery and rideshare vehicles block travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking,
increasing congestion and demand on the curb-space.
Option A: Allow delivery and rideshare uses to obtain a freight permit and
increase the amount of freight zones in the downtown area
Option B: Create a delivery permit system where curb-demand activities are
allowed either using existing meters or dedicated stalls
Option C: Simplify our freight loading zones into simpler loading zones with a
time restriction - no permits are required
Recommendation: B
4.Pay by Space Issues
Issue: Our current meter system (pay by space) leads to inefficient use of our curb space
as well as user confusion. It also discourages park-once and walk activities.
Option A: Convert from a pay by space to a pay by plate system
Option B: Swap our meter heads for larger heads
Option C: Remove all double meter heads and convert them to only single meter
heads
Recommendation: A
5.Citation Structure Issues
Issue: The current citation structure is not encouraging appropriate compliance with City
code in several instances.
Option A: Raise citation fines
Option B: Create a set of “targeted” citation fines for some of the behaviors where
we commonly see issues (e.g., during events, etc.)
Option C: Create a new citation that is a “systematic parking violation” and
comes with a higher fine
Recommendation: A, B and C
6. Implementation Schedule
Issue: Changes to our parking code can create confusion and pose challenges for our
residents, especially if multiple changes and/or fee increases are implemented at once.
Option A: Update the code to address the issues identified above and develop an
implementation schedule for when changes occur over the upcoming years
Option B: Update City Code annually with incremental changes
Option C: Make needed changes now and acknowledge the impacts to make the
frequency of change less dramatic
Recommendation: A
In addition to the issues above, there are several sections of our code that are non-compliant with
State Code and/or contain some ambiguity. The Administration will also draft recommendations
from our recently adopted Connect SLC Master Plan into the code. It is the Administrations
intention to bring those changes to Council in the future with the other code changes that will be
needed to address the issues identified above.
Additional topics that could be discussed while parking is being revisited include:
•Library fee rates
•Construction impacts on parking
•Expanding metered parking areas to include Sugar House, 9th & 9th, and Central 9th.
•Downtown residential parking
The Administration is also requesting input from City Council on any other parking related
issues that should be addressed.
PUBLIC PROCESS: No Public Process
EXHIBITS:
A)Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis (2022)
B)Parking Issues and Options Table
C)Fairpark Parking Memo (2025)
This page has intentionally been left blank
EXHIBIT A
Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis (2022)
Project #
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1
Salt Lake City
Metered Parking Analysis
(DRAFT)
Prepared for: Salt Lake City Corporation
November 18,2022
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1
Table of Contents
Executivee Summaryy 5
Introductionn 5
Existingg Meteredd Parkingg 5
Evaluationn off Meteredd Parkingg 5
Potentiall Expansionn off Parkingg Meterss 6
Meteredd Parkingg Policies,, Rates,, && Feess 7
Introductionn && Studyy Areaa 9
Introductionn 9
Studyy Areaa 10
Existingg Meteredd Parkingg Keyy Takeawayss 16
Existingg Meteredd Parkingg 17
Historicall Systemwidee Trendss 17
Analysiss off Multi-Spacee Meterr Usagee 18
Methodology 18
Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location 19
Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions 24
Meteredd Parkingg Evaluationn Keyy Takeawayss 27
Evaluationn off Meteredd Parkingg 28
Evaluationn Criteriaa 28
Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 29
Requirementss && Thresholdss 30
Requirements 30
Thresholds for Keeping Meters 31
Thresholds for Adding Meters 32
Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied 33
Recommendationss 36
Adding Meters 36
Removing Existing Meters 36
Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates 38
Potentiall Expansionn off Parkingg Meterss Keyy Takeawayss 40
Potentiall Expansionn off Parkingg Meterss 41
Shortt too Midd Termm 41
Cost and Quantity Estimates 43
Midd too Longg Termm 43
Cost and Quantity Estimates 48
Meteredd Parkingg Policies,, Rates,, && Feess Keyy Takeawayss 51
Meteredd Parkingg Policies,, Rates,, && Feess 52
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 2
Existingg Policies,, Rates,, && Feess inn Saltt Lakee Cityy 52
On-Street Parking Time Limits 52
On-Street Parking Rates 52
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 52
Special Events 53
Overnight Parking 53
“Move-It” Policy 53
Metered Parking Violations and Fines 54
Peerr Cityy Benchmarkingg 55
On-Street Parking Time Limits 55
On-Street Parking Rates 56
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 56
Special Events 57
Overnight Parking 57
“Move-It” Policy 58
Metered Parking Violations and Fines 58
Peerr Cityy Benchmarkingg Keyy Takeawayss 60
Selectedd Off-Streett Parkingg Ratess && Feess 61
Recommendationss && Otherr Suggestedd Itemss 63
On-Street Parking Time Limits 63
On-Street Parking Rates 63
On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement 65
Special Events 66
Overnight Parking 66
Move-It Policy 66
Violations & Fines 67
Appendixx 69
Evaluationn off Meteredd Parkingg 69
Recommendations 69
Potentiall Expansionn off Parkingg Meterss 70
Mid to Long Term 70
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Study Area 11
Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations 13
Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations 14
Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022)17
Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022)18
Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022)20
Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) 21
Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning 22
Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone 23
Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category 23
Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022)24
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 3
Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022)25
Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 30
Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters 30
Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters 31
Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year 32
Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters 32
Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds 34
Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone 35
Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category 35
Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System 37
Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters 38
Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022)41
Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area 42
Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas 43
Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated 45
Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use 46
Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas 47
Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown)48
Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48
Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House)49
Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49
Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City)52
Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City)52
Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City)52
Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City)53
Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City)53
Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City)53
Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City)54
Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities)55
Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities)56
Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities)56
Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities)57
Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities)57
Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities)58
Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities)58
Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities)59
Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking)61
Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics 62
Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking)62
Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics 62
Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area 69
Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses 70
Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas 71
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 4
Executive Summary01
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 5
Executive Summary
Introduction
Salt Lake City is currently in the process evaluating the multi-space parking meter system to understand existing
operating efficiencies, trends in existing meter usage, changes in land uses and density, and how existing hours of
operation, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. In total, there were 280 multi-space meters across the system
that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. It should be noted that as of November 2022, there were
278 meters in operation.
Currently, paid parking is limited to the central business district and immediately adjacent areas, as well as two
additional small paid that are not contiguous to the main paid area along “main street”-type corridors located to
the east of the CBD.
Existing Metered Parking
The total number of transactions went down in 2020 but has started to increase again in 2021. Between July
2021 and June 2022, there were 852,998 transactions, down from 1,299,735 from 2015 to 2016. The share of all
transactions conducted with pay-by-app, instead of at the meter, has increased from 8% in 2015 to 45% today.
Currently, the highest-usage meters were clustered along the 300 S. corridor within the CBD as well as along 100
S. and at certain key intersections. Most meters saw between 1,000 and 5,000 transactions from 2020 – 2021.
The average number of meters per block face ranged from 1.80 to 2.74, depending on land use.
No clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage was observed. However, a few
“hotspots” and “coldspots” were apparent where pay-by-app use was notably higher or lower than average. The
pay-by-app share of total transactions was between 41% and 60% for most meters, with only 6% falling under
20% pay-by-app or exceeding 60% pay-by-app.
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Walker has established different criteria for evaluating whether parking meters should be considered for removal,
addition, or keeping in existing paid areas, as well as for determining whether an existing unpaid area may be a
candidate for installing meters
Criteria established include setting a minimum number of meters per block face and a maximum distance
between meters along a block face, determining the minimum number of transactions per year for a meter to be
financially self-sufficient, and determining a minimum percentage of transactions that occur at the meter.
Using evaluation matrices and associated criteria, Walker has determined specific minimum requirements that
should be met for all meters, as well as thresholds for determining whether a meter may be a candidate for
removal.
The established requirements for all meters are as follows:
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 6
x A minimum of two meter per block face with paid parking.
x A maximum of 250 feet distance between a meter and the farthest parking space.
x That maximum decreases to 150 feet for human services land uses.
x For accessible spaces, meters should be located as close as possible to such spaces.
The established thresholds for keeping meters are as follows:
x A minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at the meter + pay-by-app.
x Percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40%.
The established threshold for adding meters is if least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion.”
When applying thresholds, 85 of 280 meters do not currently meet the transaction threshold. Also, 9 out of 279
see use of pay-by-app at or above 60%. By land use, the average number of meters per block face that met the
transaction threshold ranged from 0.44 for Residential Mixed Use to 2.74 for high-activity areas in the CBD.
After evaluating the existing paid area, and after considering established requirements, Walker identified 27
meters that may be candidates for removal. At this time, Walker did not identify any block faces where more
meters are needed. Further evaluation is recommended for suggested candidates for removal, such as whether
there is accessible parking on the block face.
In terms of cost estimates, to replace all 280 existing meters, Walker estimates an initial, up-front cost range of
between about $1.4 million and $2.2 million. To replace all meters minus the meters identified as potential
candidates for removal, the initial, up-front cost range is estimated to be between $1.3 million and $2.1 million.
By moving from 280 to 263 meters, the City would save between 85k and $136k.
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
In the short to mid term, there are about 68 developments in or near downtown that are planned or under
construction. A contiguous area that encompasses all new developments would represent about a 2.4x increase
in the size of the existing metered parking area, or an increase of 488 meters (at 2 meters per block face). The
cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $2.4 million to $5.9 million,
depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range.
In the mid to long term, future land use maps for neighborhood areas show potential increases in mid- and high-
density residential, commercial, and mixed-use development beyond the area that encompasses known future
development planned or under construction. If the City were to create paid parking zones within future mid- and
high-density residential, commercial, and mixed-use areas, for all such areas except high-activity commercial,
Walker would recommend an average of about 2 meters per block face. For high-activity commercial, Walker
would recommend an average of about 3 meters per block face.
In the Downtown study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term
growth area, about 310 meters would be needed in all (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for
such an expansion is estimated to range from about $1.6 million to $2.5 million, depending on where the cost per
meter would fall within the given cost range.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 7
In the Sugar House study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term
growth area, 143 meters would be needed in all (at 1 meter per block face). The cost range per meter for such an
expansion is estimated to range from about $715k to $1.1 million, depending on where the cost per meter would
fall within the given cost range. For this area, Walker recommends 1 meter per block face instead of 2 due to
block faces that are much shorter than in downtown.
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Compared to peer cities, in general, Salt Lake City is the only city to have uniform time limits in place for metered
parking, to have a flat hourly rate for all paid parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier, to not
charge for parking on Saturdays, and to have uniform hours of enforcement in place for all paid areas. Salt Lake
City also lacks special event pricing and time limits, and the city’s fine for accessible parking space violations is less
than half the average fine for peer cities examined and is less than the suggested fine published by the Utah State
Court System.
Selected recommendations are as follows:
x Increase time limit for most paid parking spaces from 2 to 4 hours.
x Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour within existing paid area.
x Move to a tiered rate structure where the first two hours are $2.50 per hour, the third hour is $5, and the
4th hour is $10.
x Expand paid parking into Saturdays, which would align paid parking hours with current enforcement
hours across the week.
x Extend the enforcement period for all days to 10 PM.
x Increase fines for all parking violation types discussed in this study to be more in line with peer city
averages and the suggested fines listed in the Utah State Courts’ 2022 Uniform Fines Schedule.
Other suggested items to consider are as follows:
x A tiered or graduated rate structure for some or all paid parking areas.
x Increase or eliminate time limits in conjunction with other suggested items regarding parking rates.
x Time limits of less than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts
x Consider zone-based pricing based on demand patterns, with higher rates in high-demand areas and
lower rates in lower-demand areas.
o Sugar House should be its own zone when or if paid parking were to be extended to that area.
o The existing paid area should be divided into 2 or more zones.
o More zones could be added if the existing paid area downtown were to be enlarged.
x Adopt a later stop time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking usage is elevated
past 10 PM, such as night life areas, and an earlier stop time for enforcement where parking usage
decreases after a certain hour, such as office
x Establish a special overlay zone around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours would apply
during large events
x Increase time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space or block
face to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours.
x Graduated fine structure where fines increase for subsequent violations within a calendar year.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 8
Introduction &
Study Area
02
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 9
Introduction & Study Area
Introduction
In 2012, the City of Salt Lake City began replacing its single-space meter infrastructure with a new system of
multi-space meters. In the new system, 1 to 4 meters per block face, along with a handful located along mid-
block alleys and in certain high-activity off-street areas, serve all individual paid parking spaces along the block
face within paid parking areas.
Since multi-space meters were first implemented, downtown Salt Lake City and other key neighborhoods and
areas within the City have seen growth, development, redevelopment, and land use changes. These changes
have potentially affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits within existing paid parking areas and
currently unmanaged and/or free parking areas. Within the existing paid parking areas, such changes have also
potentially influenced usage at existing meters. Some block faces within the paid area may have seen increased
use of on-street paid parking, while others have seen decreases.
In addition, managed parking technology has dramatically advanced within the last decade. In 2012, the major
change of note was the ability for customers to use a credit card to furnish payment, though the system also
allowed for the use of payment via a smartphone app. In 2012, such app usage to render payment represented
only a small fraction of total transactions. However, over the last decade, the use of pay-by-app using a
smartphone as a payment option has grown considerably. For Salt Lake City’s multi-space meter system, pay-by-
app services are provided through the Passport platform. While the use of pay-by-app relative to other multi-
space meter payment methods has increased across the system, the relative increase may be higher within some
areas and for some multi-space meters compared to others.
While one upgrade to the multi-space system has been performed since the initial installation, the existing
contracts for the current system, provided by IPS Smart Meters, are expiring soon. As such, the City is looking to
revamp and overhaul its decade-old multi-space infrastructure with a new, state-of-the-art metered parking
system.
Understanding trends in parking habits and multi-space meter usage, as well as changes in land uses and density
that have occurred and may occur in the near future, will help to inform data-driven decisions on changes that
can be made to the paid parking system when it is overhauled that will allow the system to operate more
efficiently, providing the right balance of multi-space meters for customer use while reducing the cost of
operations and maintenance and reducing sidewalk clutter.
To help the City understand these trends and changes, and also to accomplish its goals pertaining to the paid
parking system, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) has been retained to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the
City’s existing multi-space metered parking system.
In addition to evaluating the system to determine where existing meters may be removed or added, if necessary,
Walker will also provide a high-level overview of selected existing unmanaged/unpaid parking areas, with
recommendations on specific neighborhoods or areas that may need to have multi-space meters installed in the
future. These high-level recommendations will be informed by future known land use changes and developments
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 10
of note, as provided by the City, and/or development/redevelopment. Also, they will include suggested criteria
that will enable the City to identify where and how many multi-space meters could be installed in the future.
Walker has also been retained to evaluate existing paid parking rates and fees, including fines for violating existing
parking rules relating to paid on-street parking. Also, the hours of operation for the paid parking system will be
analyzed. Based on this evaluation and analysis, in conjunction with a review of parking rates, fees, fines, and
hours of operation for selected peer cities for benchmarking purposes, Walker will provide recommendations for
changes that could help to streamline further and optimize both the existing system as well as any expansions in
the system that may occur in the future.
Study Area
The overall study area for this study is defined by two rectangles that are non-contiguous with each other.
One area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 600 West to the west, 200 North to the north, University St. to
the east, and 1000 South to the south. This area contains all existing paid/metered parking areas in the City.
Neighborhoods entirely or partially falling within this area include Downtown, Central City, Fairpark, Capitol Hill,
East Central, Ball Park, Liberty-Wells, East Liberty Park, Greater Avenues, and Glendale.
The other area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 700 East to the west, 2000 South to the north, 1300 East
to the east, and the 80 Freeway to the south. This study area represents the core of the Sugar House
Neighborhood.
Figuree 1 on the next page depicts the two study areas considered as part of this study, with paid and free parking
areas within the study areas shown.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 11
Figuree 1.. Studyy Area
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 12
The existing paid parking areas where existing conditions were evaluated in detail are shown in FFiguree 2 on the
next page. The maximum extent of the main contiguous paid area is 100 North to the north, 400 E to the east,
700 South to the south, and 500 West to the west. In addition, there is paid parking along South Temple St.
between 400 East and E Street, as well as along 1300 E. between East 500 and 600 South. These areas are not
contiguous with the main paid area or each other.
City records show a total of about 280 existing multi-space meters that are deployed and operational as of August
2022. Out of that total, 268 meters are within the main contiguous area, 11 are located in the 1300 E. non-
contiguous area, and 1 is located along S. Temple between 400 and 500 East. These 280 multi-space meters
serve 1,591 individually numbered paid parking spaces across the system. Of those, 63 spaces are located in the
1300 E. non-contiguous area, and 6 are located along S. Temple between 400 East and E Street.
Figuree 2 below depicts the paid parking areas and shows existing multi-space meter locations within them.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 13
Figuree 2.. Existingg Paidd Areaa andd Multi-Spacee Meterr Locationss
Figure 3 below shows the multi-space meter locations with land uses/zoning overlain. Only land uses for which
a block face with at least one multi-space meter is present are shown in the legend.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 14
Figuree 3.. Existingg Landd Uses/Zoningg andd Multi-Spacee Meterr Locationss
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 15
Existing Metered
Parking
03
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 16
Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways
PHISTORICAL TRENDS
Number
of Meters
280
CURRENT USAGE (2021 – 2022)
852,998
Average Number of Transactions
per Meter (Including Pay-by-App)
3,015
Average Number of Meters per
Block Face (By Land Use)
1.80 - 2.74
Pay-by-App Share of Transactions
for Most Meters
41% - 60%Proportional Transaction Volume
by Meter and High-Activity Areas
Total Transactions
(Including Pay-by-App)
Pay-by-App Usage
8%12%18%24%30%38%45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
20155 -
2016
20166 -
2017
20177 -
2018
20188 -
2019
20199 -
2020
20200 -
2021
20211 -
2022
* Number of deployed and operational
meters as of August 2022
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 17
Existing Metered Parking
Historical Systemwide Trends
When Salt Lake City’s existing multi-space meter technology was first implemented, transactions via pay-by-app
constituted only a small fraction of total transactions. However, every year since then, the relative share of
transactions taking place via pay-by-app has increased relative to transactions at the multi-space meter.
Based on monthly transaction and revenue data furnished to Walker by the City dating back to 2015, Walker was
able to chart the total overall volume of transactions from year to year and determine the percent share of pay-
by-app versus multi-space meter transactions between 2015 and 2022. This data is shown in FFiguree 4 below.
Note that each time period shown is from July through the following June.
Figuree 4.. Pay-by-Appp vs.. Multi-Spacee Meterr Transactionss byy Yearr (Julyy 20155 –– Junee 2022))
In 2015, pay-by-app transactions represented 8% of the total number. By 2022, they represented nearly half of
total transactions. Note that overall transactions decreased starting in 2019 – 2020 due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Overall, the average revenue per transaction has been steadily increasing. The annual average increased from
$2.21 per transaction in the June 2015 – 2016 period to $3.00 in 2021 – 2022, with a positive year-over-year
increase occurring yearly. It should be noted that the per-hour rate increased from $2.00 to $2.25 per hour in
July 2019.1
1 https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/salt-lake-city-mayor/
92%88%82%
76%
70%
62%55%
8%12%18%
24%
30%
38%
45%
1,299,735 1,296,808 1,290,156
1,194,614
811,740
590,428
852,998
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022
To
t
a
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
At the Meter Pay-by-App
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 18
Figuree 5 below shows total transactions by month, and percent share of multi-space meter versus pay-by-app
transactions, for the July 2021 – June 2022 period.
Figuree 5.. Pay-by-Appp vs.. Multi-Spacee Meterr Transactionss byy Monthh (Julyy 20211 –– Junee 2022))
By month, March had the greatest number of transactions while January had the fewest. The total number of
transactions for the period ranged from a little over 57,000 to 82,667.
Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage
Methodology
For purposes of analysis and comparison of multi-space meters and transactions by individual meter location, it
was necessary to examine individual transaction data for each multi-space meter location. Data containing all
individual transactions by meter was provided to Walker between July 2021 and June 2022. As a result, this is the
period of time for which meter usage analysis by location was conducted. In all, two different sets of data for all
multi-space meter transactions were furnished to Walker, described in detail below.
One set of data contained, by month, every transaction that took place physically at each individual multi-space
meter across the system within the time period for which data was available. In this set, both the individual space
number as well as the multi-space meter at which the transaction took place were identified, making it possible to
aggregate individual transactions by their associated multi-space meter. Walker then performed analysis using
geographical information systems (GIS) software that enabled it to associate transaction information at the multi-
space meter level with the spatial location of each meter.
The other data set contained all individual pay-by-app transactions across the system within the same period.
While data on the total number of transactions that physically took place at the multi-space meter identified both
59%59%58%56%56%55%53%52%
53%54%55%54%
41%41%42%44%44%45%
47%
48%
47%
46%45%46%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2021 2022
To
t
a
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
At the Meter Pay-by-App
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 19
the individual space number as well as the meter at which the transaction took place, making it possible to
aggregate individual transactions by their associated meter, pay-by-app transactions only identified the individual
space number to which the transaction is linked, and not an associated multi-space meter. This is because pay-
by-app transactions bypass the multi-space meter entirely.
As a result, to compare pay-by-app transactions to multi-space meter transactions at the multi-space meter level,
and to spatially plot the data in GIS, Walker was required to perform some additional analysis to associate one
multi-space meter to every individual parking space. To do this, Walker looked at the total number of
transactions associated with all multi-space meters for each individual parking space within the set of data that
contained transactions that physically took place at the meter. The multi-space meter/space combination with
the greatest volume of transactions per individual space was then used to assign to that space a single multi-
space meter that most closely matched or was most strongly associated with the space. For example, if 99% of
total transactions for a given space were associated with one multi-space meter, and fewer than 1% were
associated with other multi-space meters, that space was assigned the first multi-space meter for all pay-by-app
transactions associated with that space.
In general, the closest multi-space meter match was likely to be the most convenient and/or closest multi-space
meter to a given individual parking space. Transactions associated with other multi-space meters may have been
due to, for example, people who started to walk to their destination and made it a block or two before
remembering to pay. For such transactions, Walker carried over the transaction to associate with the closest
match multi-space meter instead.
Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location
There was an average of 3,015 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,671 at the meter and 1,362 pay-by-
app for spaces associated with each meter). There was a median of 2,221 transactions per multi-space meter
overall (1,277 at the meter and 964 pay-by-app for spaces associated with each meter).
Figuree 6 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system, with the size of
the circles corresponding to the number of transactions per station.
Note that data was not available for ten multi-space meters that were shown to exist according to City data
records provided. For this analysis, two additional meters were excluded as the total number of transactions fell
under 20. Some or all of these meters may have been newly installed and/or out of service during the time
period. Therefore, out of 290 total meters shown in City records, 280 had a number of transactions associated
with them greater than 0 and 278 had more than 20 transactions.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 20
Figuree 6.. Proportionall Transactionn Volumee byy Multi-Spacee Meterr (Julyy 20211 –– Junee 2022))
The multi-space meters with the highest activity, in terms of the total number of transactions, were found along
E. 300 S. between 200 W. and 300 E., and along W. 100 S. between West Temple St. and State St. The two blocks
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 21
bounded by 300 S. to the north, 400 S. to the south, West Temple to the west, and State St. to the east saw the
highest volume of multi-space meter activity.
Other areas with higher usage than others included W. 200 S. between 300 and 400 W., the area around the E.
200 S. and S 200 E. intersection, 100 S. west of 400 W., the area around the South Temple and West Temple
intersection, S. State St. south of 600 S., and the 1300 E. non-contiguous paid area.
Figuree 7 shows the percentage distribution of meters by total number of transactions.
Figuree 7.. Percentt Distributionn off Multi-Spacee Meterss byy Transactionn Volumee (Julyy 20211 –– Junee 2022))
About 24% of multi-space meters reported a total number of transactions (at the meter and pay-by-app) that fell
below 1,000. Most multi-space meters reported a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 total transactions. The
remainder reported a volume greater than 5,000, with only 3 multi-space meters reporting a number greater
than 10,000.
Figuree 8 on the next page shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system
with land uses overlain. Also, high-activity areas within the CBD have been highlighted with a box.
1%2%
21%
54%
21%
1%
Under 10
Between 10 and 100
Between 101 and 1,000
Between 1,000 and 5,000
Between 5,000 and 10,000
Over 10,000
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 22
Figuree 8.. Transactionn Volumee byy Stationn withh Landd Uses/Zoningg
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 23
By Block Face and Land Use
Figuree 9 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face for all land uses/zones that have
paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that
are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one
single zone were included.
Figuree 9.. Averagee Numberr off Meterss perr Blockk Facee byy Zonee
Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Average (Rounded)
Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2
Secondary CBD 2.00 2
Residential Mixed Use 2.22 2
High-Density Residential 2.00 2
Urban Institutional 2.00 2
CBD 2.18 2
CBD (High Activity Areas)2.74 3
Public Lands 2.50 3
Library 2.67 3
Downtown Support District 2.50 3
Community Business 2.67 3
Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 2
Overall, the average number of multi-space meters per complete block face, for block faces not divided between
two or more zones, ranged from 1.80 in the Gateway Mixed Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the
CBD. The CBD itself overall had an average of about 2.18. Outside the CBD high-activity area, Community
Business and Library zones had the highest at an average of 2.67 per complete block face.
If generalizing the figures presented above to represent more general land use categories and density, it was first
necessary to establish the specific selected land use, as identified by existing zoning within the paid area, that
best corresponds to the given general land use category/density combinations. Figuree 10 below shows existing
specific land uses and zones used to correspond with mid-density and high-density residential areas, non-
residential areas, and mixed-use areas respectively.
Figuree 10.. Averagee Numberr off Meterss perr Blockk Facee byy Generall Landd Usee Categoryy
Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone
Average Number
of Meters per Full
Block Face
Mid-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00
Non-Residential Secondary CBD 2.00
Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80
High-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00
Non-Residential CBD 2.18
Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.50
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 24
Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions
Figuree 111 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter and the share of those transactions for spaces
associated with each meter that was conducted via pay-by-app instead of at the multi-space meter.
Figuree 11.. Totall Transactionss && Pay-by-Appp Percentagee byy Meterr (Julyy 20211 –– Junee 2022))
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 25
While there is no clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage as a function of
percentage share, a few “hot spots” and “cold spots” are apparent. 200 W. between 100 and 200 S., the area
bounded by 200 S. to the north, 300 E. to the east, 400 S. to the south, and State St. to the west, South Temple
between 200 E. and 300 E., and 300 E. south of South Temple all featured multi-space meters recording over 60%
pay-by-app usage.
Relatively speaking, areas of low pay-by-app usage included most multi-space meters north of 100 S. west of 200
E. and between 400 S. and 500 S.
Figuree 12 below shows the total distribution of multi-space meters by the percent share of transactions
conducted via pay-by-app.
Figuree 12.. Multi-Spacee Meterss byy Pay-by-Appp Percentt Sharee (Julyy 20211 -- Junee 2022))
Overall, for most multi-space meters, the division between transactions at the meter versus through pay-by-app is
relatively even, with the share of pay-by-app transactions ranging from 41% to 60% for 67% of all multi-space
meters. Only 6% of all multi-space meters have a pay-by-app percentage falling under 20% or exceeding 60%.
3%
27%
67%
3%
Under 20%
Between 21% and 40%
Between 41% and 60%
Over 60%
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 26
Metered Parking
Evaluation
04
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 27
Metered Parking Evaluation Key
Takeaways
250 Feet Max
Distance
METER
REQUIREMENTS*
CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS
Maximum Share
of Pay-by-App
Transactions
Minimum
Number
of
Transactions
1,300
60%
MA
I
N
ST
A
T
E
2 per
Block
Face
Candidates for Potential Removal
27
Total
Candidate
Locations for
Removal
* Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts.
Cost Estimate Range
for Replacement for…
280 Meters
$1.4M –
$2.2M
$1.3M –
$2.1M
263 Meters
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 28
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Evaluation Criteria
To evaluate the existing paid parking area, Walker first needed to establish the criteria by which meters are
evaluated. These evaluation criteria can also be used when determining the meter density, or number of meters
per block face, in locations the City may deem appropriate for establishing future paid parking areas that
currently do not have it.
Walker, with the input and agreement of Salt Lake City staff, has established the following criteria for evaluating
where meters should potentially be added or removed within existing paid parking areas/block faces, as well as
for assessing whether an existing unpaid area or block face may be a candidate for new metered parking.
The criteria are as follows: minimum number of meters, distance between meters, number of total transactions,
and percent share of transactions that are pay-by-app. The first two criteria are defined as requirements, which
should be satisfied regardless of any other factors, while the third and fourth criteria are defined as minimum
thresholds.
For the threshold-defined criteria, the total number of transactions should be considered the primary criterion,
instead of or equally in conjunction with share of Passport transactions, to consider a meter as a suitable
candidate for removal.
Meters with high usage will still have an absolute high number/volume of transactions at the meter, even if the
relative share of such transactions compared to Passport is greater than 50% or 60%. Also, Passport/smartphone
app usage is a metric that is more likely to vary depending on the season and other factors. Finally, it is possible
that such usage of the app versus the multi-space meter may begin to plateau in the future, with at-meter
transactions always representing a certain minimum percentage of all transactions despite smartphone and app
saturation in the marketplace.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 29
Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Figuree 14 below shows the evaluation criteria for removing meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block
faces.
Figuree 13.. Evaluationn Matrixx forr Removingg Meterss inn Existingg Paidd Areass
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Minimum Number
of Meters 1
By removing meter(s), the resulting number of meters
does not fall below an established minimum for the
number of meters that is required per block face.
Distance between
Meters 2
By removing one or more meters, the distance from
any parking space along a block face to any meter
does not exceed the maximum allowed.
Maximum distances allowed may differ
for certain land uses, such as commercial
land uses offering human services.
Number of Total
Transactions 3 The number of transactions is lower than a particular
established critical threshold.
Percent Share Pay-
by-App 4
The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking
spaces associated with a multi-space meter exceeds a
certain established critical threshold.
Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Figuree 13 below shows the evaluation criteria for adding meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block
faces.
Figuree 14.. Evaluationn Matrixx forr Addingg Meterss inn Existingg Paidd Areass
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Minimum Number
of Meters 1
Per block face where paid parking exists, an
established minimum for the number of meters that is
required per block face is not met.
Distance between
Meters 2
Per block face, the distance between a parking space
and a multi-space meter exceeds an allowed
maximum.
Maximum distances allowed may differ for
certain land uses, such as commercial land
uses offering human services.
Number of Total
Transactions 3
The number of transactions is higher than a particular
established critical threshold,and/or wait times during
peak demand times at a meter are causing undue
inconvenience to meter users.
Percent Share Pay-
by-App 4
The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking
spaces associated with a multi-space meter falls below
a certain established critical threshold.
Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas
Figuree 15 below shows the evaluation criteria for installing new meters in existing unpaid areas/along unpaid
block faces.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 30
Figuree 15.. Evaluationn Matrixx forr Installingg Meterss inn Existingg Unpaidd Areass
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Land Use Changes N/A
There is a change in land use from undeveloped,
industrial, or low-density residential land uses to
any combination of commercial, office,
mid/high-density residential, or retail.
Assuming that specific meter requirements,
such as the minimum number of meters per
block face and maximum distance allowed
between meters, are met
Spillover Parking N/A
Spillover parking is occurring from high parking
demand land uses/activity centers into adjacent
lower-density areas, such as residential
neighborhoods.
Alternative strategies to manage spillover
parking could also be considered, such as a
residential parking permit program.
Requirements & Thresholds
Requirements
Figuree 166 below summarizes the established requirements for evaluating all meters in both the existing paid
parking system as well as for determining baseline requirements for new meters in potential future paid parking
areas.
Figuree 16.. Minimumm Requirementss forr Meterss
Criteria Category Requirements
Minimum Number of Meters Minimum of 2 meters per block face
Distance between Meters Maximum of 250 feet between the meter and parking space (150 feet for human services)
Minimum Number of Meters
Walker has determined that there should be a minimum of two meters per block face, regardless of the length of
a paid parking block face or any other factors. Because this requirement establishes that meters must be located
on the same block face, parking meters that may fall within the maximum distance of a parking space but that are
located on an adjacent block face, or directly across the street, cannot count towards meeting this required
minimum requirement.
This minimum of two meters per block face was established with input from Salt Lake City staff, who determined
that each paid block face should have at least two meters to provide for redundancy in case one of the meters is
out of service or not working correctly. Under such conditions, people who choose to pay at the meter may still
do so without having to cross a street.
Distance Between Meters
If a block face falls within the paid area and has paid parking along the block face, there should typically always be
a minimum of at least one multi-space meter per 250 feet of parking frontage within the paid area. For distances
beyond 250 feet, the average parker may find that the path of travel to the nearest meter is inconvenient. Even
in a scenario where use of pay by app may be encouraged, or where the parker does not have to return to his/her
vehicle to place a paid parking receipt on their dashboard, it is recommended that parkers should not have to
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 31
walk more than one minute to reach a parking meter. At a conservatively estimated walking speed of 3 miles per
hour, it would take just under one minute to access a meter located about 250 feet away.
As the standard block face length for a typical Salt Lake City block (within the CBD) is about 660 feet, this means
that, in general, there would need to be at least two multi-space meter per block face to satisfy this distance
requirement, regardless of other factors. In such cases, the meters should optimally be positioned at even
intervals, about 1/4 and 3/4ths up the length of a full-sized block face (660 feet). For longer block faces, more
than two may be required. At such intervals, there would be a meter at 165 feet and 495 feet when measured
from a point of origin at the end of one block face, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the
entire block face. This would make each meter about 165 feet away from the farthest parking space.
Alternatively, for meters placed 1/3 and 2/3rds up the length of the full-sized block face, there would be a meter
at 220 and 440 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face. This would make each
meter a maximum of 220 feet away from the farthest parking space, assuming that there are paid parking spaces
located along the entire block face.
For block faces with paid parking that services specific land uses, such as human services, that may command a
need for closer parking multi-space meters than usual, the maximum distance from a meter to a parking space
should be about 150 feet. This shorter distance can make it easier for parkers with mobility issues to access
meters and/or ensure that meters are available for populations that may not have pay-by-app technology
available to them.
For any accessible on-street parking spaces within the paid area, Walker recommends that a meter be located as
close to the accessible spaces as possible.
Thresholds for Keeping Meters
Figuree 17 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters.
Figuree 17.. Thresholdss forr Keepingg Existingg Meterss
Criteria Category Thresholds for Keeping Meters
Number of Total Transactions Minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at meter + pay-by-app)
Percent Share Pay-by-App The percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40% (60% pay-by-app)
Minimum Number of Transactions
Meter usage per meter by block face should be such that the revenue and number of transactions make the
individual meter profitable, or at least break-even in terms of cost, while not so high as to cause undue burden on
persons attempting to use the meter to pay for parking.
From a financially feasible perspective, a multi-space meter should support a minimum of approximately 1,300
transactions annually. This derives from an assumed 3-year return on the initial capital investment in a multi-
space meter of approximately $8,000 and an average ongoing operations and maintenance cost of $1,000
annually per multi-space meter. With 260 paid parking days enforced per year, over the 3-year period, each multi-
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 32
space meter should generate approximately $14 per day. With an average transaction value paid at the multi-
space meter of $2.79, this represents approximately 5 transactions per day or 1,300 per year.
Figuree 18 summarizes the equation described above that results in the break-even number of transactions per
multi-space meter per year, as determined by Walker.
Figuree 18.. Summarizedd Equationn forr Determiningg Break-Evenn Numberr off Transactionss perr Yearr
Multi-space meters with fewer than 1,300 associated transactions per year are less likely to generate the
minimum revenues necessary to support their initial installation cost and/or ongoing operations and
maintenance. This minimum threshold is used as the base for identifying multi-space meters for potential
removal.
Percent Share Pay-by-App
In terms of the percentage of transactions that are pay-by-app versus at the meter, Walker has established the
critical threshold at 60% pay-by-app usage. Multi-space meters for which the percentage of pay-by-app
transactions is under 60% are meters for which physically paying at the meter is still a popular payment choice.
Thresholds for Adding Meters
Figuree 19 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters.
Figuree 19.. Thresholdss forr Addingg Meterss too Blockk Facess withh Existingg Meterss
Criteria Category Thresholds for Adding New Meter
Number of Total Transactions At least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion,” defined as parkers who need to
queue up at the meter in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space.
Meters should be added to a block face or area if at least one meter along the block face has a high enough
average number of transactions at the meter across the paid parking period per day where paid parking is in
effect to where the meter may see “congestion.” In this context, congestion is defined as parkers needing to
queue up in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space.
=
()$8k
+
$11k
Year
(2600 Days) xx ((33 Years))=
5
Transactions
11 DDayy (1,300
Transactions
11 Yearr
((2600 Days))
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 33
Note that, for this context, only the number of transactions at the meter is relevant, as transactions associated
with a meter that take play via pay-by-app do not result in physical “congestion” at the meter.
In this study, there were a total of 6,721 at-the-meter transactions at the multi-space meter with the highest
recorded number of at-the-meter transactions (Meter #34199). When divided by 260 paid parking days and 12
hours per day where paid parking is in effect, this resulted in an average of 2.15 at-the-meter transactions per
hour. While this average does not account for variance per hour in meter usage, the average time it takes to
conduct an at-the-meter transaction is likely under 28 minutes.
At 10,000 at-the-meter transactions per year, the average number of transactions per hour would be about 3.20,
or about one every 19 minutes. It is likely that a single meter would not have frequent “congestion” unless the
meter had an average of one transaction every 15 or fewer minutes. Currently, no meter in the existing system
sees such a high level of transactions per hour, on average.
Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied
Figuree 20 below shows all multi-space meters in the existing system with the total transaction volume and
percent pay-by-app use thresholds applied that were established above.
Note that meters are only shown where data for total number of transactions and pay-by-app usage was
available. Squares in red indicate that the meter fails the established threshold for the total number of
transactions needed for the meter to break even in terms of revenue. In the case of pay-by-app usage, the
threshold is expressed in terms of multi-space meter usage, with circles in red representing meter usage falling
under 60%.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 34
Figuree 20.. Totall Transactionss andd Pay-by-Appp Usagee Over/Underr Establishedd Thresholdss
Out of this set of active multi-space meters shown, 85 out of 280 did not meet the 1,300-transaction threshold.
Nine meters met the pay-by-app usage threshold (percent of transactions through the pay-by-phone app was at
or above 60%). Two meters both did not meet the transaction threshold and met the pay-by-app threshold.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 35
By Block Face & Land Use
Figuree 211 below shows the average number of multi-space meters mmeetingg thee 1,300-transactionn threshold per
block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. When compared
with the total number of meters per block face for each given specific land use/zone, the difference between
figures can help to highlight selected specific land uses where there may be too many meters or about the correct
number, on average, to achieve financial feasibility. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter
that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to
one single zone were included.
Figuree 21.. Averagee Numberr off Meterss perr Blockk Facee thatt Meett Transactionn Thresholdd byy Zonee
Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking
Average Number of Meters per Full
Block Face that Meet Threshold
Average
(Rounded)
Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2
Secondary CBD 1.22 1
Residential Mixed Use 0.44 0
High-Density Residential 1.00 1
Urban Institutional 0.80 1
CBD 1.69 2
CBD (High Activity Areas)2.74 3
Public Lands 1.50 2
Library 1.50 2
Downtown Support District 2.00 2
Community Business 2.00 2
Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 1
Overall, the average number of multi-space meters wwithh ann annuall transactionn totall equall too orr exceedingg 1,300
per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 0.44 in the
Residential Mixed-Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself had an average of
1.69 multi-space meters per full block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Outside the CBD, Gateway Mixed Use
had the highest average at 1.80 meters per block face with at least 1,300 transactions.
Figuree 222 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face that met the transaction
threshold of 1,300 transactions per year according to more generalized land uses and densities discussed in the
previous section according to the selected corresponding specific land use/zone that best fits the more general
category.
Figuree 22.. Averagee Numberr off Meterss perr Blockk Facee thatt Meett Transactionn Thresholdd byy Landd Usee Categoryy
Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full
Block Face that Meet Threshold
Mid-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00
Non-Residential Secondary CBD 1.22
Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80
High-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00
Non-Residential CBD 1.69
Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.00
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 36
Recommendations
Adding Meters
Currently, no meter in the existing system likely sees a high-enough level of transactions per hour, on average, to
warrant the need for an additional meter along a block face with existing meters. Therefore, Walker does not
currently recommend adding more meters along any block faces within the existing paid parking zone.
Walker does recommend that the City consider feedback from citizens, business owners, and paid parking users
along a block face in order to evaluate the potential need for additional meters along that block face on a case-by-
case basis. If feedback is consistently received that identifies long wait times or queues at a particular meter, the
block face upon which the meter is located should be evaluated for the addition of a meter.
Removing Existing Meters
Given the above established requirements and threshold of 1,300 transactions per year, Walker has evaluated the
existing paid parking system by block face in order to identify potential block face candidates for removal of a
meter, as shown in FFiguree 233 below.
Note that meter candidates identified for potential removal may not be meters that recorded fewer than 1,300
transactions. For instance, consider an existing block face with three meters that are located about a quarter,
half, and three-fourths up a block face where one of the three meters recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions.
If the meter not meeting the threshold is the one located either ¼ or ¾ the way up the block face, Walker would
suggest that the meter ½ way up the block face would be the most suitable candidate for removal, even if it
recorded more than 1,300 transactions. This is because the removal of that meter would result in more even
spacing between meters and a shorter distance from any meter to the farthest parking space on the block face,
and therefore better satisfy all the criteria established previously.
Also note that the figure below does not account for any on-street accessible parking within the paid system, if
any exists.
Finally, note that meters for which no transactions were recorded were not included in this evaluation.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 37
Figuree 23.. Multi-Spacee Meterr Candidatess forr Removall inn Existingg Paidd Systemm
In all, Walker has identified 27 out of 280 currently deployed and operational multi-space meters that may be
candidates for removal, excluding meters with no recorded transactions that may not have been operational and
deployed during the time period for which data was analyzed in this study. Note that some of the meters may be
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 38
located off-street and/or in a mid-block alley. In all cases, these represent associated block faces with three or
more existing meters where at least one meter does not meet the 1,300-meter transaction threshold. Candidates
were selected that appeared to leave the most even spacing between meters on a block face, with meters
satisfying the 250-foot maximum distance requirement.
Walker recommends that block faces with meters identified as candidates for removal be evaluated further
before being considered for removal. Criteria for further evaluation may include whether the block face is to see
notable densification or redevelopment in the future that may increase parking use on that block face, or whether
the meter is located near a particular institutional use where more meters may be warranted. Also, if accessible
parking spaces are located near a meter identified as a candidate for removal, Walker would recommend that the
meter remain.
A detailed list of the meter locations identified for potential removal is located in the Appendix.
Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates
Figuree 24 below shows the estimated cost range for replacement of the existing meter inventory (deployed and
operational meters). Figures are shown for both complete replacement of the entire existing deployed and
operational inventory as well as replacement minus the meter locations identified as candidates for removal in
the previous section.
Figuree 24.. Estimatedd Costt Rangee forr Replacingg Existingg Meterss
Cost Range of Meter in 2022
Projected Cost of Replacement
Estimated Initial Cost
DifferenceExisting Inventory Existing Inventory Minus
Candidates for Removal
For 280 Meters For 263 Meters
$5,000 $1,400,000 $1,315,000 $85,000
$8,000 $2,240,000 $2,104,000 $136,000
The estimated cost for replacing all existing 280 deployed and operational meters ranges from about $1.4 million
to $2.2 million. However, if replacement were to occur without replacing all 27 meters locations identified as
candidates for removal, the cost would range from about $1.3 million to $2.1 million. As a result, total initial, up-
front cost savings would range from $85k to $136k.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 39
Potential Expansion
of Parking Meters
05
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 40
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
Key Takeaways
SHORT-
TO
MID-
TERM
MID-
TO
LONG-
TERM
Sugar House
Downtown
Downtown
Number of Meters
Needed to Cover
Short/Mid-Term Area
at 2 per Block Face
488
Number of Meters
Needed to Cover
Mid/Long-Term Area
at 2 per Block Face
310
Cost Estimate Range
for Installation of New
Meters at 2 per Block
Face
$2.4M – $3.9M
Cost Estimate Range
for Installation of New
Meters at 2 per Block
Face
$1.6M – $2.5M
Number of Meters Needed
to Cover Mid/Long-Term
Area at 2 per Block Face
143
Cost Estimate Range for
Installation of New Meters
at 1 per Block Face
$715k –
$1.1M
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 41
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
As Salt Lake City continues to grow, densify, and diversify, the City may wish to expand the location(s) where
parking meters are installed. In this section, Walker provides a high-level framework for formulating a roadmap
for future expansions based on an evaluation and consolidation of future known developments in the short and
mid-term, as well as future land uses in the long term, as informed by various applicable sub-area and
neighborhood plans.
Short to Mid Term
The City furnished to Walker a map, current as of July 2022, of known future downtown developments that are
under construction, soon to be under construction, or that planned/proposed. Developments range from
residential to commercial/retail and are mid-density to high-density in nature. FFiguree 25 below shows the
locations of these various developments. By Walker’s count, there are about 68 developments shown.
Figuree 25.. Futuree Downtownn Developmentss (Julyy 2022))
Source:: Cityy off Saltt Lakee City
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 42
Figuree 26 below shows the existing paid parking areas and study areas for this project along with a contiguous
area in yellow that outlines and encompasses the future downtown developments shown above. Note that the
area has been drawn such that whole blocks are included if at least one new development is contained within.
Figuree 26.. Short-Termm andd Mid-Termm Downtownn Growthh Areaa andd Existingg Paidd Parkingg Areaa
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 43
In all, an area that encompasses all known new development downtown and adjacent to downtown would
represent about a 2.4% increase in the number of block faces covered compared to the existing paid parking area
shown above. There are about 102 block faces currently that are within the paid area while the growth area
represents an area of about 244 block faces as drawn. Also, for each block or partial block within the area, only
the block faces interior to the respective block were counted. Block faces on the opposite side of the street, or
exterior to the block face, along the periphery of the area were nnot counted.
Cost and Quantity Estimates
If the City were to extend the paid parking area to this whole area, it would therefore represent about a 2.4x
increase in the size of the paid parking area, not including Sugar House. If assuming about 2 meters per block
face, regardless of land use, this would equal to an increase in the total number of multi-space meters in the
system of about 488 meters, give or take. If assuming about 3 meters per block face, it would result in an
increase of about 732 meters, give or take.
As of 2022, the average cost of a multi-space parking meter, including installation and other up-front costs such
as hardware, software, and configuration, ranges from about $5,000 to about $8,000, depending on vendor and
other factors. These costs do not include ongoing capital costs such as maintenance and software/platform
subscriptions. FFiguree 27 below provides high-level cost range estimates for an expansion of the paid area into the
areas shown in yellow in FFiguree 26.
Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the
analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown-
length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that
the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per
block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result,
Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes.
Figuree 27.. Costt Estimatess forr Expansionn off Paidd Areaa intoo Short-- andd Mid-Termm Downtownn Growthh Areass
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown)Estimated Cost
DifferenceAt 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face
$5,000 $2,440,000 $3,660,000 $1,220,000
$8,000 $3,904,000 $5,856,000 $1,952,000
In all, a high-level cost estimate for increasing the size by 2.4x of the current metered parking area, as indicated in
Figuree 26, would range from about $2.4 million to $3.9 million, assuming 2 meters per block face, and would
range from about $3.7 million to $5.9 million, assuming 3 meters per block face.
Mid to Long Term
Future land uses as planned and displayed in the various neighborhood and sub-area plans that have been
officially adopted for all the neighborhood and community areas that are covered by the study areas are also
included within the study area.
These applicable sub-area, neighborhood, or community plans are the following:
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 44
x The Avenues Master Plan
x Capitol Hill Master Plan
x Central Community Master Plan
x Sugar House Master Plan
x Gateway District Land Development and
Master Plan
In order to provide a framework for understanding the number of parking meters and density that may be
required of the future land uses, Walker has evaluated the applicable future land use plans and maps and created
a composite of all future land uses across the study areas. This composite is shown in FFiguree 56 in the Appendix.
After compiling the map shown in FFiguree 56, Walker then dissolved the various land uses, labels, zone/use
nomenclatures, and legend/map colors shown in each plan and map into the same common general land use
category/density combinations that were used in the Existing Metered Parking section of this report (FFiguress 100
andd 21) in order to make comparison of future land uses across plans possible. Note that only mid-density and
high-density commercial, residential, and mixed-use specific categories were considered.
A detailed table that displays all specific land use categories and colors used in each of the land use maps shown
in the composite above, and the general land use/density category(ies) to which they were associated/matched
by Walker, is provided in the Appendix.
A map of all future land uses with generalized land use/density categories is shown in FFiguree 28 on the next page.
For purposes of this map, Walker included mid- and high-density land uses that straddled the study area
boundaries. For Sugar House, Walker included and mapped generalized land uses falling within a quarter-mile
buffer of the study area boundary.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 45
Figuree 28.. Futuree Landd Usess Generalizedd andd Consolidatedd
Figuree 29 below shows the number of meters that should be considered per full block face for each generalized
land use/density combination shown above.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 46
Figuree 29.. Numberr off Meterss byy Landd Usee Densityy andd Generall Landd Usee
Density General Land Use Category
Generalized
Land Use
Color
Average Number of Meters
per Full Block Face Across
Area that Meet Threshold
Minimum Number of
Meters per Block Face
Mid-Density
Residential 1.00 2
Non-Residential 1.22 2
Mixed-Use 1.80 2
High-Density
Residential 1.00 2
Non-Residential 1.69 2
Non-Residential (High Activity Area)2.74 3
Mixed-Use 2.00 2
The average number of meters that meet the 1,300-transaction minimum threshold, as reiterated above, ranged
from about 1 to 2 per block face (2.74 average for high-activity, high-density commercial areas). However, since
the City has specified that a minimum of two meters per full block face should always be installed regardless of
usage or other factors, this means that the number of meters per downtown block face for all general uses and
densities should be 2 for all land uses with an average of 2.00 or below. For high-activity, high-density
commercial areas, 3 meters per block face are recommended as the average number of meters meeting the
transaction threshold is above 2.00 (2.74).
It should be noted that for certain institutional and human resource land uses, a minimum of 3 or 4 meters per
block face should be installed. Also, as shown in the table, for high-activity areas within the high-density
commercial area, the average number of meters per block face where the threshold is met exceeds two. As a
result, for such areas, 3 meters per block face should be considered.
Figuree 30 on the next page shows the existing paid area combined with the short- and mid-term growth area in
yellow, as shown in Figure 25 above, along with an additional area that outlines additional mid- and high-density
residential, mixed use, and commercial growth areas as determined from the consolidated future land uses
shown in Figure 28. These additional areas are shown in orange. In the case of Sugar House, such future land
uses that fall within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area were included.
Note that future mid- and high-density land uses contained within the study areas for this project do not
necessarily account for whether or not the given density and land use falls within an urban or a suburban/car-
orientated context. For instance, the medium-density residential located immediately east of the Forest Dale Golf
Course, in Sugar House, is an existing suburban-style apartment complex that lacks internal on-street parking and
may not be a good candidate for metered parking.
As a result, the mid- and long-term growth areas in orange are drawn to encompass only mid- and high-density
residential, mixed-use, and commercial future land areas that exist currently with an urban context/typology
within the study area, as areas that are not within such a context/typology may not be well suited for paid parking
even in the long term. These are the areas within which Walker has considered for purposes of estimating the
number of meters that would be needed to serve the areas.
Also, Walker drew the mid- to long-term areas so as to encompass blocks and/or block faces that completely or
nearly completely fall under a future mid- or high-density residential, mixed use, or commercial land use. As a
result, the growth area excludes some of the mid-density residential future land uses in the eastern third of the
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 47
downtown study area rectangle as these future land uses are interspersed with low-density housing and do not
encompass most or all of a block
Figuree 30.. Mid-Termm && Long-Termm Growthh Areass
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 48
Cost and Quantity Estimates
Walker has provided below a high-level estimate for the number of meters that might be installed in the mid- and
high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas in the Sugar House and Downtown study area in the
mid- to long-term, as informed by the consolidated future land uses. Only the mid- and high-density residential,
mixed use, and commercial future land uses included within the orange areas shown in the previous figure have
been considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve block faces
within the respective areas.
Downtown Growth Area
Figuree 31 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called
“block face equivalents,” within the main orange area (downtown) by general land use classification.
Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, they only account for
existing block faces along existing streets. Third, frontage of blocks along freeways, viaducts, and other such
corridors were excluded. Finally, these estimates do NOT account or consider alleys or some mid-block streets
that may occur across the orange area, particularly at the periphery in The Avenues and at the south.
Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the
analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown-
length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that
the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per
block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result,
Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes.
Figuree 31.. Blockk Facee Quantityy Estimatess inn Mid-- andd Long-Termm Growthh Areaa (Downtown))
Density General Land Use
Category
Generalized
Land Use Color
Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block
Face Equivalents*
Number of Meters per
Downtown Block Face
2 3
Mid-
Density
Residential 22 44 66
Non-Residential 38 76 114
Mixed-Use 33 66 99
High-
Density
Residential 6 12 18
Non-Residential 18 36 54
Mixed-Use 38 76 114
Total 155 310 465
* Downtown block face length or equivalent (660 feet)
Figuree 32 below gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve
block faces within the defined Downtown growth area at 2 meters per block face and 3 meters per block face.
Figuree 32.. Costt Estimatess forr Meteredd Parkingg Expansionn intoo Mid-- andd Long-Termm Growthh Areaa (Downtown))
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown)Estimated Cost
DifferenceAt 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face
$5,000 $1,550,000 $2,325,000 $775,000
$8,000 $2,480,000 $3,720,000 $1,240,000
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 49
Walker estimates that there are approximately 155 block faces or block face equivalents within the Downtown
mid- to long-term area. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.6 million to $2.5
million. At 3 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $2.3 million to $3.7 million.
Sugar House Growth Area
Figuree 33 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called
“block face equivalents,” within the smaller orange area to the south (Sugar House), as defined in FFiguree 30
above, by general land use classification.
Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, for some irregular and/or
curved block faces, Walker visually estimated the equivalent or approximate number of qualifying block faces
within the defined area. Third, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Finally, frontages
of blocks along the 80 Freeway were excluded.
Estimates are shown assuming both 1 meter per block face and 2 meters per block face. While 2 meters per
block face was one requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking, that requirement was
determined partly based on the fact that the standard block face length in Salt Lake City is about 660 feet.
Standard Sugar House block faces, at 360 feet, are a little more than half that length. Therefore, only one meter
per block may be sufficient to serve some or most typical block faces in Sugar House.
Figuree 33.. Blockk Facee Quantityy Estimatess inn Mid-- andd Long-Termm Growthh Areaa (Sugarr House))
Density General Land Use
Category
Generalized
Land Use Color
Approximate Number of Block
Faces or Block Face Equivalents*
Number of Meters per Sugar House Block
Face
1 2
Mid-
Density
Residential 26 26 52
Non-Residential 5 5 10
Mixed-Use 74 74 148
High-
Density
Residential 2 2 4
Non-Residential 0 0 0
Mixed-Use 36 36 72
Total 143 143 286
* Sugar House block face length (360 feet)
Figuree 34 gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block
faces within the defined Sugar House growth area at both 1 meter and 2 meters per block face.
Figuree 34.. Costt Estimatess forr Meteredd Parkingg Expansionn intoo Mid-- andd Long-Termm Growthh Areaa (Sugarr House))
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Sugar House)Estimated Cost
DifferenceAt 1 per Block Face At 2 per Block Face
$5,000 $715,000 $1,430,000 $715,000
$8,000 $1,144,000 $2,288,000 $1,144,000
Walker estimates that there are approximately 143 block faces or block face equivalents within the Sugar House
mid- to long-term area. At 1 meter per block face, the cost range would be approximately $700k to $1.1 million.
At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.4 million to $2.3 million.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 50
Metered Parking
Policies, Rates, & Fees
06
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 51
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Key Takeaways
HOURS OF
ENFORCEMENT
RATES
TIME LIMITS
DAYS OF
THE WEEK
ZONE
STRUCTURE
CITATION
FINES
SUGGESTED
ACTIONS
SLC
SELECTED
EXISTING
$
$
$2.25 per hour (flat
rate for entire system).
Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour
(for first two hours), $5 per hour
(3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour).
2 hours per day (across
entire system).
4 hours per day. Consider lower
time limit in some very high
demand spaces.
8 AM –8 PM, Mon –
Sat (across entire
system).
Extend to 10 PM in existing paid
area. Consider later end time for
areas with high late-night demand
and earlier end time for areas with
low evening demand.
Mon – Fri.
Mon – Sat to align with
enforcement hours.
Single zone (same
rates, hours across
entire paid area).
Tiered or graduated rate structure
with multiple zones based on
demand/activity. Sugar House
should be its own zone with
different rate structure.
Flat fine structure,
lower fines for some
violations than peer
city average.
Increase fines to be in line with
peer city averages and Utah
Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider
graduated fine structure.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 52
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City
Walker researched Salt Lake City’s existing metered parking system and documented the following items: on-
street metered parking rates, hours of enforcement, time limits, overnight parking, “move-it” policies, and fines
for various selected parking violations that pertain to on-street metered parking/paid parking areas.
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Figuree 35 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City.
Figuree 35.. On-Streett Parkingg Timee Limitss (Saltt Lakee City))
On-Street Time Limits Metric Salt Lake City
Time Limits Two hours Mon - Sat. No time limits on Sundays.
Hours that Time Limits are In Place By City ordinance, time limits are in place at all times at any multi-
space meter parking space or 2-hour time zone.
On-Street Parking Rates
Figuree 366 shows on-street parking rates in Salt Lake City.
Figuree 36.. On-Streett Parkingg Ratess (Saltt Lakee City))
Salt Lake City
$2.25 per hour on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are free. Motorcycles and accessible parkers are exempt from parking fees.
Some green vehicles may qualify for a free parking permit.
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement
Figuree 37 shows on-street hours of enforcement for Salt Lake City.
Figuree 37.. On-Streett Hourss off Enforcementt (Saltt Lakee City))
Salt Lake City
8 AM -8 PM Mon -Fri
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 53
Special Events
Figuree 38 shows special event parking metrics and rates for Salt Lake City.
Figuree 38.. Speciall Eventt Parkingg Metricss (Saltt Lakee City))
On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Salt Lake City
Special Event Rates for On-Street Meters?No
Event Rate Structure N/A
Overnight Parking
Figuree 39 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within
paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City.
Figuree 39.. Overnightt Parkingg Metricss (Saltt Lakee City))
Overnight Parking Metric Salt Lake City
Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces?
(Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs)Not specified
Overnight Parking Fee Schedule N/A
“Move-It” Policy
A “Move-it” policy or ordinance specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have
stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. FFiguree 40 below shows
selected information about Salt Lake City’s Move-it policy.
Figuree 40.. Move-itt Policiess (Saltt Lakee City))
Move-It Ordinance Metric Salt Lake City
"Move It" Ordinance Yes
Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved Another block face
How Long Ordinance is In Effect Posted time limit + 2 hours
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 54
Metered Parking Violations and Fines
Figuree 411 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations directly applicable
to metered parking in Salt Lake City.
Figuree 41.. Meteredd Parkingg Violationss andd Finess (Saltt Lakee City))
Selected On-Street Violation & Other
Violation Metric Salt Lake City
Overtime Meter $35
Meter Violation*$75
Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23
"Feeding the Meter"$23
Accessible Space Violation $150
Graduated Fines?No
Notes
* Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle
in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance
of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 55
Peer City Benchmarking
For the topics researched and documented in the previous section, Walker performed benchmarking for six peer
cities across the western United States. These cities are Denver, Sacramento, Boise, Austin, Portland, and Seattle.
Two of the six peer cities – Portland and Seattle – were selected as aspirational communities that feature
metered/paid on-street parking systems that are larger and more complex than Salt Lake City’s existing system.
Information for peer cities is believed to be current as of August 2022.
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Figuree 422 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities.
Figuree 42.. On-Streett Parkingg Timee Limitss (Peerr Cities))
On-
Street
Time
Limits
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Time
Limits
Vary.
In CBD,
2 hour
limit.
In
Cherry
Creek,
3 hour
limit.
All metered
spaces are
subject to 10-
hour time
limit.
Tiered
system.
Premium and
Standard: 2
hour limit.
Value: 4 hour
limit.
All metered
spaces are
subject to 10-
hour time limit.
Time limits vary from 1 - 4
hours. Within CBD, time limits
are typically 2 hours. Outside of
CBD, time limits are typically 3 -
4 hours. Within event overlay
areas, a 2-hour time limit goes
into effect during events, even
for spaces that are normally
subject to a longer time limit.
Time limits vary from
2 hours to 4 hours,
with some 10-hour
spaces available. In
areas where
enforcement extends
to 10 PM, the time
limit becomes 5 hours
after 5 PM.
Hours
that
Time
Limits
are In
Place
Varies.
In CBD,
6 AM -
10 PM
Varies. In CBD,
8 AM -10 PM
Mon -Sat. In
CBD periphery,
8 AM -8 PM
Mon -Sat. In
Old
Sacramento,
10 AM -10 PM
Mon -Sun. In
all other areas
where
metered
parking exists,
8 AM -6 PM
Mon -Sat
Three zones:
Premium,
Standard,
Value.
Premium: 8
AM -8 PM
Mon -Fri. 10
AM -5 PM
Sat.
Standard: 8
AM -8 PM
Mon -Fri. 10
AM -5 PM
Sat. Value: 8
AM -6 PM
Mon -Fri
only.
10 zones. Hours
of enforcement
vary widely. 1
zone is enforced
on event days
only. For all
zones,
enforcement
begins at 8 AM.
In CBD, 8 AM -6
PM Mon -Tue, 8
AM - 12 AM
Wed - Fri, 11
AM -12 AM Sat.
6 zones. Enforcement begins at
either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends
between 6 PM and 10 PM. In
CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1
PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event
district overlay areas and during
events, enforcement always
begins 3 hours before an event
and lasts until 3 hours after the
event, regardless of typical
hours or days of enforcement.
Within event overlay areas, time
limits are in place during events,
from 3 hours before an event
begins and last until 3 hours
after it ends.
Most zones: 8 AM -8
PM. In some zones,
time limits are in
place until 10 PM and
in others, time limits
end at 6 PM. During
events within the
Uptown and Uptown
Triangle zones, event
time limits and rates
can be in effect
during Sundays and
holidays.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 56
On-Street Parking Rates
Figuree 43 shows on-street parking rates in the peer cities.
Figuree 43.. On-Streett Parkingg Ratess (Peerr Cities))
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Varies. In
most areas,
$2 per
hour.
Tiered system. The
base rate is $1.75 per
hour with 4 meter tiers.
Each tier represents the
time limit for parking at
the base rate. Tiers
range from 1+ hour to
4+ hours. For all tiers,
the rate for next hour
after the time limit is
$3. For each hour
thereafter, the rate is
$3.75. Some long-term
meters exist that allow
for up to 10 hours of
parking with a $3 or $6
max rate, depending on
location.
Graduated system
by zone.
Premium: $2 per
hour for first hour,
$3 for 2nd hour
(Mon -Fri), $0.50
per hour (Sat).
Standard: $1.25
per hour for first
hour, $2 for 2nd
hour (Mon -Fri),
$0.50 per hour
(Sat). Value: $0.50
per hour for hours
1 -2, $1 per hour
for hours 3 -4. For
all zones, first 20
minutes is free.
Graduated system by
length of stay for all
zones. $2 per hour
for 1 -2 hour. Then
$3 for hour 3. Rate
then increases by
$0.50 per hour for
each hour thereafter
through hour 7. $5
per hour for hours 8 -
10. First 15 minutes
free. Mopeds and
motorcycles typically
exempt from fees.
Also, prisoners of
war and Purple Heart
recipients are
exempt per Texas
state law.
Varies by zone.
Non-event rates
range from $1
per hour to $2
per hour. In
CBD, rate is $2
per hour.
Vary by zone and time of
day. Morning rates are in
effect between 8 AM and
11 AM. Midday rates are
in effect between 11 AM
and 5 PM. Evening rates
are in effect between 5 PM
and 8 PM (5 PM and 10 PM
in some zones). Morning
rates range from $0.50 to
$2 per hour. Midday rates
range from $1 per hour to
$4 per hour. Evening rates
range from $0.50 to $2.50
per hour. In some zones,
parking is free after 6 PM
with no evening rate in
effect.
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement
Figuree 44 shows on-street hours of enforcement for the peer cities.
Figuree 44.. On-Streett Hourss off Enforcementt (Peerr Cities))
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Varies. In the
CBD, 8 AM -6
AM Mon -Sat
(No
enforcement
between 6
AM and 8
AM). In
Cherry Creek,
8 AM -7 PM
Mon - Sat.
Varies. In CBD, 8
AM - 10 PM Mon -
Sat. In CBD
periphery, 8 AM -8
PM Mon - Sat. In
Old Sacramento, 10
AM - 10 PM Mon -
Sun. In all other
areas where
metered parking
exists, 8 AM -6 PM
Mon -Sat
Three zones:
Premium,
Standard, Value.
Premium: 8 AM
-8 PM Mon -
Fri. 10 AM -5
PM Sat.
Standard: 8 AM
-8 PM Mon -
Fri. 10 AM -5
PM Sat. Value:
8 AM -6 PM
Mon -Fri only.
10 zones. Hours of
enforcement vary widely. 1
zone is enforced on event
days only. For all zones,
enforcement begins at 8 AM.
In CBD, 8 AM -6 PM Mon -
Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed -Fri,
11 AM - 12 AM Sat.
Motorcycles or mopeds may
exceed posted time limits,
but they may not exceed 12
hours during any paid
parking session at a paid
parking space.
6 zones. Enforcement
begins at either 8 AM or 9
AM and ends between 6
PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8
AM -7 PM Mon -Sat, 1 PM
- 7 PM Sun. Within event
district overlay areas and
during events,
enforcement always begins
3 hours before an event
and lasts until 3 hours after
the event, regardless of
typical hours or days of
enforcement.
Most zones:
8 AM -8
PM. In
some zones,
time limits
are in place
until 10 PM
and in
others, time
limits end at
6 PM.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 57
Special Events
Figuree 45 shows special event parking metrics and rates for the peer cities.
Figuree 45.. Speciall Eventt Parkingg Metricss (Peerr Cities))
On-Street
Special
Events Rate
& Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Special Event
Rates for On-
Street
Meters?
No Yes No No Yes Yes
Event Rate
Structure N/A
Event rates apply during
events where more than
15,000 attendees are
expected within a designated
special event parking zone.
During events, an event flat
rate applies after the tiered
time limit expires. The base
rate for all tiers is $1.75. For
Tier 1, the flat rate is $14; for
Tier 2, the flat rate is $15.25;
for Tier 3, the flat rate is
$13.50.
N/A N/A
Within event overlay
areas, meter rates
increase to $4 per
hour during events
(starting 3 hours
before event until 3
hours after it ends).
There is a flat $0.20
Climate and Equity
Transaction Fee for
all parking
transactions
Event rates apply during
events where more than
10,000 attendees are
expected within the
Uptown and Uptown
Triangle zones. During
events, between 5 PM and
10 PM, the first 2 hours of
parking are $3 per hour.
Additional hours after the
first 2 are $8 per hour.
Overnight Parking
Figuree 466 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within
paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities.
Figuree 46.. Overnightt Parkingg Metricss (Peerr Cities))
Overnight Parking
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Overnight Parking
Managed at On-Street
Metered Spaces?
(Excluding Permit
Areas/RPPPs)
Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
Overnight Parking Fee
Schedule
10 PM - 2 AM:
$1 per hour
2 AM -6 AM:
$0.50 per hour
6 AM -8 AM:
Free
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 58
“Move-It” Policy
A “Move-it” policy or ordinance is one that specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once
they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. FFiguree 47
below shows selected information about the peer cities’ “Move-it” policies.
Figuree 47.. Move-itt Policiess (Peerr Cities))
Move-It Ordinance
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
"Move It" Ordinance Yes Yes Unspecified Unspecified Yes Yes
Minimum Distance a
Vehicle Must be Moved 100'One city block Unspecified Unspecified
Another block
face or 500
feet
One block
How Long Ordinance is
In Effect 24 hours Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified 3 hours Unspecified
Metered Parking Violations and Fines
Figuree 488 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations that are directly
applicable to metered parking in the selected peer cities. FFiguree 49 shows the lowest, average, and highest fines
for each selected violation.
Note that the exact violation labels, definitions, language, and context in each peer city’s code for the violations
listed may differ; Walker selected the particular violations and fines for each city that are most equivalent to Salt
Lake City’s respective violations and associated fines.
Figuree 48.. Meteredd Parkingg Violationss andd Finess (Peerr Cities))
Selected On-Street
Violation & Other
Violation Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento*Boise**Austin***Portland Seattle****
Overtime Meter $35 $35 $21 $30
$44 1st
offense; $50
2nd offense,
$70 3rd
offense.
$44
Meter Violation $35 $50 N/A $40 $65 $47
Parking Outside of
Allowed Hours $35 $40 $26.50 $40 $65 -$95 $47
"Feeding the Meter"$35 $25 N/A $40 $44 $44
Accessible Space
Violation $350 $445 $159 $300 $165 $450
Graduated Fines?No No No No Yes (Overtime
meter)
Yes (Overtime
violations after 1st
are $47)
Notes
* $12.50
mandatory
surcharge for
all violations
** $15 late
fee for fines
over 6 months
*** Fees represent
standard fine. Fines are
reduced if paid early.
All fines include $5 in
statutory court costs.
**** Fine schedule
notes that there is a
fine of $47 for
"repeated overtime"
violations
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 59
Figuree 49.. Meteredd Parkingg Violationss andd Finess -- Summaryy Statisticss (Peerr Cities))
Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric
Peer Cities
Salt Lake
CityMin (1st
Offense)Average Max
Overtime Meter $21 $33 $44 $35
Meter Violation $35 $42 $50 $75
Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $27 $35 $40 $23
"Feeding the Meter"$25 $33 $40 $23
Accessible Space Violation $159 $314 $445 $150
Additionally, according to the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule for traffic-related offenses, as provided by the Utah
State Court System, the suggested fine for an accessible parking space violation is $340.2
2 Utah Courts. “2022 Uniform Fine Schedule.” Accessed September 19, 2022.
https://www.utcourts.gov/rules/appendices/Appendix_C/Uniform_Fine_Schedule.pdf
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 60
Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways
x Timee limitss
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a uniform time limit in place for all metered parking areas
In 4 of 6 peer cities, the time limit varies depending on area/zone
In 2 of 6 peer cities, a tiered rate system is in place that enables stays of up to 10 hours
x Parkingg ratess
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a flat hourly rate for metered parking that does not vary by
area, length of stay, or tier
4 cities have rates that differ by area/zone
2 cities have rates that differ by length of stay
1 city has rates that differ by both zone and time of day
1 city has rates that differ by both area/zone and length of stay
o Salt Lake City is the only city that does not charge for parking on Saturdays in all metered areas
3 of the 6 peer cities have paid parking uniformly in place on Saturdays
The other peer cities have paid parking in place on Saturdays only within certain
areas/zones
o 4 of the peer cities have paid parking in place on Sundays in some areas/zones and/or during
special events
x Hourss andd dayss off enforcementt
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has uniform hours of enforcement in place for all metered
parking areas
x Speciall eventss
o 3 of the peer cities have different rate and enforcement structures for special events within
certain areas
x Overnightt parkingg
o Denver has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking at metered
spaces.
o Other peer jurisdictions, as well as Salt Lake City, have no special rules pertaining to overnight
parking
Overnight parking at metered spaces may either be unrestricted or be subject to “no
overnight parking” rules between certain posted hours
x Move-itt policyy
o 5 of 6 peer cities with “move-it” policies explicitly identified require vehicles to move at least one
city block or block face away, the same as Salt Lake City
o For cities where a time limit was specified, a vehicle cannot park on the same block face again for
at least three hours
x Violationss andd finess
o All the peer cities observed have higher fines associated with parking outside allowed hours and
“feeding the meter.”
o Salt Lake City’s fine for accessible space violations is less than half the average fine for the peer
cities
o 2 of 6 peer communities have graduated fine structures in place for some or all violations
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 61
Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees
Salt Lake City does not directly own, operate, or manage any paid off-street parking facilities for general public
use. However, as part of this study, Walker has performed an overview of paid parking rates for privately owned-
and -operated off-street parking facilities downtown as a benchmark for which to compare existing on-street
parking rates.
In all, Walker benchmarked 26 off-street parking facilities that offer paid parking for general public use. Rates
researched are shown in FFiguree 50 below and are current as of July 2022. Note that per-hour figures in cells
highlighted in light orange have been calculated from a listed rate other than one hour (e.g., a given rate for 20
minutes was multiplied by 3 to determine the effective rate for 1 hour).
Figuree 50.. Selectedd Off-Streett Parkingg Ratess inn Downtownn Saltt Lakee Cityy (Dayy Parking))
Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel?Garage?Flat
Rate
Night/
Evening
Rate
per 1
Hour
per 2
Hours
per
Day or
Max
Rate
The Parkside Tower 215 State St.SP+No Yes $3.00 $4.00 $10.00
Marriott City Center 220 South State St.Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $20.00
242 East Broadway 242 E. Broadway ABM No No $3.00 $1.50 $3.00
236 Shelmerdine Ct.236 Shelmerdine Ct.ABM No No $3.00 $2.00 $4.00
Broadway Center 111 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00
175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S.No No $3.50 $7.00
Walker Center Garage 160 Regent St.ABM No Yes $2.00 $3.00 $15.00
One Utah Center 201 Main St.ABM Yes Yes $12
Wells Fargo Center 299 S. Main St.ABM No Yes $3.00 $8.00
Exchange Place 24 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $4.00
South State Garage 324 State St.ABM No Yes $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00
Marriott City Creek 75 W. Temple Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $19.00
175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $10 $5.00
American Plaza Garage 255 W. Temple Republic Parking System No Yes $4.00 $7.00
222 S. Main Garage 222 S. Main ABM No Yes $4.00 $6.00 $20.00
Hilton Salt Lake City
Center 255 W. Temple Hilton Yes Yes $22
City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S.City Creek No No $8
Grand America Garage 555 S. Main Grand America Hotel Yes Yes $5.00 $9.00 $25.00
Salt Palace Convention
Center 100 S. Temple Salt Palace No Yes $15
Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave.ABM No Yes $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00
U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont
Ave.
Diamond Parking
Services No No $5.00 $10.00
Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W. 500 S.SP+Yes Yes $2.50 $5.00 $15.00
330 W. Temple Lot 220 W. Temple ABM No No $6.00
Hilton DoubleTree 110 W. 600 S.Hilton Yes Yes $15
Royal Wood Lot 250 W. 200 S.ABM No No $5.00 $1.50 $3.00 $5.00
U127 Lot 254 S. 200 W.Diamond Parking
Services No No $5.00 $10.00
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 62
Figure 51 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 50 above.
Figuree 51.. Selectedd Off-Streett Parkingg Ratess (Dayy Parking)) –– Summaryy Statisticss
Per Day or Day Max Rate per Hour Evening Rate
Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest
$5.00 $14.45 $25.00 $1.50 $3.42 $5.00 $2.00 $4.25 $6.00
Also, Walker has researched the cost of monthly parking permit rates at selected off-street facilities where such
parking is offered. While Salt Lake City currently does not offer or provide permit-based parking at any of its paid
on-street meters, it could use off-street parking permit rates benchmarked here as a baseline for establishing
costs for such permits in the future. In all, 15 downtown parking facilities were researched that offered, as of July
2022, monthly permitted parking, as shown in FFiguree 52 below.
Figuree 52.. Selectedd Off-Streett Parkingg Ratess inn Downtownn Saltt Lakee Cityy (Monthlyy Permitt Parking))
Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel?Garage?Monthly Rate
(Unreserved)
Monthly Rate
(Reserved)
CBRE 257 Parking 257 E. 200 S.CBRE No Yes $55.00
U071 Lot 256 E. 300 S.Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U013 Lot 217 E. 400 S.Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U145 Lot 220 S. Edison St.Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $95.00
Brighton Bank Lot 311 S. State St.Diamond Parking
Services No No $85.00
175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S.No No $120.00
Regent Street Garage 119 S. Regent St.City Creek No Yes $115.00 $132.00
One Utah Center 201 Main St.ABM Yes Yes $95.00
South State Garage 324 State St.ABM No Yes $105.00
175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $105.00
170 S. Main 170 S. Main ABM No Yes $85.00
City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S.City Creek No No $64.00
Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave.ABM No Yes $80.00
U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont
Ave.
Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U075 Lot 279 W. 200 S.Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
Figuree 53 below shows summary statistics calculated based on FFiguree 522 above.
Figuree 53.. Selectedd Off-Streett Parkingg Ratess (Monthlyy Parking)) –– Summaryy Statisticss
Lowest Monthly Rate Average Monthly Rate
(Unreserved)
Average Monthly Rate
(Reserved)Highest Monthly Rate
$55.00 $87.33 $101.20 $132.00
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 63
Recommendations & Other Suggested Items
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Salt Lake City has a uniform time limit of two hours in place for all metered parking. It is the only city, compared
to the peer cities examined, that has a uniform time limit. Having different time limits in place can serve to
customize or tailor on-street parking to the adjacent land uses the parking serves and account for the particular
predominate use case for that parking.
Longer time limits can allow for longer parking stays to take place, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for
overtime parking or for “feeding the meter.” Shorter time limits can allow for higher turnover compared to the
average parking space for very high demand or high-activity parking spaces.
From a revenue generation perspective, time limits for paid parking are mostly unrelated to a space’s revenue
generation potential. Within an 8-hour period, the amount of revenue generated would be the same (under a
flat-rate system) whether the space sees four vehicles parked for 2 hours a piece or whether it sees one vehicle
parked for 8 hours. It should be noted that under a tiered system, longer time limits may actually increase
revenue compared to a flat-rate system, all other things being equal, since some parkers will pay a higher rate per
hour to for longer stays.
Recommendations
x In conjunction with suggested actions regarding parking rates, increase time limit from 2 to 4 hours, at
least for most spaces within the paid system.
o A tiered or graduated rate structure would take over as the primary mechanism for encouraging
turnover and incentivizing shorter stays while allowing longer stays if needed without being in
violation.
o A maximum time limit should still be in place to discourage overnight parking.
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Time limits of fewer than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special
contexts.
On-Street Parking Rates
Salt Lake City is a large city and has a high-activity and diverse downtown that continues to grow. It is not
exclusively comprised of office land use where activity peaks between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. The
downtown, as well as peripheral areas such as Gateway, feature dining, night life, entertainment, and services
land uses, as well as the continued development of multi-family residential.
On-street meter rates today in Salt Lake City are universally $2.25 per hour, and Saturdays and Sundays are free.
This is despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in
parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Also, according to Walker’s current
understanding, a two-hour time limit for on-street parking still applies on Saturdays despite decreased or no
enforcement on Saturdays as parking is free.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 64
Every peer city examined has on-street metered parking rates that varied across the system. Rates vary as a
function of area or zone, length of stay, tier, or time of day. It should be noted that, for every peer city, the
highest rate observed, for at least the first 2 hours, was lower than Salt Lake City’s flat rate, with the typical
highest rate for the first hour, regardless of tier or zone, being $2 per hour.
In the case of parking rates that vary by area, some areas/zones feature higher per-hour rates than others as a
function of the land use density and activity levels of a given area. The highest-activity areas within the central
business district command higher prices than lower-density areas and/or areas with lower activity levels. The
rate, therefore, takes into account the value, or the “market rate,” of on-street parking dynamically. An
alternative or additional way to account for the “market rate” of a respective metered parking space is to vary the
rate by time of day or day of week, acknowledging that parking demand may differ widely based on time of day
for all areas/zones, regardless of the peak level of activity for that area/zone.
In the case of parking rates that vary by length of stay, rates are designed to escalate according to a tier structure,
with lower rates for the first hour or two than for subsequent hours. For these peer systems, a graduated, or
tiered, rate system accomplishes the purpose of encouraging on-street parking turnover while also allowing for
longer parking stays to take place if needed, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for
“feeding the meter.
Parking meter rates should, first and foremost, be set at rates that match the cost of services and programs that
the revenue is intended to pay for. Also, they should be responsive to users’ parking behavior patterns, which can
differ widely, and potentially be future proofed for managing other uses of the curb within the paid parking area,
such as TNC’s (Uber/Lyft), commercial deliveries/loading, or other short-term use.
One other important consideration or best practice is that on-street parking should, in general, be more
expensive per hour than off-street parking. This is to incentivize longer-term parkers to use off-street facilities,
freeing up on-street parking for shorter stays and increasing parking availability for customers or visitors. If on-
street parking is not as expensive as off-street parking, on-street parking may be occupied by employees and
other long-term parkers who are cost incentivized not to use off-street parking, which typically already operates
at a competitive and convenience disadvantage. Parkers of all user groups may elect to “cruise,” or circulate
around the street grid looking for or waiting for an on-street space to free up instead of using an off-street space.
This can cause inconvenience from a time perspective as well as cause traffic congestion and unnecessary
greenhouse gas emissions.
While Salt Lake City does not operate a system of city-owned and -operated parking structures or lots intended
for general public use, the average per-hour rate for private parking garages is higher than the per-hour rate for
on-street parking by more than a dollar. For long-term parkers, a rate structure should be set up such that the
rate per hour for stays exceeding 4 hours is higher than the predominate average off-street parking rate, in order
to incentivize parkers to use off-street facilities instead for long stays.
Recommendations
x Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour.
x Transition to a tiered rate structure where parking rates increase per hour for longer parking stays
o In order to disincentivize long-term stays, and encourage such parkers to use off-street facilities,
the per-hour rate should incrementally increase until at least the average off-street public parking
rate is reached or exceeded.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 65
o For the existing paid parking area, Walker recommends the following tiered rate schedule:
$2.50 per hour for the first 2 hours.
$5 per hour for the 3rd hour.
$10 per hour for the 4th hour.
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Zone-based pricing for on-street rates
o Zones should be defined based on parking demand patterns in a given area.
Sugar House can or should be a separate zone from the existing paid area (downtown),
with its own rate schedule that is commensurate with parking demand patterns in that
area.
Downtown can or should be divided into at least 2 zones, with 1 zone comprising high-
utilization parking areas with higher rates and the other comprising lower-utilization
parking areas with lower rates.
x A different tiered rate schedule or flat per-hour schedule could be put into place
for lower-demand zone(s).
Other zones can be added when or if the area of the paid parking system were to
increase with their own rate structure.
On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement
Hours of enforcement are Monday – Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM in Salt Lake City. As with parking rates, this is also
despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in parking
occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area.
Accordingly, every peer city examined also set different hours of enforcement that varied as a function of the
same variables used to determine rate structures. Paid parking, as a baseline, should be in place during all time
periods where parking activity levels warrant or justify it.
Hours of enforcement should correlate with the dynamic rate structure and also be set as a function of the
“market rate” and occupancy/behavior patterns. Parking enforcement requires time, labor, and resources.
Enforcement should be more concentrated in areas of higher activity and/or higher revenue generation, and
hours of enforcement should differ based on the parking activity patterns of a given area. Finally, cost-effective
enforcement should be active during all times for which parking restrictions are in place in any paid system/within
any paid area.
Recommendations
x Expand paid parking into Saturdays.
o This change would align enforcement hours with paid parking hours across the week.
x Extend paid parking to 10 PM within the existing paid parking area.
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Later end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization remains elevated
past 10 PM.
o Such areas may include land uses such as night life, entertainment, et cetera.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 66
x Earlier end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization may decrease
substantially after a certain time, making enforcement non-cost-effective
o Such areas may include land uses such as single-use office.
For such areas, enforcement may conclude at 5 or 6 PM.
Special Events
Like some of the peer cities examined, Salt Lake City’s downtown features at least one significant generator of
special event activity: the Vivint Arena, used for professional basketball as well as for other special events such as
concerts. As a result, on-street parking activity along streets immediately surrounding the arena may surge
during games or events, which may occur during evenings or on weekends, and/or when parking activity levels
are much lower than their typical peak. On-street parking in this area during such events should be reflective of
and responsive to such surges, regardless of whether they remain at a flat rate or are set to vary during non-event
times.
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Establish a special zone or an overlay zone around the Vivint Arena where special event paid parking rates
and hours of enforcement would apply during large events at the arena.
o For special event rates, the existing two-hour time limit for on-street parking would have to be
eliminated or modified (See “Time Limits” above).
o Walker suggests setting per-hour special event rates for the first 1 -2 hours based on the average
per-hour rate for the off-street parking system to provide non-event parkers with an on-street
parking option.
o For every hour after the 2nd hour, the per-hour rate should be such that the “max rate” for an
event should be competitive with event day maxes for the off-street parking system.
Overnight Parking
Salt Lake City is in line with most peer cities in terms of overnight parking. One city has implemented a special
rate structure and policies for overnight parking.
Suggested Items for Consideration
x None at this time.
Move-It Policy
All peer cities that had a “Move-It” policy in place required vehicles within the on-street metered area to move at
least one block face away from where they were previously parked once they reach the maximum time limit.
However, all peer cities examined have typical city block lengths that are shorter than downtown Salt Lake City.
Also, the time for which a parker may not be allowed to park within the minimum distance that the parker was
required to move was at least 3 hours. Typically, a “no repark allowed” time of at least 3 hours helps to
discourage drivers from moving to take advantage of longer time limits and/or lower parking rates that may go
into effect during the parker’s stay.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 67
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Increase the time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space to at
least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours (See “Time Limits” above).
Violations & Fines
Fine amounts for parking violations should be set such that they incentivize parkers to not commit recurring
violations. For violations that are serious in nature, fines should be set such that parkers are highly incentivized
not to commit any violation.
While the ultimate goal of parking management is to create and support transportation options for people and
support uniform following of all rules and regulations, fines for violations are an important part of encouraging
compliance and mitigating the negative consequences of rule breaking. For example, when a parker chooses to
overstay a time limit in a parking space, they in turn reduce the ability of that parking space to serve other
parkers. When a parker neglects to pay for a metered parking space, they reduce the revenue generated by that
parking space and can impact the city’s ability to run services and programs paid for by parking revenues.
There is undoubtedly a community impact associated with parking violations. If fines are too low, and especially if
enforcement is lacking, parkers may simply choose to risk citation and pay a fine instead of moving their vehicles
or paying the per-hour rate.
Salt Lake City’s fine for overtime meters was in line with the peer city average. The city’s fine for meter violations
was much higher, though the violation may be defined differently than for peer cities and is this not directly
comparable. Fines for parking outside of allowed hours and for feeding the meter were lower than the peer city
average, though it should be noted that some peer cities had rate and time limit structures such that those
violations are partially or completely obsolete in those cities.
The major divergence of note was the fine for accessible space violations, where the fine in Salt Lake City was
notably less than the average for the peer cities. It was also less than the suggested fine amount found in the
2022 Uniform Fine Schedule as published by the Utah State Court System. Two of the 6 peer cities featured some
version of graduated fines as a disincentive for repeated offenses.
Recommendations
x Increase fines from the current levels for all 5 parking violation types discussed in the peer benchmarking
analysis.
o Increases should bring fines for given violations more in line with the peer city averages and/or
take into account inflation since fines were originally established.
x The fine for accessible space violations should be closer to the suggested fine published by the Utah State
Courts as of 2022 in their Uniform Fine Schedule ($340).
Suggested Items for Consideration
x Consider a graduated fine structure where fines increase by at least 25% for subsequent parking
violations of the same type that occur within one year of the first such violation.
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 68
Appendix07
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 69
Appendix
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Recommendations
Figuree 54.. Candidatess forr Removall inn Existingg Paidd Areaa
Address IPS Pole
245 E 300 S 34520
241 S 200 E 34560
356 W 200 S 34350
432 S 200 E 34133
450 S 300 E 34504
245 E 500 S 34486
447 S 100 E 34453
257 E 200 S 34463
256 E 300 S 34546
254 E 500 S 34501
333 S 200 E 34194
258 S 200 E 34562
249 S Edison St 34544
253 E 100 S 34573
110 W Pierpont Ave 34413
160 N Main St 34429
142 S 200 W 34442
143 N Main St 34434
185 E Social Hall Ave 34478
382 S West Temple St 34583
180 E Social Hall Ave 34477
48 S 200 E 34597
39 W 500 S 34541
55 S 200 E 34588
52 S 300 E 34570
44 W 500 S 34532
59 S 300 E 34516
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 70
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
Mid to Long Term
Figuree 55.. Specificc Landd Usess perr Neighborhoodd Plann andd Correspondingg Generalizedd Landd Usess
Neighborhood
or Sub Area
Corresponding General Land Uses Specific Land Use from Neighborhood or Sub Area Plan
Color Corresponding
Density
Corresponding
Land Use
Category
Color Land Use/Zone Name
Sugar House
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - Low Intensity
Business District Mixed Use - Neighborhood Scale
High Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - High Intensity
Business District Mixed Use - Town Center Scale
Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Business
High Density Commercial N/A
Central
Community
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use
Medium Residential/Mixed Use
Striped Residential/Office Mixed Use
Medium Density Transit Orientated Development
High Density Mixed Use High Mixed Use
High Density Transit Orientated Development
Medium Density Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Striped Central Business District Support
High Density Commercial Central Business District
The Avenues
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density (Residential)
High Density Residential High Density (Residential)
Medium Density Mixed Use N/A
High Density Mixed Use N/A
Medium Density Commercial Business/Commercial
High Density Commercial N/A
Capitol Hill
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use Striped (/)Medium Mixed Use
Striped (\)Medium/High Mixed Use
High Density Mixed Use Crosshatch (X)High Density Mixed Use
Medium Density Commercial General Commercial
High Density Commercial N/A
Gateway District
Land
Development and
Master Plan*
Medium Density Residential N/A
High Density Residential N/A
High Density Mixed Use Striped (\)Residential
White Dots Commercial
Medium Density Mixed Use Retail
Crosshatch (X)Secondary Support Commercial
Medium Density Commercial N/A
High Density Commercial N/A
SSaltt Lakee Cityy Corporationn
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 71
Figuree 56.. Compositee off Futuree Landd Usee Maps/Planss ontoo Studyy Areass
This page has intentionally been left blank
EXHIBIT B
Parking Issues and Options Table
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
1
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
1. Meter Fee Structure Issues
Issue: The Central Business District’s needs have evolved, and the current meter structure does not meet those needs as well as it could. More customization is needed to address unique challenges in this area.
Currently, our meters are only active on weekdays from 8 AM to 8 PM excluding legal, city-observed holidays. Events downtown on weekends and evenings are starting to experience heavier parking
demand outside of these time periods.
Policy Question: How should Salt Lake City balance the desire to encourage a park-once-and-walk approach, public convenience, business’ desire for turnover, and the desire to disincentive single occupancy driving?
Option A: Extend active metering to include evenings and Saturdays.
This option would extend the time from 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday-Friday, to 8
AM – 10 PM, Monay – Saturday.
This option would create more
turnover in our parking stalls in the
late evenings and weekends.
Charging for parking later in the
evening and on weekends could
discourage people from coming
downtown.
Increased revenue from
additional metered time.
Potential for increased
enforcement costs in evenings
and on weekends. Providing
more resources would help
improve enforcement and
generate better outcomes.
With additional enforcement
resources, we would expect to
see increased revenue from paid
parking and citations.
Yes / Yes
Option B: Increase the meter rate.
Our current rate is $2.25 per hour and was last increased in FY 2020. The
parking study completed in 2022 indicated that our meter rate is low
when compared to other cities, and ĺƯ-street parking downtown should
be reevaluated. The study recommended increasing the rate to $2.50 per
hour. ĺIJŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺIJϙèĺŪīîϙæôϙČĖŽôIJϙťĺϙťƅĖIJČϙıôťôŘϙŘÍťôϙťĺϙĖIJƲÍťĖĺIJϟ
“The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup recommends three
policy changes:
1) Cities reduce parking requirements for developments. This policy
recommendation has been implemented by Salt Lake City.
2) Price the curb to match market value.
3) ŜôϙťēôϙŘôŽôIJŪôϙČôIJôŘÍťôîϙťĺϙæôIJôƱťϙťēôϙèĺııŪIJĖťƅϟ
Increasing the meter rate could help
increase the amount of turnover at
our metered parking stalls.
Increasing the meter rate would help
us more appropriately price a
premium asset.
Setting rates to keep up with
ĖIJƲÍťĖĺIJϙſĖīīϙıÍħôϙÍϙıĺŘôϙČŘÍîŪÍīϙ
change to our meter rates in the
future and help us avoid large
increases at once.
Increasing the meter rate could
discourage people from coming
downtown.
Sudden changes to meter rate
could disproportionately impact
members of our community that
ēÍŽôϙīĖıĖťôîϙƱIJÍIJèial resources.
There is a concern that
increasing the meter rate could
ĖIJèŘôÍŜôϙîôıÍIJîϙċĺŘϙıĺŘôϙĺƯ-
street parking facilities.
Increased revenue from higher
meter rate.
Yes / Yes
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
2
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
Option C: Create Flexible Time and Variable Pricing Zones based on demand.
We currently only allow people to park at a meter for up to two hours at a
set rate. This works well for many parts of downtown, but there are many
areas where business patrons may spend three or four hours at a
location for an event or just for shopping. A good example is the Eccles
Theater. Under the current policy, people must leave the event to move
their vehicle to a new block face in order to be downtown for more than
two hours. The same occurs at locations where people spend more than
two hours downtown shopping or engaging in other activities. This
increases congestion on our streets and creates air quality impacts while
making it harder for these event-based businesses. Our current policy
doesn’t encourage a “park-once-and-walk” mentality. This proposal
would allow people to park for more than two hours at a stall but would
incentivize turnover by charging a higher rate for the third and fourth
hours.
®ôϙÍīŜĺϙēÍŽôϙÍϙƱƄôîϙıôťôŘϙèĺŜťϙĺċϙщϙ͑ϟ͔͑ϙŕôŘϙēĺŪŘϙťēÍťϙĖŜϙÍŕŕīĖôîϙ
consistently across downtown. This means that the most desirable spots
are often overutilized and less desirable spots are underutilized. The city
could create dynamic pricing where certain zones have higher rates
during peak times to try to push parking demand to be more evenly
spread across downtown, opening areas for those who are willing to pay
a higher rate for convenience while still allowing for those who don’t want
to pay more to park, although at a less desirable spot. This could overlap
with the event parking management program and increase meter rates
around event centers downtown during sporting or entertainment events.
Consideration could also be given to reducing the allowed meter time to
one hour in areas where more turnover is needed.
This creates the ability for the city to
customize areas of downtown to
better serve visitors and the
adjacent businesses and residents.
It is expected that this could also
ēÍŽôϙÍϙıĺîôŜťϙæôIJôƱťϙċĺŘϙ
congestion, emissions and air
quality if we don’t require vehicles to
move every couple of hours.
Pricing our meters at a higher rate
during events could encourage more
use of public transit to access these
events during peak times.
Allowing people to stay in a spot
for more than two hours could
have a negative impact on
turnover and availability of
parking to other users.
FÍŽĖIJČϙƲôƄĖæīôϙÍIJîϙŽÍŘĖable
zones could be more confusing
for users.
Charging for extended periods or
premium locations would
increase meter revenue
generation.
Yes / Yes
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
3
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙťŪîƅϙ
Recommendation
2. Event Impacts
Issue: As the city is hosting more events, neighborhoods around these event venues are experiencing unintended impacts. One example of this situation is the Fairpark community where parking demand in the
neighborhood becomes unmanageable during events. Other areas include Rice Eccles Stadium during Football Games, near the Delta Center and in the past around Smith’s ÍīīƱôīîϟϙŜϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙæôèĺıôŜϙ
more of an event, sports and entertainment destination, it is anticipated that this issue will grow to include the Power District development as well as the Downtown Sports, Entertainment, Culture and
Convention District. In the Fairpark neighborhood, parking demand can increase by 250% during major events like Kilby Court Block Party, Days of ‘47, and the State Fair. There are up to 1,800 additional
ŽôēĖèīôŜϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙĖIJϙťēôϙIJôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙĺIJϙôÍèēϙIJĖČēťϙĺċϙťēôŜôϙıÍĤĺŘϙôŽôIJťŜϟϙēĖŜϙıÍħôŜϙĖťϙîĖƯĖèŪīťϙċĺŘϙŕôĺŕīôϙīĖŽĖIJČϙĖIJϙťēôŜôϙÍŘôÍŜϙîŪŘĖIJČϙôŽôIJťŜϙťĺϙƱIJîϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙand creates a lot of unintended consequences
for the residents to deal with, including increased crime rates and trash left behind.
Policy Question: Should Salt Lake City manage parking associated with events?
Option A: Create a new Event Parking Management program to manage these
areas, starting with the Fairpark area.
The details of this proposed program can be found in the attached
ŜťÍƯϙıôıĺŘÍIJîŪıϟϙēôϙèĺIJèôŕťϙĖŜϙťĺϙèŘôÍťôϙÍϙŕôŘıĖťϙŜƅŜťôıϙċĺŘϙťēôϙ
area, but instead of charging residents to park, the City would charge
those visiting the area to park in the neighborhood. This would help
manage the demand and hopefully reduce some of the impacts to the
community surrounding the venue.
If successful, this program could be extended to include areas around
Rice Eccles Stadium, Power District, etc.
This would help the City manage
parking within event areas more
proactively, reducing impacts on
the surrounding community.
This would enable the City to create
a permit system where visitors,
rather that impacted residents, pay
for the administration of the
system.
Charging for parking at event
venues will incentivize people to
use transit to access the event
instead of parking in the
neighborhood.
This creates an additional cost
for those attending events.
This could also increase
demand for people who charge
ċĺŘϙĺƯ-street parking in these
neighborhoods.
Implementation of the new
program will have
administrative costs for the
Transportation Division and
enforcement costs for the
Compliance Division as well as
costs associated with the
infrastructure needed to
implement the program.
It is expected that this program
will generate additional revenue
for the City that will likely
exceed the associated costs.
Yes / NA
Option B: Modify the current parking permit program (Chapter 12.64 of City
Code) so that it could be used to address these issues.
The city’s permit program outlined in Chapter 12.64 is inadequate to
address the event areas due to the following issues:
1) The permit program is intended to address commuter impacts
and areas around event venues generally won’t meet the
minimum criteria as outlined due to the short-term nature of
events.
2) The cost of the permit program is borne by the residents as
they apply for parking permits, and this may adversely impact
those who live near these venues
3) The existing permit program does not allow anyone from
outside of the area to park within the neighborhood. In the
case of major events, this will just push the demand
somewhere else.
Chapter 12.64 of city code would need to be re-written to address
these issues.
This option enables us to address
event management with an already
existing program.
Trying to update our code to
manage events and commuters
with the same program could
ŘôîŪèôϙťēôϙôƯôèťĖŽôIJôŜŜϙĺċϙ
both programs.
Expanding our permit system in
this way would likely create
some additional administrative
costs for the Transportation
Division and adding permit
areas will create additional
enforcement costs for
Compliance Division.
Expanding the permit area
would also generate additional
revenue.
No / NA
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
4
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
Option C: Convert areas around these event centers to metered parking year-
round.
This approach would modify the areas around these venues to meter
parking. This would help us manage the events but would have the
downside of creating impacts to the residents year-round, not just when
there are events.
This option enables us to address
event management with an already
existing program.
This would create impacts to the
residential neighborhood year-
round even when events are not
occurring.
Expanding our meter system in
this way would require
substantial capital investments
(pay stations, meter heads) and
create some additional
administrative costs for the
Transportation Division. Adding
metered areas will create
additional enforcement costs for
Compliance
Expanding the meter area would
also generate additional
revenue.
No / NA
3. Delivery Services Impacts
Issue: Delivery and rideshare vehicles block travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking, increasing congestion and demand on the curb-space. These curb space uses are growing at a fast pace and include everything
from food deliveries (Uber Eats, GrubHub, etc.) to package delivery (Amazon, UPS, etc.), food service delivery and rideshare (Lyft, Uber). These uses are often concentrated around restaurants and
residential centers where on-street parking is already heavily utilized. As a result, drivers of these vehicles often double park and block bike lanes or travel lanes.
Policy Question: How should Salt Lake City address growth of these services and the increasing demand for this type of usage?
Option A: Allow delivery and rideshare uses to obtain a freight permit and increase
the amount of freight zones in the downtown area.
This option would consider licensing these uses to happen within our
already existing freight zones and potentially expanding the number of
freight zones in the downtown area to better accommodate this
increasing demand. This would happen by removing some of our
metered stalls. There could be a requirement for the drivers of these
vehicles to get a permit similar to our freight permit system. Another
option would be to have the restaurants driving these needs pay for the
ŕôŘıĖťťôîϙŪŜôϙťĺϙĺƯŜôťϙťēôϙèĺŜťϙĺċϙťēôϙīĺŜťϙıôťôŘŜϟ
By providing more legal and
appropriate areas for this activity to
occur, we expect to have fewer
instances of vehicles blocking bike
and/or travel lanes.
The potential loss of metered
stalls in our downtown area
impacts guests and visitors to
downtown businesses.
We would need to create a
permit system that the
Compliance Division could use
to distinguish these vehicles
from other users.
Modifying the signage to provide
additional freight zones and
remove parking meters would
have some infrastructure and
administrative costs.
The Transportation Division
would incur more administrative
costs for processing the permits,
and the Compliance Division
would incur more enforcement
costs.
Loss of parking meters would
result in lower revenue unless
the permit system was designed
ťĺϙĺƯŜôťϙťēĖŜϙīĺŜŜϟ
No / NA
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
5
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
Option B: Create a delivery permit system where curb-demand activities are
allowed either using existing meters or dedicated stalls.
This option would create a new permit system to manage these uses.
Again, the requirement could be on the driver of the vehicle or on the
business needing the service. In this instance, either new stalls would be
created dedicated to this use or the permit could be set up to allow these
uses to happen in existing metered stallsϠϙæŪťϙſĖťēϙÍϙîĖƯôŘôIJťϙŘÍťôϙ
structure and time restrictions. A combination of the two options could
also be explored (dedicated stalls in high demand area and allowing use
of metered stalls in lower demand areas).
This would allow us to keep our
freight spaces free for freight use
while creating additional spaces for
this use.
This cĺŪīîϙæôϙīôŜŜϙôƯĖèĖôIJťϙÍIJîϙ
result in loss of metered stalls in
high demand areas.
Creation of a new program
would have some administrative
costs including new signage.
The Transportation Division
would incur more administrative
costs for processing the permits
and the Compliance Division
would incur more enforcement
costs.
Loss of parking meters would
result in lower revenue unless
the permit system was designed
ťĺϙĺƯŜôťϙťēĖŜϙīĺŜŜϟ
Yes / NA
Option C:
Simplify our freight loading zones into simpler loading zones with a time
restriction. No permits are required.
This creates a simpler system that is
easier for end users to understand
and for enforcement ĺƯĖèôŘŜϙťĺϙ
patrol.
This would also free up resources in
the Compliance Division that
currently administers the freight
permit system. Those resources
could be redirected to other
compliance activities.
Freight zones would be freed up
for other purposes, which may
result in less availability to the
current users of that space.
This may result in a need to
convert more space downtown
into loading/unloading zones
General Public will likely use
these spaces to avoid paying at
the meters
More îĖƯĖèŪīťϙťĺϙôIJċĺŘèôϙĺIJϙťēôϙ
time restrictions
Freight zones become less
available to delivery uses, which
impacts business activities.
This would result in lost revenue
from the freight permit program.
This would save compliance
ŜťÍƯϙťĖıôϙċŘĺıϙîôÍīĖIJČϙſĖťēϙťēôϙ
freight permit system.
No / NA
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
6
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
4. Pay by Space issues
Issue: iŪŘϙèŪŘŘôIJťϙıôťôŘϙŜƅŜťôıϙϼŕÍƅϙæƅϙŜŕÍèôϽϙīôÍîŜϙťĺϙĖIJôƯĖèĖôIJťϙŪŜôϙĺċϙĺŪŘϙèŪŘæϙŜŕÍèôϙÍŜϙſôīīϙÍŜϙŪŜôŘϙèĺIJċŪŜĖĺIJϟϙϙIťϙÍīŜĺϙîĖŜèĺŪrages park-once and walk activities. The current system consists of individual
stalls that are delineated by pavement markings and have a unique number identifying them. The issues we have seen include confusion by end users of which stall they parked in (people sometimes
confuse the numbers on the posts and pay for the wrong space). It also leads to less ôƯĖèĖôIJťϙŪŜôϙĺċϙĺŪŘϙèŪŘæϙŜŕÍèôϙÍŜϙĺŪŘϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙŜťÍIJîÍŘîŜϙŪŜôîϙťĺϙîôƱIJôϙťēôϙŜŕÍèôϙÍŘôϙconservative, allowing for large
vehicles in each stall.
Policy Question: Should Salt Lake City change from a pay by space system to a pay by plate system?
Option A: Convert from a pay by space to a pay by plate system.
This option would shift from a pay-by-space system to a pay-by-plate
system where end users would submit their license plate, rather than the
parking stall number, to the pay station. The pay by plate approach has
become the state of the practice in many other cities.
Within this option, there are various operational scenarios that the
Administration could consider such as removing the parking markings in
the metered areas and/or removing the posts that currently hold the
parking meter heads. These changes would not be required if we were to
transfer to a pay by plate system. The change would allow us to consider
ıÍħĖIJČϙťēôŜôϙèēÍIJČôŜϠϙſēĖèēϙēÍŜϙĖıŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJŜϙċĺŘϙēĺſϙôƯĖèĖôIJťīƅϙťēôϙ
curb space is used, the time of our Compliance Division enforcement
ĺƯĖèôŘŜϙand maintenance costs that the city bears to take care of these
assets.
There would be less data entry and
less confusion for the public as they
pay for their meter. This could lead
to a reduction in data entry errors
and fewer dismissals from the
FôÍŘĖIJČϙiƯĖèôϟ
This would help our Compliance
Division by allowing them to convert
to an automated license plate
reader system, making it easier to
check for compliance and issue
tickets when someone is in violation.
If the parking markings were
removed, this could result in more
vehicles parking within the same
space. In parts of the city with high
demand, we regularly see a 20-30%
increase in parking over what our
current standards allow as multiple
small vehicles can squeeze into the
same space as a single larger
vehicle.
We could also spend less on
restriping the parking marking “Tees”
downtown as we could let those
fade away over time or even remove
them.
Expanding the permit system in the
ċŪťŪŘôϙèĺŪīîϙæôϙŜĖıŕīĖƱôîϙÍŜϙſôϙ
might not need to install the meter
posts.
When stalls are not delineated,
we can end up with issues where
vehicles don’t leave enough
space for another vehicle to
park. This will create some
unique situations that are less
ôƯĖèĖôIJťϙthan the current
system.
ēĖŜϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙÍϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙ
change to how the public
interfaces with the meter system
and it will take outreach and
time for everyone to adjust to the
new policy.
Increasing our supply would
result in more vehicles being
able to park in the same space,
which could increase revenue
for the city.
Yes / NA
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
7
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
Option B: Swap our meter heads for larger heads.
Since some issues have arisen from confusion about the parking spaces,
we could modify the meter heads to make them easier to read or more
obvious.
This could result in fewer complaints
and issues at the citation Hearing
iƯĖèôϟ
The previous vendor for our meter
heads is no longer in business and
we are almost out of existing
inventory. Redesigning our meter
heads could help us when we
expand the metered area in the
future.
Replacing our meter heads
ſĺŪīîϙŘôŕŘôŜôIJťϙÍϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙ
cost for the City.
Replacing heads would result in
additional costs for the City.
No / NA
Option C: Remove all double meter heads and convert them to only single meter
heads.
One of the confusions that we have noticed is when a single pole
delineates two stalls. Drivers can get confused as to which stall is which
and pay for the wrong stall. This leads to them contesting any resulting
ťĖèħôťŜϙÍťϙťēôϙFôÍŘĖIJČϙiƯĖèôϟ
This could result in fewer complaints
and issues at the citation Hearing
iƯĖèôϟ
Replacing meter heads to add
new ones would represent a
ŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙèĺŜťϙċĺŘϙťēôϙ Ėťƅϟ
Replacing meter heads would
result in additional costs for the
City.
No / NA
5. Citation Structure issues
Issue: The current citation structure is not encouraging appropriate compliance with City code in several instances. We have had several incidents where our citation fee is not high enough to encourage
appropriate behavior. One example is that during University of Utah Football games at Rice Eccles Stadium, we have people who will park on the grass in Sunnyside Park as the resulting citation is about the
same or less as paying for parking elsewhere. This leads to damage of City infrastructure and can lead to costly repairs. We see similar issues around the State Capitol Building during the legislative session
where some will violate the Residential Parking Permit Program as the cost of the citation is low.
Policy Question: ēĺŪīîϙÍīťϙ[Íħôϙ ĖťƅϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôϙèĖťÍťĖĺIJϙƱIJôŜϦ
Option A: Raise Citation Fines. IIJèŘôÍŜĖIJČϙťēôϙèĖťÍťĖĺIJϙƱIJôŜϙſĺŪīîϙ
make drivers take the parking
regulations more seriously and
improve compliance.
IIJèŘôÍŜĖIJČϙƱIJôŜϙèÍIJϙēÍŽôϙÍϙ
disproportionate impact on
ťēĺŜôϙſēĺϙēÍŽôϙīĖıĖťôîϙƱIJÍIJèĖÍīϙ
resources.
This would result in an increase
in revenue from higher ƱIJôŜϟ
Yes / Yes
Option B: ŘôÍťôϙÍϙŜôťϙĺċϙЊťÍŘČôťôîЋϙèĖťÍťĖĺIJϙƱIJôŜϙċĺŘϙŜĺıôϙĺċϙťēôϙæôēÍŽĖĺŘŜϙſēôŘôϙ
we commonly see issues (e.g., during events, etc.).
ēôŜôϙťÍŘČôťôîϙèĖťÍťĖĺIJϙƱIJôŜϙſĺŪīîϙĺIJīƅϙÍŕŕīƅϙſēôIJϙôŽôIJťŜϙÍŘôϙ
happening that create the situation where people are willing to pay the
citation and view it as the cost of parking.
This would be a more focused
change that only applies to these
special circumstances.
This would have less of the
îĖŜŕŘĺŕĺŘťĖĺIJÍťôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙĖîôIJťĖƱôîϙ
in Option A.
This could still create an impact
on constituent æŪîČôťŜϙÍŜϙƱIJôŜϙ
are going up, but not as
ŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙÍŜϙĖťϙĖŜϙıĺŘôϙ
targeted.
This would result in an increase
in revenue from the higher fees.
Yes / NA
Option C: Create a new citation that is a “systematic parking violation” and comes
ſĖťēϙÍϙēĖČēôŘϙƱIJôϟϙϙ
This violation would apply to those with frequent parking violations and
would help focus on individuals who regularly violate our parking
ôIJċĺŘèôıôIJťϙſĖťēϙēĖČēôŘϙƱIJôŜϟ
This would be a more focused
change that only applies to those
who regularly violate parking
ordinances.
This would have less of the
îĖŜŕŘĺŕĺŘťĖĺIJÍťôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙĖîôIJťĖƱôîϙ
in Option A.
This would be less impactful on
constituent budgets as it would
only impact those who regularly
violate the rules.
This would result in an increase
in revenue from the higher fees.
Yes / Yes
Evaluation of Parking Issues and Options
8
February 7, 2025
Issue / Option Narrative Pros Cons Potential Budget Impact? ťÍƯϙϯϙÍŘħĖIJČϙ
Study
Recommendation
6. Implementation Schedule
Issue: Changes to our parking code can create confusion and pose challenges for our residents, especially if multiple changes and/or fee increases are implemented at once. There are two schools of thought on
change management. One would be to make the changes all at once to reduce the frequency of change and to improve clarity. The other would be to implement the changes gradually over time to reduce
the sudden impact. Making changes to City Code is a time-consuming process that incurs real costs to the City. It is recommended that any code changes be made together.
Policy Question What is the best way for Salt Lake City to roll out the above parking policy changes to the public?
Option A: ŕîÍťôϙťēôϙèĺîôϙťĺϙÍîîŘôŜŜϙťēôϙĖŜŜŪôŜϙĖîôIJťĖƱôîϙÍæĺŽôϙÍIJîϙîôŽôīĺŕϙÍIJϙ
implementation schedule for when changes occur over the upcoming
years.
Less administrative costs
associated with code changes.
Changes to our parking policy would
not impact the public all at once,
resulting in a more incremental
approach.
More frequent impacts to the
public (changes every year),
which may lead to confusion or
frustration.
Changes to budget associated
with the above
recommendations would
happen more gradually.
Yes / NA
Option B: Update city code annually with incremental changes. Changes to our parking policy would
not impact the public all at once,
resulting in a more incremental
approach.
City Council would have
opportunities to weigh in annually.
More frequent impacts to the
public (changes every year).
More administrative costs
associated with code change as
it would happen annually.
Changes to budget associated
with the above
recommendations would
happen more gradually.
No / NA
Option C: Make needed changes now and acknowledge the impacts to make the
frequency of change less dramatic.
Less frequent changes to parking
policy resulting in less public
confusion.
More dramatic impact to public
at once.
Changes to budget associated
with the above
recommendations would
happen faster.
No / NA
This page has intentionally been left blank
EXHIBIT C
Fairpark Parking Memo (2025)
TO: Jon Larsen, PE (Salt Lake City)
FROM: Lynn Jacobs, PE (Salt Lake City)
DATE: February 7, 2025
RE: Fairpark Parking Concept
Salt Lake City Transportation Division has been approached on multiple occasions to address the parking
issues that exist in the Fairpark neighborhood during major events like the Utah State Fair.
Recent data collection efforts have highlighted the extent of the parking challenges during Fairpark
events. On average, parking utilization spikes from 36% on typical days to 127% during events, with
demand exceeding supply by over 500 vehicles. This represents a 250% increase in parking demand
compared to non-event days, overwhelming the neighborhood’s available capacity as shown in the
appendix. Events such as Kilby Court concerts and the Utah State Fair consistently lead to significant
overutilization of parking resources, compounding the challenges faced by residents. Additional data is
available in Appendix A.
Further analysis reveals that the increased parking demand correlates with elevated incidents of trash
accumulation, illegal activities (drug use, human waste, etc.), and traffic congestion, particularly along
residential streets within the Fairpark area. In addition to anecdotal reports, surveys conducted during
major events showed that residents reported difficulty parking within a reasonable distance of their
homes nearly 80% of the time. These impacts disproportionately affect residents’ quality of life,
including accessibility for emergency services and pedestrian safety, and highlight the necessity of
adopting parking strategies that can alleviate these pressures while supporting the broader needs of
event visitors and the surrounding community.
The current approaches to addressing these issues that are allowed within city code are too limited to
address these issues. The most obvious program we have is the Residential Parking Permit (RPP)
program as outlined by Chapter 12.64 of city code. The primary reasons that this program will not work
to address these issues are as follows:
x The high parking demand only exists around the major events at the fair park facility, and does
not meet the qualification as currently outlined for at least 90 days of consecutive parking
demand
MEMORANDUM
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
x The program requires residents to pay an annual fee for the permit program, which may have an
inequitable impact on this community, which consists of many members of our community that
have traditionally been underserved and might not be able to afford the additional costs.
To address this issue, we would need to either adjust the RPP or create a new program. One potential
solution would be to develop a new “Event Parking Management District” program that helps us to
address this problem and others like it in other parts of the City. This program could be tailored to fit
our needs. The initial concept consists of the following characteristics:
x Development of an event parking area. In this case, it could be bound by North Temple to the
south, 600 North to the north, I-15 to the East and Redwood Road to the west.
x Visitors to the area would be required to purchase a parking permit for the event. This could be
done in several ways, but the simplest would be to create an online portal where they register
their license plate and pay the parking fee. The city could also install a couple of pay stations
near the Fairpark where residents unable to pay online could pay.
x The cost of the parking fee would need to be determined, and could be based on surge-pricing
(cost goes up as demand increases) so that we can better manage the parking demand within
the district.
x Residents who live in this area would be required to apply for an annual parking permit that
allows them to park on-street within the zone. This would function like the current RPP
program, however the cost to the residents could be offset by revenue gained from the fees
paid by visitors to the area and the permits could be offered for free to the residents.
x Additional revenue generated from the program would be placed back into the general fund.
x Ideally, by charging for this parking, we attract visitors to the area who will be more respectful
to the community and won’t leave trash behind or commit the various crimes or disruptive
behavior that are currently occurring in the area.
This concept has been shared with other staff within the Transportation Division, Parking Enforcement
Division and Finance Department. We have also shared a conceptual description of this program with
members of the community leadership and with the Fairpark leadership. They are in support of moving
forward with a program like this. We are working with Finance, Compliance and the city attorney’s
office to evaluate including this change in an upcoming revision to the parking ordinance.
Appendix A: Summary of Data Collected
Event Data
Typical Day
Kilby Court Event
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
02/20/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/21/2025
From:
Department *
Mayor
Employee Name:
Jill Love
E-mail
jill.love@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
02/20/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/21/2025
Subject:
Administration Appointment Recommendation: Brian Redd as the Chief of Police.
Additional Staff Contact:
Alejandro Sanchez - alejandro.sanchez@slc.govErin Mendenhall - erin.mendenhall@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Mayor Mendenhall recommends the appointment of Brian Redd as Chief of Police for the Salt Lake City Police Department for the council’s consideration in the advice and consent legislative process.
Background/Discussion
Brief Biography:
Brian Redd was appointed by Governor Spencer Cox as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Corrections in May 2023. In this role, he oversaw the operations of two prisons, six community correctional centers, and five Adult Probation and Parole Districts. Leading a team of approximately 2,500 correctional professionals—including nearly 1,800 certified officers—Brian was responsible for the incarceration and supervision of approximately 23,000 individuals. He brings nearly 25 years of experience in public safety.
Prior to his appointment, Brian led the U.S. Surveillance Team for Private Wealth Management at Goldman Sachs in Salt Lake City. Before that, he dedicated 21 years to the Utah Department of Public Safety, beginning his career as a state trooper and retiring in 2021 as the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation.
Beyond his professional roles, Brian has served on multiple boards and commissions, contributing to initiatives at the intersection of criminal justice, mental health, addiction, and homelessness. He holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from Utah State University and an Executive Master’s in Public Administration from Brigham Young University.
We are pleased to present Brian’s resume, redacted for privacy, for your consideration in appointing him as Chief of Police.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
Brian Redd
PROFESSIONAL OVERVIEW
Results-focused professional with over 25 years in the public and private sector. Experience leading teams
in highly regulated professions. Ability to collaborate, find consensus, and identify actionable steps
for improving environments with competing interests. Ability to analyze facts and make fair
determinations. Passionate about Utah and our quality of life.
SKILLS
•Willingness to listen / learn
•Policy development / legislative affairs
•Community / stakeholder outreach
•Budget / resource management
•Law enforcement / corrections
•Communications / transparency
WORK EXPERIENCE
Executive Director May 2023-Current
Utah Department of Corrections
Appointed by Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox in May 2023
•Oversee the operations of two prisons, six community correctional centers, and five Adult
Probation and Patrol districts and a budget of approximately $500 million.
•Employs approximately 2,500 correctional professionals, including nearly 1,800 certified officers,
and is responsible for the incarceration and supervision of approximately 23,000 individuals.
Vice President/Manager Apr 2021-May 2023
Goldman Sachs
Compliance Division
Private Wealth Management (PWM) Compliance – Head of U.S. Surveillance Team
Financial Crimes Compliance – Firmwide Insider Threat Team
•Investigate sensitive employee matters working with legal / employee relations.
•Oversee trading and behavioral surveillances, and other compliance activities.
•Global division coordinator for annual Compliance Risk Assessment used to reduce risk.
Chief Special Agent/Director (Retired) Jul 2013-Apr 2021
Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS)
State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) / Statewide Information and Analysis Center (SIAC)
•Responsible for state-level criminal investigations in partnership with allied agencies.
•Over 10 years of experience in policy and legislative affairs / community outreach.
•Oversight of Utah’s intelligence center (one of 78 nationwide) for assessing threats.
•Security planning and risk assessments for major events in Utah.
Captain (2011), Lieutenant (2009), Sergeant (2006), Agent (2004), Trooper (2000) Jul 2000-Jul 2013
Utah Department of Public Safety
State Bureau of Investigation/Utah Highway Patrol
•Progressive leadership roles within the Department of Public Safety.
•Patrol, criminal investigation, task force operations, and multi-agency collaboration.
Assistant Relationship Manager Dec 1998-Feb 2000
First Security Bank
Business Banking Division
•Commercial lending / financial analysis / relationship development.
EDUCATION
Master of Public Administration, Executive Program Jun 2016
Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo
Bachelor of Science, Business Administration Dec 1998
John M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, Logan
ACCOMPLISHMENTS / ACTIVITIES
•Led the Utah Department of Corrections (UDC) to full staffing (projected May 2025).
•Improved communication / transparency, increased staff development opportunities, improved
business intelligence and technology, and increased opportunities for incarcerated individuals.
•Added a incarcerated individual advisory committee and a peer led inmate housing unit within
the prison leading to a reduction in violence and improved reentry outcomes.
•Coordinator for Carnegie Mellon University’s Financial Services Insider Threat Special Interest
Group which included several major U.S. and international financial institutions (2021-2022).
•Recommended by Governor Gary R. Herbert to participate on the United States Presidential U.S.
Department of Justice Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 2020.
•Strategic lead on 2020 police reform efforts involving law enforcement partners, social justice
advocates, community members and legislators to address racial and ethnic disparities.
•Completion of the FBI’s Leadership in Counterterrorism program in 2018.
•Worked on a school safety initiatives / legislation with Utah State Board of Education in 2018.
•Participation in Operation Rio Grande, working to address safety issues and align the criminal
justice and crisis services systems to address root causes for the justice-involved (2017-2020).
•Formed the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Threat Management Unit in 2018 to address
increasing threats to critical infrastructure, schools, and public officials.
•Established the first victim services program (including lethality assessment) in the Department
of Public Safety in 2016, followed by a co-responder team (officers/social workers) in 2018.
BOARD POSITIONS & COMMITTEES
•Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice / Utah Sentencing Commission 2023-Current
•Volunteers of America Utah 2021-2023
•International Association of Chiefs of Police – Committee on Terrorism 2020-2021
•Utah Refugee Board of Advisors 2016-2021
•Utah Controlled Substances Advisory Committee 2014-2021
•Utah Crime Victim Council 2011-2021
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
02/20/2025
Date Sent to Council:
02/20/2025
From:
Department *
Mayor
Employee Name:
Jill Love
E-mail
Jill.love@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
02/20/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
02/20/2025
Subject:
Administration Appointment Recommendation: Kim Shelley as the Public Lands Director.
Additional Staff Contact:
Alejandro Sanchez - Alejandro.sanchez@slc.gov.Erin Mendenhall - erin.mendenhall@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Mayor Mendenhall recommends the appointment of Kim Shelley as Public Lands Director for the council’s consideration in the advice and consent legislative process.
Background/Discussion
Brief Biography:
Kim serves as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, where she manages a $100 million budget and leads a team of over 400 employees. Under her leadership, the department collaborates with a diverse range of stakeholders to advance its vision and strategic objectives.
With more than 20 years of experience in environmental and natural resource management, Kim has successfully spearheaded statewide planning initiatives, infrastructure investments, and operational improvements, all while ensuring fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability. Her leadership philosophy is rooted in collaboration, accountability, and responsiveness, enabling her to effectively manage multidisciplinary teams and engage with key stakeholders.
Throughout her distinguished career, Kim has held pivotal roles, including Research Engineer, Environmental Scientist, Environmental Engineer, Program Manager, and Deputy Director, all within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, before ultimately assuming the position of Executive Director.
We are delighted to include Kim's resume redacted to exclude personal information for your consent to install her as a Public Lands Director.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCEKIM
SHELLEY
REFERENCE S
SsS SSS
EXPERIENCE CONTINUED KIM SHELLEY
SAMPLE BOARD
APPROINTMENTS
AND
COMMITTEE
PARTICIPATION
Utah Valley University College of
Science, Board of Advisors
Envision Utah, Board of Directors
Utah State Drought Committee
Utah Watersheds Council
Utah State Emergency Response
Commission, Co-Chair
Utah Water Task Force, Co-Chair
Utah Great Salt Lake Strike Team, Co-
Chair
UCAIR, Executive Committee
Utah Legislative Task Force on Water
Infrastructure Funding
Environmental Council of the States
Budget and Management
Committee, Chair
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 2/14/2025
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 2/14/2025
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 2/14/2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
april.patterson@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban
Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint James Alfandre a member of the
Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory
Board
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
February 14, 2025
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Board
Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory
Board
James Alfandre be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and
consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 2/14/2025
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 2/14/2025
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 2/14/2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
april.patterson@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban
Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Eric Mcgill a member of the
Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory
Board
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
February 14, 2025
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership re-appointment for the Board
Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory
Board
Eric Mcgill be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice and
consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 2/20/2025
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 2/20/2025
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 2/20/2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
april.patterson@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Richard Leverette a member of
the Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
February 20, 2025
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Board
Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission
Richard Leverette be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice
and consent. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor