Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/07/2026 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials
;cvw9_ AN; fiif L9 ui~ . ►A lII�'lllh _ tea - SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING April 7, 2026 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings. Council Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Alejandro Puy, Chair Erika Carlsen, Vice Chair District 2 District 5 Victoria Petro Chris Wharton Eva Lopez Chavez District 1 District 3 District 4 Dan Dugan Sarah Young District 6 District 7 Generated: 13:16:41 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4. The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of December 2, 2025. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance! Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 256 East 'oo South The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property at approximately 256 East 300 South from R- MU (Residential/Mixed-Use) to D-1 (Central Business District). The proposal would allow the potential development of a hotel within a new 185-foot building. If adopted, the applicant would then need to submit the necessary development applications, and the project would need to comply with all relevant regulations within the City zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Emily Nelson of Fourier Architects, representing the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024- 00423. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 1073 South Navajo Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property at approximately 1073 South Navajo Street from R- 1/5,000 (Single -Family Residential District) to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi -Family). The proposal would allow for the construction of additional for -sale homes on the 0.49 acre lot. The applicant intends to retain the existing single-family home. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 2. Petitioner: Mark Overdevest, the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-01015. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend multiple sections of Title 20 Subdivisions and Title 21A Zoning of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the expiration of land use approvals. The proposal would expand the actions a land use applicant may take to prevent an approved land use application from expiring. The proposal helps clarify the actions a land use applicant may take to satisfy the requirement in Utah Code 10-20-902 for an applicant to implement the approval with reasonable diligence. Other sections of Titles 20 and 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00554• FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Sugar House Hotel Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at Approximately 2111 South iPoo East The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties at approximately 2111 South 13oo East from MU-3 (Mixed -Use 3 District) to MU-8 (Mixed -Use 8 District). The proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use -Low Intensity to Business District Mixed -Use — Town Center Scale. The proposed amendments would allow the developer to build a hotel on the currently vacant site. The property is approximately .8o acres in size and abuts the northwest corner of Sugar House Park. The property has historically been privately owned and is not a part of the Sugar House Park property. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 17, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). D. NEW BUSINESS: NONE. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. F. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Wilmington Avenue Partial Street Vacation at Approximatelv 2102 South 2000 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of the public right-of-way on Wilmington Avenue adjacent to the property at approximately 2191 South 2000 East. The area is approximately 775 square feet and is between the current property lines and the sidewalk. If approved, the area would be included in the adjacent property owner's property boundary. The sidewalk would not be impacted by this request. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Janice and Vince Ramptons, trustees of the property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00990. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: Communitv Clean Energy Program The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would enact Title 9, Chapter 50 to the Salt Lake City Code, establishing participation in the Community Clean Energy program, formally known as Utah Renewable Communities. The proposal would provide a new opportunity for nearly all homes and businesses within the City to choose clean energy through their Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) bill. Customers will be automatically enrolled in the program, with the option to opt out. If customers choose to stay enrolled in the program, a new fee will appear on their RMP bill. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 14, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. g. Ordinance: Indefinite Closure of 7200 West Between Interstate 80 and California Avenue The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would indefinitely close a City -owned right-of-way on a portion of 7200 West between California Avenue and the Southerly Boundary of 152 South 7200 West pursuant to Utah Code §72-5-105. The proposal would continue to mitigate unsafe conditions and prevent substantial municipal expenditures and environmental degradation. In March 2024, the Council adopted an ordinance temporarily closing a portion of 7200 West between California Avenue and Interstate 80 due to unsafe conditions and illegal dumping. The temporary closure has proven effective, prompting the request for an indefinite closure. The abutting property owners and Rocky Mountain Power are supportive of the indefinite closure. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 2, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Ordinance: Indefinite Closure of 200 South Between Montgomery Street and Approximatelv i640 West The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would indefinitely close a City -owned right-of-way on a portion of 200 South between Montgomery Street and approximately 1640 West pursuant to Utah Code §72-5-105. The proposal is part of a current project to create a new Railroad Quiet Zone in the City. The closure would mitigate noise injuries, improve adjacent private property resources, and mitigate unsafe conditions the railroad crossing presents. The abutting property owners, Rocky Mountain Power, Union Pacific Railroad, and Patriot Rail have been notified of the indefinite closure. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 2, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5. Board Reappointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee — Kathr`m Floor The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Kathryn Floor, resident of District 7, to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee for a term ending January 21, 2030. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Staff Recommendation - Approve. G. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council. (This is a one -hour time slot for the public to comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.) H. ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on . the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. 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, 8o1-535-7600, or relay service 711. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 PENDING MINUTES — NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. The following Council Members were present: Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young, Eva Lopez Chavez Present Legislative leadership: Jennifer Bruno — Executive Director, Lehua Weaver — Deputy Director, Nick Tarbet — Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto — Chief of Staff, Jill Love — Chief Administrative Officer, Lindsey Nikola — Deputy Chief of Staff, Megan Yuill — Deputy Chief Administration Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell — City Attorney, Keith Reynolds — City Recorder, Caitlin Carlino — Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart — Deputy City Recorder, Scott Corpany — Staff Assistant, Brian Fullmer — Public Policy Analyst, Nick Norris — Planning Director, Tammy Hunsaker — Director of Community and Neighborhoods, Kristina Gilmore — Planning Manager, Laura Briefer — Public Utilities Director, Sylvia Richards — Public Policy Analyst, Austin Kimmel — Public Policy Analyst, Aaron Barlow — Senior Planner, Bill Wyatt — Executive Director of Airports, Brian Butler — Airport Chief Financial Officer, Michael Sanders — Public Policy Analyst, Debbie Lyons — Sustainability Director, Mike Akerlow — Deputy Director of Community Services, Greg Cleary — Budget Director, Andrew Reed — Deputy Budget Director, Jacob Jorgensen — Financial Analyst, Craig Weinheimer — Civil Enforcement Supervisor, Mary Beth Thompson — Chief Financial Officer The meeting was called to order at 2:o8 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Work Session Items 1. Jnformational: 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, wildfire mitigation, 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 This item was postponed to a future meeting. r. Informational: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions 2:15 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a briefing and provide direction on options to update and expand the definition of family in zoning code as it relates to the number of unrelated people permitted to live in one home. The Council recently declared an intent to increase or eliminate the current maximum number as part of the City's work to improve access to affordable housing. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Brian Fullmer provided an introduction. Nick Norris, alongside Craig Weinheimer, presented the legislative intent and contextual information surrounding the household occupancy definitions. Three possible Council actions were presented: • Option 1: Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five, not addressing issues with current code • Option 2: Increase the number of unrelated people in a household to five and allow a combination of family types, not addressing the issue of determining whether residents are related 2 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 • Option 3: Remove the occupant limit, not differentiating between related and unrelated people living together Council Members and staff discussed whether the definition should account for the number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms rather than number of individuals, and general support for the third and least strict option but with stipulation to include possible enforcement tools in order to avoid overcrowding in a home. Straw Poll: Support for Option 3, with all Council Members present in favor. Council Members Young and Lopez Chavez were absent. 3. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for Sky Harbour Hangar Development 2:4o p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing on the Sky Harbour hangar development on the east side of the Salt Lake City International airport that consists of the development of an aircraft storage facility situated on 8.4 acres and will include four box hangars. The project would be funded through a tax-exempt private activity bond (PAB) issued by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin. The development entails no financial liability for Salt Lake City, but Federal regulations for tax-exempt PABs require the Council to hold what is known as a TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing on this proposal. No other Council action is required. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Nick Tarbet provided the introduction. Bill Wyatt presented the item and outlined current efficiency challenges at the Salt Lake City International Airport due to a large number of small aircraft, plans for hangar development on the east side of the airport which would alleviate this issue, and the preference for constructing larger hangars rather than smaller ones. Brian Butler described the financial and operational advantages of Salt Lake City partnering with Sky Harbour. Eric Stolpman (Senior Vice President, Sky Harbour Group) provided an overview of the company and outlined anticipated public benefits, including direct and indirect revenue to Salt Lake City with no financial obligation/risk, private investment that would revert to the City at the end of the ground lease, job creation and retention, reduced noise MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 from newer aircraft models, and corporate social responsibility efforts such as paid aviation internships for local and underserved residents. Council Members and staff discussed how the development of Sky Harbour hangars could reduce overall flight activity and air pollution and improve operational efficiency at the Salt Lake International Airport, and confirmed that the return of the revenues to the General Operating Fund of the airport was a public benefit. Council Requests: Council Member Dugan requested annual projections of reduction in noise pollution, air pollution and traffic due to estimated reduction in flights. Eric Stolpman said that information would be provided. Council Member Young arrived during this agenda item. 4. Informational: Salt Lake Valley Landfill Proposed Budget 2026 - 3:00 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive an briefing about the proposed budget for the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility, which is included in the annual budget process for Salt Lake County. Following their public comment period, the County Council is expected to adopt their final budget in early December. For more information visit https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/finance/budget/budget- documents/. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Summary: Michael Sanders and Debbie Lyons provided an introduction. Lisa Hartman (Associate Deputy Mayor, Salt Lake County) presented the item and outlined projected 2026 budget of $21 million and anticipated revenue of $22.2 million, inclusion in those estimates, planned rate increases for services and products, and proposed fund balance expenditures. Lisa Hartman also expressed appreciation for the partnership with Salt Lake City and noted that the City's waste -disposal rate would not increase from $29 per ton. Council Members and staff discussed: • Updated projections for landfill capacity, noting the anticipated fill date had shifted from 40 years to 50 years due to improved waste -disposal efficiencies 0 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 and the opening of the Trans-Jordan Landfill facility, which was expected to reduce system pressure • The "tipping fee" associated with materials collected throughout the city and along roadways • The value of garbage sorting enforcement • Ongoing outreach efforts • Salt Lake City's recycling contamination rate being among the lowest in the country and generating revenue Council Requests: Council Member Petro requested a review of emergency response and relief dump fee waivers, noting that past emergencies revealed barriers to timely cleanup. Lisa Hartman stated that formal approval would be required for any fee waiver process and they could look into this as a potential policy and follow up. Council Member Puy requested information on recycling program efforts and data/outcomes compared to other cities, in order to present to residents the benefits of recycling. Debbie Lyons said the information would be provided. 5. Tentative Break 3:25 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 - Council Member Lopez Chavez arrived to the meeting during the break. 6. Resolution: Valley Behavioral Health Public Benefit Analysis 3:45 P.M. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution authorizing the release of Salt Lake City's reversionary interest in the property currently owned by Valley Behavioral Health at 107 South Boo West. The release would allow for the development of Saltair Lofts, a 68-unit permanent supportive housing project. It would also be executed in exchange for a 50 year Restrictive Use Agreement preserving certain public benefits, most notably, including helping to ensure all units are affordable permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Summary: Michael Sanders introduced the item. Mike Akerlow, alongside Tammy Hunsaker, provided information on the change of ownership requiring a reversionary interest release, described the positive work of Valley Behavioral Health with formerly homeless individuals, and noted a change in the lender on the project contained in the transmittal. Council Members, staff, and Melissa Jensen (Developer, Giv Group) discussed: • Project timeline and next steps for the development • Concerns that the density of low-income/supportive housing in the area along with lack of mixed -income housing would create an isolated and unsafe environment, potentially hindering efforts for those in recovery • Land use agreement, foreclosure scenarios, and impact fee waiver associated with the project 7. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No-3 for Fiscal Year 2025- 4:05 p.m. 26 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about Budget Amendment No-3 for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City's budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes three grants. The first grant would fund license plate reader cameras on major roads to enhance public safety and reduce crime. The second grant would fund the removal of hazardous vegetation from the Jordan River riverbed, banks, and canopy. The third grant would fund expenses relating to homeless shelters, including salary and benefits for existing police officers to maintain public safety in areas surrounding shelters. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Summary: Sylvia Richards provided an introduction. Greg Cleary and Andrew Reed, alongside Mary on MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Beth Thompson, presented the budget amendment which included three grant items, and other updated revenue information. Council Members and staff discussed: • $70ok in revenue from the natural gas tax and possible trends that might have contributed to decreased usage • Support for the Finance Department to present revenue updates once per month to the Council • Revenue projection updates based on early reporting and accrual • Additional grant information, including details on the new license plate readers installed on traffic light poles at major intersections, the Jordan River restoration project, and the funding of additional Police officers related to homeless shelters and public safety Council Member Requests: Council Member Petro requested guarantees for protections of residents' private information regarding the new license plate readers. Sylvia Richards said the information would be provided. Council Member Petro requested information on the origin of the Jordan River cleanup grant. Sylvia Richards said the information would be provided. 8. Ordinance: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi -Family Zoning District Text Amendment Follow -Up 4 35 P m 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential District). As part of the proposal, a small number of RMF-35 properties would be changed to RMF-45. The proposal aims to remove barriers to new housing developments and facilitate compatible infill within the City's moderate -density neighborhoods. These proposed updates introduce design standards for new development, reduce minimum lot size requirements, eliminate lot width minimums, permit multiple buildings per lot, and offer a density bonus for preserving existing housing units. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RMFZoneUpdates. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 and Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 7 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Summary: Brian Fullmer introduced the item, including a previous council request to review changes to the ordinance that would address resident concerns. Aaron Barlow and Krissy Gilmore presented Council straw poll options, with photo examples of existing properties over too feet in length. Council Member and staff discussed: • General support for removing the too -foot facade length and keeping the 1io-foot lot width maximum • Clarification that consolidating lots could not be done to make a larger building • Potential adjustments of up to 50 units per building in one or both RMF zones • The implications of changing setbacks from four feet to five feet and the Planning Commission's recommendation for four feet • Clarification that setbacks were limited to a certain percentage of a wall along with window options changing depending on the setback Straw Poll: Support for Option 1 and Option 2B, reducing the loo-foot front facade length maximum, retaining the iio-foot lot width maximum and modifying the number of dwellings per unit up to 50 only in the RMF-45 zone. All Council Members present were in favor. 9. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections — Public Utilities Follow -Up 4 55 p m 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Tuesday, November 25, 2025, and Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Summary: Austin Kimmel presented staff recommendations to credit customers for fire line fees MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 charged since July 1, 2025 up until adoption of the corrected Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) language, phase -in options, and proposed edits to the rate table. Council Members, Laura Briefer, and Jacob Jorgensen discussed: • Overall Council satisfaction with mechanisms that could manage the fees and communication efforts between departments as they navigated this issue • Clarification of the fire line portion being between 1% and 5 % of the total utility bill • Forthcoming policy conversations and solutions alongside Public Utilities to address high water bills being attributed to sewer usage, particularly for smaller, multi -family homes • Phase -in scenarios if the phases were drawn out or if a resident were to move • Clarification and legality concerns with reverting to 2025 rates regarding base refunds to customers • Next steps for a public hearing in January 2026 and crafting a clear ordinance Straw Polls: Support for crediting customers for the "per inch" multiplier portion of the fire line fee paid since July 1, 2025 until corrected and adopted CFS language, while retaining the base monthly fee amount as was currently written in fee table. All Council Members present were in favor. Support for fully implementing the fee with no phase -in. Council Member Mano was not in favor and all other Council Members present were in favor. lo. Board Appointment: Citizens Compensation Advisory - Committee - David Warnock 5 15 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview David Warnock, resident of Davis County, prior to considering appointment to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. i1. Board Appointment: Metropolitan Water District Board — Ralph Becker 5:2o P.M. 5 min. 0 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 The Council will interview Ralph Becker, resident of District 2, prior to considering appointment to the Metropolitan Water District Board for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 12® Board Appointment: Metropolitan Water District Board - Daniel Salmon = 5 25 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Daniel Salmon, resident of District 1, prior to considering appointment to the Metropolitan Water District Board for a term ending December 2, 2029. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 An interview was held. Council Member Wharton stated their name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 13. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. There was no report of the Chair and Vice Chair. 14. Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Summary: Jennifer Bruno presented to the Council a future and optional Council Retreat date of Tuesday, January 27, 2026, provided additional details of the retreat, and asked for Council Members to follow-up with staff regarding their availability. 15. Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining. c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation. d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if- (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or 11 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 (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. 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. Item not held. 12 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 2, 2025 Meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.m. Minutes Approved: City Council Chair — Alejandro Puy City Recorder — Keith Reynolds Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at https://data.slc.gov by selecting City Council Meeting Information) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, December 2, 2025 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. 13 Item 131 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 256 East 300 South PLNPCM2024-00423 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 �1 TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY Item Schedule: Briefing: March 10, 2026 Set Date: March 10, 2026 Public Hearing: March 24, 2026 Potential Action: April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 256 East 300 South PLNPCM2024-00423 BRIEFING UPDATE During the March 10, 2026 City Council briefing, Council Members expressed concerns with the proposed zoning map amendment and hotel. These included a lack of housing in the project, a lack of setbacks, and height difference between the current MU-8 and proposed D-1 zoning. Setting a precedent for the D-1 zone to continue east was also discussed. The applicant said they considered housing or other uses on the site, but those would not be financially feasible. If housing was added to the hotel, it would increase the building's height. They also noted vacancies in other area residential buildings. The applicant said they believe proposed amenities for the hotel will be a benefit to the public. Council Members discussed the area recently being rezoned and impact of those changes has not yet been evaluated. Some Council Members believe there are other zoning options for the site. The following information was provided for the March 10, 2026 briefing. It is included again for background purposes. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 256 East 300 South in City Council District Four from its current MU-8 (Mixed -Use 8) zoning to D-1(Central Business District). It is worth noting that the property was zoned R-MU (Residential Mixed -Use) at the time the application was submitted. That zoning was changed to MU-8 as part of the mixed -use zoning CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM AdP.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 consolidation adopted by the Council in 2025. The property is being used as a paid parking lot for area offices, retail establishments, and restaurants. The applicant's stated objective is to construct an approximately 18o-foot-tall hotel on the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its November 1R. 2024 meeting and held a public hearing at which five people spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning map amendment, and the property owner discussed a desire to develop his property. Planning staff recommended, and the Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioners who were opposed to the rezone had concerns with the potential height allowed in the D-1 zone. Commissioners supporting the rezone suggested a development agreement limiting building height to the applicant's proposed 18o feet. Although the current hotel design is 18o feet tall, the applicant proposes a maximum future building height of up to 225 feet on the property. This is the height proposed on a nearby zoning text amendment for property at 265 East too South near St. Mark's Cathedral. The applicant believes it is reasonable to request the same height. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. If supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment, the Council may wish to discuss the Planning Commission recommendation to include a development agreement limiting height of a building constructed on the site to 18o feet. 2. The Council may wish to discuss the applicant's request to allow building heights up to 225 feet on the subject property, if it is appropriate for this location and the impact it may have on adjacent properties. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The approximately o.62-acre lot is located mid -block on the south side of 300 South between Zoo and 300 East. As shown in the area zoning map below, surrounding zoning is a mixture of MU-8 immediately to the east and west, MU-1i (Mixed -Use 11) to the South, and D-1 fronting 20o East. Page 12 Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Buildings on the block are mostly apartments, offices, and commercial uses. The historic Sampson Altadena building is to the east of the subject property, and a building with primarily fitness -related businesses is immediately to the west. Buildings fronting 300 South are generally between three and ten stories and increase in height as they get closer to 200 East where zoning changes to D-1 and buildings are much taller. Both the Downtown and Central Community Master Plans indicate Zoo East is where downtown transitions to urban neighborhood to the east. Current MU-8 zoning does not allow hotels or motels, and building height is limited to 45-90 feet depending on uses and building types (design review would be required for buildings taller than 75 feet). The requested D-1 zoning allows hotels and motels, and does not have a maximum building height, though there is a ioo-foot minimum building height. The applicant provided a concept plan for the proposed hotel in their zoning amendment application found in Attachment B (pages 10-32) of the Planning Commission staff report. This conceptual plan has not been reviewed by Planning and may change if the property is developed. It is important to note that if the Council adopts the zoning map amendment, there is no guarantee the proposed hotel will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the D-i zone (subject to conditions of a potential development agreement) or sold to another party. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a Page 13 building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key wiiildrn d' Ions related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 and in Attachment E (pages 41-44) of the Planning Commission staff report. The considerations are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration i — General Plan Compatibility Planning staff reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment and how it meets the policies and objectives set forth in Plan Salt Lake, the Central Community Neighborhood Plan, the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Downtown Plan, and Housing SLC. These are summarized below. A detailed discussion is found in Attachment E (pages 41-44) of the Planning Commission staff report. Planning found that while some initiatives for growth, infrastructure, and transportation in Plan Salt Lake support the rezone proposal, other initiatives in the plan, including urban design and neighborhood character, do not. The other plans call for uses that support residents and don't compete with the Central Business District. These plans also note 20o East as a point where downtown's density and activity transition to the lower intensity in residential neighborhoods. Housing Salt Lake is focused on addressing housing -related issues in the city. Building a hotel on the site would not meet the goals of that plan, though if housing were developed on the site, it would. Consideration 2 — Neighborhood Concerns Planning staff received significant public input on the proposed rezone, which is included in Attachment G (pages 52-196) of the Planning Commission staff report. Some commenters were supportive of the plan, but the vast majority were opposed. Concerns focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility, potential loss of mountain views, public safety, and parking and traffic. Zoning Comparison Attachment D (page 38) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a table comparing the then - current and proposed zoning districts. The information below compares the current MU-8 and proposed D-1 zoning districts. Front and Corner Rowhouses: Minimum 10 Side Yard feet, maximum 20 feet. Multi -family residential/storefront/vertical mixed -use: 1. Ground floor Page 14 Interior Side Yard occupied by residential uses: a. Minimum: 10 feet b. Maximum: 20 feet 2. Ground floor occupied by non- residential uses: a. Minimum: none, except 5 feet on North Temple and 10 feet on 400 South b. Maximum:lo feet, except 15 feet on North Temple and 20 feet on 400 South. Rowhouses: Minimum 4 feet Multi -family residential/storefront/vertical mixed -use: No minimum except when interior side yard abuts R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB- UN1, RMF-30/35, MU-2/3 the minimum is 10 feet. Rear Yard Rowhouses: minimum 10 feet. When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB-UN1, RMF-30, MU-2/3 along the rear lot line, the minimum is 20 feet. Multi -family residential/storefront/vertical mixed -use: minimum 20 feet. When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-2, FR, SR, FB-UN1, RMF-30/35, MU-2/3 along the rear lot line, the minimum is 20 feet. 8 feet None required If provided, must include at least one amenity found in 21A.�o.020.C.1.a Analysis of Standards Attachment F (pages 45-51) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Page 15 Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent Does not comply with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Does not comply specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Would significantly affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the impact nearby change in development potential and allowed uses properties due to that do not currently apply to the property. additional development potential. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent N/A with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The adequacy of public facilities and services Public utility intended to serve the subject property, including, but infrastructure likely not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational insufficient for facilities, police and fire protection, schools, development scale in stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and D-1 zoning. Other wastewater and refuse collection. public facilities appear adequate. The status of existing transportation facilities, any Adequate public planned changes to the transportation facilities, and transportation the impact that the proposed amendment may have facilities. on the city' s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, Site is accessible to open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, listed amenities cultural facilities, and the ability of current and without reliance on a future residents to access these amenities without personal vehicle. having to rely on a personal vehicle. The potential impacts to public safety resources Public safety impacts created by the increase in development potential that can be mitigated with may result from the proposed amendment. staffing and design meeting PD site review. The potential for displacement of people who reside No residents would be in any housing that is within the boundary of the displaced. proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Page 16 The potential for displacement of any business that is Little potential for located within the boundary of the proposed displacement of amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to beneficial businesses. mitigate displacement. The community benefits that would result from the Proposed community proposed map amendment. benefit not proportional to requested density. City Department Review In addition to findings from the Police and Public Utilities noted above, the Housing Stability Division advised giving assurances to current nearby commercial and residential tenants that any negative construction -related impacts will be mitigated. They also recommended that the developer meet with community organizations before construction. No other responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April 11, 2024 — Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • April 22, 2024 — Petition assigned to Aaron Barlow, Senior Planner April 23, 2024 — o Information about the proposal was sent to the Central City Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day recognized organization input and comment period. o Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. • April -November 2024 — Online open house. • June — October 2024 — Planning staff worked with the applicant to improve the quality of their application material, including refining the applicant's analysis of relevant standards, reviewing options for meeting the community benefit requirements, and addressing concerns brought up by the community. • October 31, 2024 — Planning staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning listsery for the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • November 1, 2024 — Planning staff posted a public hearing notice sign on the property with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing. • November 13, 2024 — The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request and voted 5- 2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • November 2024-April 2025 — The applicant worked on updating their proposal (with support from Planning and Public Utilities staff) to include additional community benefits for City Council review. • February 4, 2025 — Ordinance requested from City Attorney's Office. Page 17 February 21, 2025 — Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney's Office. May 8, 2025 — Transmittal received in City Council Office. To: Submission Date: Salt Lake City Council Chair 04/25/2025 From: Department* Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Barlow, Aaron Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 05/07/2025 Subject: Zoning Map Amendment - 256 E 300 S Additional Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore - kristina.gilmore@slc.gov Document Type Budget Impact? Ordinance Yes No Date Sent to Council: 05/08/2025 E-mail aaron.barlow@slc.gov Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 05/08/2025 Presenters/Staff Table Aaron Barlow - aaron.barlow@slc.gov Krissy Gilmore - kristina.gilmore@slc.gov Emily Nelson (applicant) - emily@4-ea.com Recommendation: That the City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the petition for a zoning map amendment. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item? Yes No Public Process Included with background PDF This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL A L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor `' ' and NEIGHBORHOODS �= =x Tammy Hunsaker Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has received a request from Emily Nelson of Fourier Architects, representing the property owner, to rezone the property at 356 East 300 South (Parcel ID 16061810040000) from the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District to the D-1 Central Business District. The intent of the requested rezone is to enable the development of a hotel with a height of approximately 185 feet. The R-MU district does not permit hotels and motels and limits building height to 75 feet for residential buildings and 45 feet for any other type of building. The proposed D-1 district permits hotels and does not have a maximum building height, allowing the proposed height for the hotel. The district is intended for the City's most urban and intense neighborhoods, allowing for a wide variety of uses, including very high -density housing, with a 24-hour activity environment. The property sits approximately mid -block on the South side of 300 South between 200 and 300 East. It is currently occupied by a commercial parking lot that ostensibly serves surrounding offices, restaurants, and retail. Buildings within the vicinity vary in age but generally contain a mix of apartments and commercial uses. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 8oi.535.623o FAX 801-535.6005 The historic three-story Altadena and Sampson Apartments are to the east, and an office building with mostly fitness -related occupants is to the west. Buildings along 300 South tend to stay within three to ten stories, increasing in height toward 200 East until 200 East, where, due to the shift in zoning from R-MU to D-1, buildings are much taller and more intense —including the recently -completed Worthington Apartment building at the northeast corner of 200 East and 300 South. Both the downtown Plan and the Central Community Master Plan have established 200 East as the point where Downtown transitions to the urban neighborhood where the subject property is located. If the Salt Lake City Council adopts this rezone request, the applicant would then need to submit the necessary development applications, and the project would need to comply with all relevant regulations within the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Review by the Planning Commission would be required if the applicant requests modifications to zoning regulations through the Planned Development or Design Review processes. Since this request is not for development of the site, Planning staff has not reviewed the submitted plans for compliance with applicable zoning requirements. That preliminary plan and all other materials submitted by the applicant can be found in Planning staff s report to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Early Notification: Notification of the proposal was sent to all owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject property on April 23, 2024. • Central City Community Council: The Central City Community Council was notified of the proposal on April 23, 2024. The community council provided a response to the proposal that is included with Attachment G of Planning staff s report to the Planning Commission. • City Open House: A virtual open house for the proposal has been hosted on the City's website since April 29, 2024. • Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed rezoning on November 13, 2024. Following Planning staff s recommendation, the commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the request with a vote of 4-2. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of November 13, 2024 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of November 13, 2024 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of November 13, 2024 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Mailing List This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2025 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 256 E 300 S from R-MU Residential/Mixed-Use to D-1 Central Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 256 East 300 South ("Property") from R-MU Residential/Mixed-Use to D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2024-00423. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on November 13, 2024, on an application submitted by Emily Nelson of Fourier Architects, on behalf of the property owner, to rezone the Property from R-MU Residential/Mixed-Use to D-1 Central Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2024- 00423. WHEREAS, at its November 13, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zonina Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that Property, as more particularly described -on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-MU Residential/Mixed-Use to D-1 Central Business District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 2025. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER day of (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Bill No. of 2025. Date: February 21, 2025 Published: Ordinance Rezoning 256 E 300 S to D-1_vl By. Katherine D. Paske , Senior City Attorney 4 Exhibit "A" Legal description of the property Tax ID: 16-06-181-004-0000 Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 54, Plat "A", Salt Lake City Survey and running thence South 20 rods; thence West 5 rods; thence North 20 rods, thence East 5 rods to the place of beginning. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor April 11, 2024 April 22, 2024 DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director I' C 1�1 DC� �i1 I.Z/7�(177CIZl�`� Petition: PLNPCM2024-00423 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. Petition assigned to Aaron Barlow, Senior Planner. April 23, 2024 Information about the proposal was sent to the Central City Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. April 23, 2024 Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site, providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. Apr -Nov 2024 Planning staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. June -Oct 2024 Planning staff worked with the applicant to improve the quality of their application material, including refining the applicant's analysis of relevant standards, reviewing options for meeting the Community Benefit requirements, and addressing concerns brought up by the community. October 31, 2024 Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting on November 13, 2024. Public hearing notice mailed. November 1, 2024 Planning staff posted a public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on the property. November 13, 2024 The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request. By a vote of 4-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. Nov 2024 - Apr 2025 The applicant worked on updating their proposal (with support from Planning and Public Utilities Staff) to include additional community benefits for City Council review. 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 This page has intentionally been left blank NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP GATES BROTHERS LLC ROTHERS LLC 364 N 750 E HYDE PARK UT 84318 HENRIE'S UNION TAILORS & DRY CLEANERS, INC EANERS, INC 223 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HAJ & EDJ LAUNDRY INC LAUNDRY INC PO BOX 11645 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84147 BROADWAY EDEN LC WAY EDEN LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LC BROADWAY EDEN OADWAY EDEN 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 261 PLACE LLC 1 PLACE LLC 376 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 3RD & 3RD LLC D & 3RD LLC 151 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BROADWAY SLC JV LLC SLC JV LLC 540 W MADISON ST CHICAGO IL 60661 204 BROADWAY, LLC OADWAY, LLC 347 CONGRESS ST BOSTON MA 02210 SOTIRIOU INVESTMENT GROUP LC NT GROUP LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SOTIRIOU INVESTMENT GROUP LC NT GROUP LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SOTIRIOU INVESTMENT GROUP LC NT GROUP LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GWEN & LLOYD WADE FAMILY TRUST 08/27/2024 08/27/2024 2679 E LAMBOURNE AVE MILLCREEK UT 84109 SOTIRIOU INVESTMENT GROUP LC NT GROUP LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BATEMAN-STURGEON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 04/17/2018 04/17/2018 569 E 6295 S MURRAY UT 84107 JOHNNIE GALANIS NIE GALANIS 675 E FIFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CONQUERING 7 MOUNTAINS, LLC NTAINS, LLC 276 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AMANDA SMITH MANDA SMITH 276 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICOLE BONNENFANT; JANET BONNENFANT (JT) ENFANT (JT) 276 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PAUL CRYER PAUL CRYER 276 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CLAYTON R SANDERS; PATRICIA L SANDERS (JT) ANDERS (JT) 3156 S METROPOLITAN WY MILLCREEK UT 84109 ALLISON SPEHAR ISON SPEHAR 4214 S DUTCH DRAW CIR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 ANNE RUTH ISAACSON TH ISAACSON 276 E BROADWAY ST # S10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ANNE RUTH ISAACSON TRUST 07/19/2019 07/19/2019 276 E BROADWAY ST # 10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 EMELIE MAHDAVIAN; NAVIED MAHDAVIAN (JT) DAVIAN (JT) 310 S 300 E, A-1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LEO KENNEDY; KATELYN CANDEE (JT) CANDEE (JT) 310 S 300 E, A-2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DOROTHY A HAMORY HY A HAMORY 209 EPHRIAM ST SANTA FE NM 87501 FREDRICK HANSING ICK HANSING 310 S 300 E, A-4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 HOLLY BAUGH HOLLY BAUGH 310 S 300 E, A-5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 VERNON R HANSSEN; HALLY R HANSSEN (JT) ANSSEN (JT) 294 ASPEN LANE PARK CITY UT 84098 SARTAIN & MCCANN TRUST 02/28/2020 02/28/2020 2487 E EMERSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SAMPSON ALTADENA CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION PO BOX 71202 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84171 JOSHUA BEELER SHUA BEELER 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KYLE BERGLUND LE BERGLUND 230 E BROADWAY ST # 402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WILLIAM WATTERSII BECKER; SUSANNA ASHLEY BECKER (JT) BECKER (JT 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LAMAR PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 3042 S 2550 W WEST HAVEN UT 84401 ELMER DEEIII SMITH III SMITH 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHAD W KIRKLAND; HILLARY A KIRKLAND (JT) RKLAND (JT) 553 E FOURTH AVE # 1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHRISTI NG CHRISTI NG 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID MACFARLANE MACFARLANE 230 E BROADWAY ST # 408 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JACLYN E LUI; NANCY LUI; DENNIS LUI (TC) IS LUI (TC) 230 E BROADWAY ST # 409 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OMORGTUKANE K ESHALOMI K ESHALOMI 230 E BROADWAY ST # 410 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AMBER R RADMAN ER R RADMAN 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RAMRATNA, LLC - GANESH - 230 E BROADWAY SERIES, DATED AUGUST 18, 364 E TERRA SOL DR SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 ERIKA SAMLOWSKI A SAMLOWSKI 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AN KIT MAROO; HARSHA KABRA (JT) KABRA (JT) 110 W CRYSTAL COVE TER SAN FRANCISCO CA 94134 ERICA WHITE ERICA WHITE 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AMY JO COOK; NICOLAS COOK (JT) S COOK (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ALYSEN NIELSON SEN NIELSON 230 E BROADWAY ST # 509 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SHANTELL GARRETT; LISA JONES (SURV) ONES (SURV) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL BUTLER; DIANNE BUTLER (TC) BUTLER (TC) 3031 W MARCH LN #300 STOCKTON CA 95219 DENNIS BESSIRE NIS BESSIRE 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BRUCE K CHURCH CE K CHURCH 230 E BROADWAY ST # 604 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GAIL C RICHARDSON; SCOTT D RICHARDSON (JT) ARDSON (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST # 605 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MATTHEW CONWAY THEW CONWAY 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JENNIFER RHODES; DAVID WOODS (JT) WOODS (JT) 2824 BREAKERS CREEK DR LAS VEGAS NV 89134 KYUNGWOO CHUN UNGWOO CHUN 731 16TH ST # 202 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 KAVON SADEG RAHIMZADEGAN; ALAINA VASILIKI RAHIMZADEGAN (JT) ADEGA 1394 E FARM MEADOW LN MILLCREEK UT 84117 WILLIAM J SLOAN IAM J SLOAN 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PEI-YU SITYU PEI-YU SITYU 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NORMAN ANDREW KNAPP NDREW KNAPP 230 E BROADWAY ST # 701 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CATHERINE OSTOLAZA STUART; ROBERT STUART BERT STUART 638 TROON AVEY ST WOODBURN OR 97071 MICHELLE STUVER MONTOYA VER MONTOYA 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AMANDA NEDEROSTEK NEDEROSTEK 15851 E PRIMROSE DR FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ 85268 ARMAN DEHLAVI MAN DEHLAVI 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARISA SUNSET MILLS UNSET MILLS 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JENNIFER DETAPIA FER DETAPIA 230 E BROADWAY ST # 707 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 2017 MLC TRUST 7 MLC TRUST 230 E BROADWAY ST # 708 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHRISTOPHER P ROZELLE R P ROZELLE 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ELEANORE KRISTIANE KOONTZ; PETER C LARSSOR (JT) ARSSOR (JT) 44 W BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CAMERON J CUCH; MARILYN M CUCH (JT) M CUCH (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KATHERINE CALLAWAY NE CALLAWAY 230 E BROADWAY ST # 803 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ADDISON W ALDOUS ON W ALDOUS 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOAN D WELLMAN TRUST 07/30/2009 07/30/2009 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICHOLAS M TESEROS S M TESEROS 9117 S GALETTE LN COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 OMU SHERPA OMU SHERPA 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BLACK TOWER HOLDINGS, LLC LDINGS, LLC 12686 S WILDING WY DRAPER UT 84020 PHILLIP HARE; KRISTEN HARE (JT) N HARE (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SHARON L WOODHEAD L WOODHEAD 748 S SPELMAN LN MERIDIAN ID 83642 JACK EVERITT; LYNDA EVERITT (JT) VERITT (JT) 5745 SW 75TH ST #331 GAINSVILLE FL 32608 BETU, LLC BETU, LLC 4478 S ENCLAVE LN MILLCREEK UT 84124 MARISSA E RABARA SA E RABARA 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DOUBLE Z LLC; DOUBLE Z LLL OUBLE Z LLL 8022 E 1000 N HUNTSVILLE UT 84317 ANTHONY HERNANDEZ Y HERNANDEZ 230 E BROADWAY ST # 904 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOANNE M MAYO ANNE M MAYO 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MATTHEW SHAFFER HEW SHAFFER 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID D WEBER VID D WEBER 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GRAH & PKAB FAMILY TRUST 09/02/2020 09/02/2020 14179 EDENBERRY DR LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 JOSIAH DE LA TORRE; JULIANN PATENAUDE (JT) ENAUDE (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KELLY J OHMEN LLY J OHMEN 3440 E 3020 S MILLCREEK UT 84109 SAGITEC HOLDINGS, LLC LDINGS, LLC 422 COUNTY RD D EAST SAINT PAUL MN 55117 BFT BFT 1384 W RED BUTTE WASHINGTON UT 84780 EVAN KATZ; SEANA KATZ (JT) A KATZ (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHAD FRAZER; KAREN FRAZER (JT) FRAZER (JT) 176 N R ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 CHARLES H MOORE LES H MOORE 44 W ZANE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BARBARA MAY ANDERSON AY ANDERSON 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1005 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BRIAN & BETH FUHRMANN TRUST 12/05/2020 12/05/2020 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ALBERTO & ASHLEY VAZQUEZ FAMILY TRUST 05/07/2024 05/07/2024 492 ADAIR LN DRAPER UT 84020 NANCY ANN CROWLEY; JOHN KEVIN CROWLEY (JT) ROWLEY (JT) 5375 SILVER VISTA WY SAN JOSE CA 95138 JANET R WELLS TRUST 05/10/2024 05/10/2024 708 REGENTS WY MOBILE AL 36609 ALI & SEAN GHAZVINI TRUST 06/28/2021 06/28/2021 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ROBIN WESTPHAL IN WESTPHAL 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1011 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MICHAEL ROLLS CHAEL ROLLS 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NANCY ANN CROWLEY (JT) ROWLEY (JT) 5375 SILVER VISTA WY SAN JOSE CA 95138 STEVE P CURTIS VE P CURTIS 342 W 200 S # 201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PAMELA R TOTH MELA R TOTH 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARIE DIPPOLITO E DIPPOLITO 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1107 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ESTEFANIA AREVALO NIA AREVALO 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 REBECCA R ABDELFATTAH TRUST 04/09/2022 04/09/2022 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KEVIN M OWEN EVIN M OWEN 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 KEVIN M OWEN EVIN M OWEN 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1111 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RICHARD ALAN LEWIS; MELANIE LEWIS (JT) LEWIS (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MARIN CHRISTENSEN; WILLIAM CONROY (JT) CONROY (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1205 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JUSTIN JOHNSON TIN JOHNSON 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NANCY ANN CROWLEY; JOHN KEVIN CROWLEY (JT) ROWLEY (JT) 5375 SILVER VISTA WY SAN JOSE CA 95138 BAHAR FERGUSON; SPENCER FERGUSON (JT) RGUSON (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICHOLAS MORRISON & LESLIE TIMMONS FAMILY TRUST 01/26/2022 01/26/ 30 HERITAGE CV LOGAN UT 84321 EMMA L VALENTINE; TROY K VELLINGA; LORI VELLINGA (JT) LLINGA (JT) 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JOSHUA CALLAWAY UA CALLAWAY 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RACHEL LEILANI FUGGINS ANI FUGGINS 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TAYLOR ROBERT MOTT ROBERT MOTT 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 EUNBIN CHUNG UNBIN CHUNG 2960 S 600 E SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84106 MARVIN RYTTING & MARYBETH RAYNES LIVING TRUST 10/18/2023 10/18/20 230 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RANDY A WEST ANDY A WEST 230 E BROADWAY ST # 1202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 POWER PLUS UTAH, LLC S UTAH, LLC 1545 GLASGOW LN ESCONDIDO CA 92027 HENRY COLTON SMITH OLTON SMITH 35 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 BROADWAY TOWER CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION INC CIATION INC 14034 S 145 E DRAPER UT 84020 YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF UTAH ION OF UTAH 322 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 204 BROADWAY, LLC OADWAY, LLC 347 CONGRESS ST BOSTON MA 02210 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 BRIAR ARMS APARTMENT, LLC RTM ENT, LLC PO BOX 240 CAMARILLO CA 93011 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 URBAN HAUS PROPERTIES, LLC ERTIES, LLC 231 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 BRIAR ARMS APARTMENT, LLC RTM ENT, LLC 315 W HUENEME RD CAMARILLO CA 93012 BRIAR ARMS APARTMENT, LLC RTM ENT, LLC 315 W HUENEME RD CAMARILLO CA 93012 LIBRARY SQUARE CENTRE, LLC CENTRE, LLC 231 E 400 S # 380 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOONWORKS LLC ONWORKS LLC 243 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY T AUTHORITY 669 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ANDERSON INVESTMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION 5457 W 11000 N # 200 HIGHLAND UT 84003 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MOONWORKS LLC ONWORKS LLC 243 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOONWORKS LLC ONWORKS LLC 243 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ETTORI INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 352 S MOFFATT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 MOONWORKS LLC ONWORKS LLC 243 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ETTORI INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 352 S MOFFATT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ETTORI INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 352 S MOFFATT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GILL - PRESERVE, LLC; FEDERAL - PRESERVE II, LLC RVE II, LLC 650 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GILL - PRESERVE, LLC; FEDERAL - PRESERVE II, LLC RVE II, LLC 650 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ETTORI INVESTMENTS LLC STMENTS LLC 352 S MOFFATT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 358 LLC 358 LLC 7862 S DANISH DOWNES CT COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 OASIS GAMES LLC S GAMES LLC 275 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GILL - PRESERVE, LLC; FEDERAL - PRESERVE II, LLC RVE II, LLC 650 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GILL - PRESERVE, LLC; FEDERAL - PRESERVE II, LLC RVE II, LLC 650 S 500 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO & LIGHT CO 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232 358 LLC 358 LLC 7862 S DANISH DOWNES CT COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 OASIS GAMES LLC S GAMES LLC 275 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CHURCH & STATE BUSINESS CENTER LLC CENTER LLC 370 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SOTIRIOU INVESTMENT GROUP LC NT GROUP LC 250 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION 3200 W CLUBHOUSE DR LEHI UT 84043 LIN FAMILY HPJ, LLC LY HPJ, LLC 255 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OASIS GAMES LLC S GAMES LLC 275 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION 3200 W CLUBHOUSE DR LEHI UT 84043 YWEMPOWERED, LLC OWERED, LLC 322 E 300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LC GW PROPERTY INVESTMENTS INVESTMENTS 412 N OLD OAK RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 254 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 223 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 239 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 241 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 251 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 261 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 279 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 275 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 204 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 236 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 242 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 250 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 256 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 268 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-2 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-3 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-4 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-5 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-6 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-7 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-8 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-9 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S S-10 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 310 S 300 E A-3 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 310 S 300 E A-6 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 310 S 300 E A-7 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 276 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 401 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 402 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 403 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 404 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 405 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 406 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 407 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 408 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 409 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 410 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 503 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 504 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 505 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 506 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 507 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 508 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 509 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 510 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 511 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 603 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 604 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 605 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 606 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 607 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 608 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 609 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 610 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 611 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 701 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 702 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 703 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 704 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 705 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 706 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 707 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 708 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 709 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 710 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 711 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 803 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 804 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 805 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 806 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 807 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 808 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 809 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 810 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 811 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 901 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 902 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 903 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 904 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 905 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 906 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 907 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 908 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 909 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 910 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 911 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1001 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1002 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1003 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1004 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1005 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1006 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1007 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1008 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1009 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1010 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1011 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1103 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1104 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1105 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1106 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1107 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1108 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1109 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1110 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1111 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1204 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1205 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1206 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1208 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1209 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 501 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 502 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 601 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 602 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 801 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 802 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1101 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1202 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1203 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S 1207 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 230 E 300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 315 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 333 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 335 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 355 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 357 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 333 S 200 E NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 326 S SHELMERDINE CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 328 S SHELMERDINE CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 332 S SHELMERDINE CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 338 S SHELMERDINE CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 231 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 227 E 400 S NFF Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 225 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 349 S 200 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 344 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 346 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 348 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 249 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 345 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 347 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 349 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 351 S MOFFATT CT Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 342 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 350 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 349 S MOFFATT CT REAR Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 358 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 362 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 242 E 300 S NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 330 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 263 E 400 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 320 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 325 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 333 S 300 E Salt Lake City UT 84111 This page has intentionally been left blank NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-00423 Wade Rezone. Salt Lake City has received a request from Emily Nelson of Fourier Architects, representing the property owners, to amend the zoning map for (or rezone) the property at approximately 256 East 300 South (Parcel ID 16061810040000) from the R-MU Residential/Mixed-Use District to the D-1 Central Business District. The intent of this rezone is to enable the development of a hotel (and other associated uses) within a new 180-foot building. The property sits approximately mid -block on the South side of 300 South between 200 and 300 East. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in -person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means while also providing an in -person 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.2ov/council/virtual-meetin2s. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments(a,slc2ov.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 Aaron Barlow at 801.535.6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at httiDs://www.slc.2ov/Dlannin2/2024/04/29/oDenhouse2O24-00423/. 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(a,slcRov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.623o FAX 801.535.6005 This page has intentionally been left blank Item 132 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel Public Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT io73 SOUTH NAVAJO STREET (PLNPCM2025-01015) MOTION 1— CLOSE AND DEFER I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 — CONTINUE HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 �1 TO: City Council Members Item Schedule: FROM: Austin Kimmel Briefing: March 24, 2026 Set Date: March 24, 2026 Public Policy Analyst Public Hearing: April 7, 2026 DATE: March 24, 2026 Potential Vote: April 21, 2026 RE: ORDINANCE: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT 1o73 SOUTH NAVAJO STREET (PLNPCM2025-01015) ISSUE AT -A -GLANCE The Council will be briefed on a proposal to amend the zoning map for one parcel at 1073 South Navajo Street in Council District Two. The proposed zoning map amendment would rezone the property from R-1/5,000 (single- family residential) to RMF-30 (low density multifamily residential). The parcel is approximately 0.49 acres, or 21,000 square feet. If approved, the applicant's stated objective is to retain the existing two -bedroom single-family home and construct additional for -sale family -sized homes on the property. No rendering or development proposal has been submitted at this stage. Planning staff recommended approval, and the Commission voted 6-1 to forward a positive recommendation for the proposed zoning map amendment to the City Council. Details from the Planning Commission's January 14, 2026 meeting are provided below. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward. The Council will then hold a public hearing and consider adopting the zoning map amendment atfuture meetings. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they anticipate providing off-street parking for the planned new units they intend to construct. The applicant states the additional units will be for -sale, family -sized homes. If the Council is interested in ensuring those units are owner -occupied, they may wish to ask the administration how the city can ensure they will not become rentals. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i.) 3. The Council may wish to ask if the administration has discussed with the applicant using the Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance to provide some affordable housing at this location. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The current R-1/5,000 zone allows one single-family dwelling per 5,000 square feet of lot area and 50 feet of lot width, so the 21,000-square-foot property could accommodate up to four single-family homes. However, site constraints and zoning standards make infill development difficult. The RMF-3o district allows greater flexibility in development style and housing types, including row homes, multiple single- family dwellings, small-scale multi -family housing, and lots without direct public street frontage. As shown in the image on the right, the subject property is adjacent to R-1/5,000 zoning to the north, east, and south, with R- 1/17,00o across the street to the west. Salt Lake Citv Code Chanter 21A..;o.o_ro states that a proposed zoning amendment must satisfy the consideration factors, including compliance with citywide policies, goals, and adopted plans, as well as demonstrating a community benefit that would not be achievable without the amendment. � ' Amwri.an Aue�V -� 11367 1337 1327 1317 1301 13C1 !419 1'1' 1403 ! 13st Ml 1353 - 975. 1350 1316 1W L 3007008 - � lull 11119 10iJ L335 10= 1325 1321 1030 1026 1025 1033 1036 1035 1041 1042 100 1049 - 104t 1@55+ L052 1053 1059 iml INN 10fl dd de 1007 s 1 Rla[ A Cedtrr� 1972 1078 3 1073 10M 1089 1082 1089 �lOB3 L 135i —1021 1020 MONOMER l� ' 1753 1209 [023 Mu 10" 1054 l0w tam 107E - z Im low 1094 1091 10Y3 1046 1102 1101 1106 1109 ll1] 111'9 1E18 :1151392 Il124 1116 -I �5 J='u 113tl 1027 1039 MN -- 1141 1132 :4_ lal, !I: 1142 117 1� 93 114fi ]l:9 I756 II 05 IiP � 1365 25� -1312 IiaP c i 129N. 1Y92 - reel 1152 Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in blue. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division In this case, an identified option for community benefit includes providing housing that meets current or future community needs as identified by the general plan. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing single- family home and build additional family -sized units that are smaller in size and scale, and compatible with the existing neighborhood, in line with the Westside Master Plan. Each new unit would be on its own lot intended for ownership. If the Council adopts the zoning map amendment, there is no guarantee the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the zone or sold to another party. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its January 14, 2026, meeting and held a public hearing, during which three people spoke. Two commenters expressed a desire that the neighborhood's existing character and scale be retained. Concerns were raised about the potential increased density and its impact on traffic, especially given the property's proximity to a school and children walking nearby. A third commenter Page 1 2 questioned the type of housing proposed and whether the units would be owner -occupied or could be sold and rented out. The applicant husband and wife spoke in support of the project, emphasizing their intention to build attainable, for -sale housing. They noted that home ownership is increasingly difficult because of rising prices and believe this street is well -suited for additional density and is near a bus line. The applicants stated the city needs higher - density, for -sale housing and that this project helps provide it. The Commissioner who voted against the proposal questioned the appropriateness of rezoning a single parcel in an otherwise fairly uniform neighborhood, especially given the property's location near the middle of the block, and expressed a preference for neighborhood densification when it transitions from the edges of a block. The commissioner also expressed difficulty in evaluating the zoning map amendment without a detailed development proposal. Some Commissioners agreed with these points but ultimately voted to forward a positive recommendation. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS The proposed ordinance included in the administrative transmittal requires the petitioner to enter into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that includes the following conditions: a. The existing primary home on the site be retained. b. Any additional dwelling units over four units must be for -sale. KEY CONSIDERATIONS In its staff report to the Planning Commission, Planning staff identified four key considerations, summarized below. The complete analysis is on pages 3-7 of the report, linked in the ATTACHMENTS section below. Consideration 1- How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals & Policies Identified in Adopted Plans Planning staff found the proposed amendment generally aligns with the goals identified in adopted plans listed below. Page 13 Plan Salt Lake (2o15). The proposal aligns with the citywide plan, which encourages infill development in areas with existing infrastructure and services. The Plan also supports increased moderate density within existing neighborhoods where app.up.idLe. Planning staff finds the 20,000 sq. ft. lot underutilized because it currently has only one single-family home. The V.uijuotd RMF-3o district would allow the petitioner to increase medium -density housing. HoushIg SLC (2013)_ The proposed rezone aligns with Housing SLC's objectives to increase homeownership opportunities, family -sized units, and missing middle housing to address housing needs citywide. Westside Plan (2014): The proposal aligns with the Westside Plan, which supports compatible infill density and encourages density, including "alluvv'.ir, tvvu- or multi -family development on lots that are zoned for only single-family where appropriate. Appropriate cases include lots that have unique shapes or where the impact on adjacent properties would be negligible due to the unique properties of the parcels." PARK INDIANA AVE- RFV 9 LINE TRAIT. ,Park vie w ES 15 Subject Property_' MTERNAT Q � � F GAI Duallmmersion Aeademy 0 R. s a r 9io 0EOgNli �l.,,«if�! AV4ifllfif i •`--- Neighborhood Nodes identified by the Westside Plan — Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The property is within one-third of a mile of a Neighborhood Node along Indiana Avenue and one -quarter mile of a Neighborhood Node on Glendale Drive. Increased housing at the property would be serviced by these nodes. Consideration 2 — Neighborhood Context Single-family homes make up a significant portion of the Glendale neighborhood, where the subject property is located. The neighborhood also contains several duplexes, triplexes, and small multi -family buildings, many built before current zoning standards, reflecting a historic pattern of incremental density. Planning staff finds the subject property's large lot size and t,.uAlwlty to bus routes, schools, neighborhood commercial corridors, and Jordan Park make it well -suited for residential infill. The flexibility of RMF-30 zoning would allow additional homes to be built in a manner consistent with the neighborhood's existing scale and character, without requiring an additional Planned Development review. Consideration 3 — Development Potential C.i.i.1r....:ion R-1-,5000 vs RMF-30 Under the existing R-1/5,000 zoning, the site could realistically accommodate two single-family lots with a flag lot configuration. The Affordable Housing Incentives option could allow up to four units with affordability restrictions. Under the proposed RMF-30 zoning, the site could accommodate up to 14 units, depending on the housing type. The proposed zone would permit single-family homes, two-family dwellings, multifamily buildings, row houses, cottages, and tiny houses. Given the lot's shape and the applicant's intention to retain the existing home, the site is likely to accommodate five to eight additional housing units. Any development would be subject to all applicable setback, height, design, and parking requirements. Consideration 4 — Proposed Ca... i. i... i...... L. ty Benefit The applicant's identified community benefit is "Providing housing that aligns with the uuiiCiA ui. future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase," per Salt Lake City Code 21A.50.50.C. Page 14 About 70 percent of housing in Glendale is renter -occupied, compared to about 52 percent citywide. Homeownership rates in Glendale are lower than in nearby neighborhoods such as Poplar Grove and Rose Park. The neighborhood also has a higher proportion of mid- to high-rise apartment buildings than other missing middle housing types. The proposed rezone would allow housing types that are underrepresented in Glendale and expand homeownership opportunities. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON R-1/-.000 (Single-Familv Residential District): The purpose of the existing R-1/5,000 zoning district is to accommodate single-family residential development on lots of at least 5,000 square feet, with limited allowance for up to four units under affordable housing incentives. The district is intended to preserve neighborhood character, compatible with existing scale and intensity, and provide safe, sustainable living environments. RMF--qo (Low Densitv Multi-Familv Residential District): The purpose of the proposed RMF-30 zoning district is to provide area for various small-scale multi -family housing types that serve as a transition between single- family housing and larger multi -family housing. The intent of the district is to allow incremental residential growth while maintaining the existing physical character of established neighborhoods. RMF-3o also emphasizes walkability, support for nearby neighborhood -serving commercial uses, and access to alternative transportation modes. Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 13-15) provides a complete table comparing the zoning standards and design standards for both the current and proposed zones. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff (pages 16-19) report outlines the following zoning map amendment standards for decision -makers to consider. The standards and findings are summarized in the chart below. Zoning Map Amendment Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement Complies the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose Complies statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby Complies properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and N/A provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject Complies; though the property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational applicant will be required facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water to provide waste - supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. removal facilities with Page 15 The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city' s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment. CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW any development application. Complies Complies Complies Complies; the applicant does not intend to demolish the existing single-family home Complies; no existing businesses on property Complies The proposal was reviewed by several Salt Lake City Departments and Divisions; none of which opposed the proposed rezone. The following departments and divisions responded to this proposal: Fire Department, Police Department, Department of Public Utilities, Department of Sustainability, Engineering Division (Department of Community & Neighborhoods), Urban Forestry Division (Department of Public Lands). PROJECT CHRONOLOGY October 9, 2025 — Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. November 4, 2025 — Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. November 11, 2025 — Petition PLNPCM2025- 01015 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. October 1, 2025 — • Notice was sent to the Glendale Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. • An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. January 1, 2026 — • The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. • Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. Page 16 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. Page 17 January 8, 2026 — Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. January 14, 2026 — Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. January 16, 2026 — Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney's Office. February 2, 2026 — Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney's Office. February 24, 2026 — Transmittal received in City Council Office ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Stream January 14. 2026 Planninz Commission Briefing Page 17 To: Submission Date: Salt Lake City Council Chair 02/04/2026 From: Department* Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Cvetko, Olivia Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 02/06/2026 Subject: Zoning Amendment at 1073 S Navajo Street Additional Staff Contact: Document Type Budget Impact? Ordinance Yes No Recommendation: Adopt the ordinance as recommended by staff Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Date Sent to Council: 02/24/2026 E-mail Olivia.Cvetko2@slc.gov Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 02/24/2026 Presenters/Staff Table Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director The applicant and owner, Mark Overdevest, is requesting approval from the City to amend the zoning map for the property located at 1o73 S Navajo Street from the R-1/5,000 (Single -Family Residential) District to the RMF-30 (Low Density Multi -Family Residential) District. If approved, the applicant intends to retain the existing single-family home and construct additional future for -sale homes on the lot which is roughly 0.49 acres (21,000 sq. ft.) in size. Under the requested RMF-30 (Low -Density Multi -Family) zoning, the property would allow greater flexibility in unit type and configuration. The district permits single-family homes, two-family dwellings, multifamily buildings, and row houses, generally requiring 2,000 square feet of lot area per unit. The property could accommodate 10-14 units depending on building form based on minimum lot size requirements; however, retention of the existing home along with setbacks, open space, and parking requirements will likely reduce the number of dwelling units the site can accommodate. 0 Glen =rk Plat A ■ feat r ■ ■ P -■— i -a- X,_4_ ■ I■ 71 W I -W � ! �- r SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.623o FAX 801-535.6005 Council Considerations The proposed amendments should meet the consideration factors outlined in Chapter 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Code. Included in these factors are compliance with citywide policies, goals, and adopted plans; and to identify a community benefit that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment. One of the identified options for a community benefit includes "Providing housing that aligns with the current or future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase". The property owners have proposed to maintain the existing single-family home and build additional family -sized housing units similar in size, scale, and compatibility to the existing neighborhood in accordance with the Westside Master Plan. In addition, each home would be on its own lot allowing for the opportunity for ownership opportunities. This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing on January i4th, 2026. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation of the Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council in a six to one vote. Details regarding the community benefit requirements will need to be finalized as part of the development agreement but were deemed sufficient. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the applications were submitted: November 17, 202.ri Early Engagement Outreach o The Glendale Community Council was sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. The council did not provide comments. o Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. o The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • January 1, 2026 Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing o Public hearing notice sign posted on the property o Public hearing notice mailed o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve January 14. 2026 Planning Commission Public Hearing o The petition was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted six to one to forward a recommendation of approval for the request, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The following provisions be incorporated into a development agreement for the zoning map amendment: 1. The existing primary home on the site be retained. 2. Any additional dwelling units over four units must be for -sale. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Azenda of January 14. 2026 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of January 14, 2026 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of January 14. 2026 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2. Project Chronology 3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List This page has intentionally been left blank 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor October 9, 2025 November 4, 2025 DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director I' C 1�1 D[� �i1;it17�(177CIZl�'� Petition: PLNPCM2025-01015 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment reviewed for pre-screen. Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was accepted. November 11, 2025 Petition PLNPCM2025-01015 for a zoning map amendment was assigned to Olivia Cvetko, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. November 17, 2025 Notice was sent to the Glendale Community Council Recognized Community Organization (RCO) informing them of the petitions. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. November 17, 2025 An Early Notification sign was posted on the properties by the applicant. January 1, 2026 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. January 1, 2026 Planning Staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notices were mailed. January 1, 2026 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. January 8, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. January 14, 2026 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. January 16, 2026 Requested Final Draft of Ordinance from Attorney's Office February 2, 2026 Final Draft of Ordinance received from Attorney's Office 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 This page has intentionally been left blank 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-01015 Zoning Map Amendment at 1073 S Navajo Street - Mark Overdevest is requesting approval from the City to amend the zoning at 1073 S Navajo Street From the R-1-5000 Single Family Residential District to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District to allow for the construction of additional for -sale homes on the 0.49 acre lot. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in -person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means while also providing an in -person 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.aov/council/virtual-meetintis. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at 801.535.7654 or sending an email to council.comments(a,slc2ov.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 Olivia Cvetko at 801-535-7285 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at Olivia. Cvetko(&,slc. 2ov. The application details can be accessed at httt)s: //www. slc. aov/,olanniniz/2025/ 10/ 17/oi)enhouse2O25-00704/ 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.2ov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.623o FAX 801.535.6005 This page has intentionally been left blank 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Property Address: 1073 S Navajo St SLC UT 84104 Parcel ID: 15113010080000 Master Plan: Westside Master Plan Current Zoning District: R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential Proposed Zoning District: RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential Additional items submitted concurrently with this letter: 1. Photos of Historical Development Pattern and Built Environment 2. Supporting goals, objectives, and policies of the City 3. Comparable Approved Zoning Amendments 4. Redevelopment potential under RMF-30 and R-1/5,000 Request: This application seeks to amend the zoning classification for the parcel located at 1073 S Navajo St, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (the "Project" or "Subject Property") from R-1/5,000 to RMF-30. The current R-1/5,000 zoning, established in the 1990s, no longer aligns with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Salt Lake City (the "City') as outlined in Plan Salt Lake, Housing SLC, and the Westside Master Plan (WSMP). Updating the zoning for this property will harmonize land use regulations with the City's stated goals. The RMF-30 Zone is a low -density residential zone that permits slightly higher density than the existing R-1/5,000 Zone. Additionally, the development regulations for RMF-30 are similar to the current zone in terms of bulk, setbacks, and building height. In support of rezoning the property to RMF-30, the applicant respectfully requests that the City balance existing rules and regulations with the flexibility needed for change and growth, as established in the WSMP. Entry-level home ownership used to be more attainable for young families, but today, many SLC residents are not afforded this same opportunity due to the scarcity of family -sized housing and generally unfavorable market conditions. We believe the RMF-30 zone is pivotal in helping address this ongoing market disconnect. Property Information: The parcel is 0.49 acres (over 21,000 square feet) of highly underutilized space, currently featuring only a small 2-bedroom home built in the 1940s. This home contributes minimally to the City's housing stock. The graphic below outlines the subject parcel and adjacent properties. Notably, the parcels along Navajo are significantly larger, being over five times the size of the properties along 130OW and Concord St. w1 f a SALT LAKE CITY�� �� � � _ _�.►�t -F � � ��.�]� o r �, s - f Ad The owners are looking to, bring investment to the community, and are lookin th g to utilize the newly created RMF-30 zone that allows unique infill development opportunities wiin an existing neighborhood in line with historical development patterns of the community, Westside Master Plan (WSMP), and City housing plans. While it is theoretically possible to try and subdivide the property into flag lots under the R-1/5000 zone, it is not the most practical option as the flag requirements and lot restrictions established in SLC code hinder development potential and functionality. The property owners believe RM they can create a development in line with the stated goals of the Westside Master Plan with F-30. Proposed Map Amendment: Following the historical development pattern and built environment of the neighborhood, the property owners plan to maintain the existing single-family th home and build supplemental single-family homes similar in size, scale, and compatibility to e existing neighborhood in accordance with the Westside Master Plan. The RMF-30 zone, with its less restrictive lot size minimum requirements, is in line with the historical development pattern and built environment, adheres to City plans and guidance, and is documented in sections (a) — (h) below with accompanying attachments. (a) The Project will not materially affect adjacent properties. The Project will in no way fundamentally change the residential nature of the neighborhood as the land use will continue to be low density residential. The property owners have already and will continue to engage with the community council and the City to ensure any project will be context sensitive to the existing character of the neighborhood while providing opportunities for new (b) Consistent Land Use. be lots and homes throughout. There are multiple duplexes, triplexes, and apartments (some with an R- 1/5,000 or 7000 zoning assignment) within close proximity to the proposed Project, including multiple duplexes on Navajo St. Attached within the application is a document that outlines the historical and existing development pattern in the area, which demonstrates the reasonability of the rezone request. *See attachment 1. 'Photos of Historical Development Pattern and Built Environment" While much of Glendale was assigned R-1/5,000 zoning in the 1990s when the zoning code was adopted, the historical development pattern of the area and existing built environment demonstrates a higher density with some homes built as early as the 1870s. Most of the community and its single-family homes would not be permitted under the burdensome lot minimum requirements of the R-1/5,000 zone, as is evidenced by the attached map and highlights (*attachment 1.). R-1/5,000 has the second smallest minimum lot size requirement in the City, and it is still larger in scale than the historical development pattern. The RMF-30 zone was created to provide a variety of housing types that are small in scale suitable for low -density housing, including single-family, and two-family. Smaller homes and lots are part of what gives the community an identity and differentiates it from other parts of the City and has kept it as a more affordable option for many SLC residents. (c) Implementation of the Westside Master Plan, Housina SLC, and Plan Salt Lake. The property owners recognizes that the Property is in the Westside district and subject to, among other planning documents, the Westside Master Plan. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan which provides for Special Single -Family Allowances. The master plan details the challenges it faces in developing the community and the "barriers in and out of Glendale underscore the community's need to grow from within". tas IIkTERKJ1.Tl" L PENCE f liAR9EN& _. A �itlil imat'rTiaw y AtAid—r 4 J MUDEST9 °e PARK ar I �i�a amu r■ c• L r r m a x i a C1i�di1P 5'ir`Insalf YJMYM Cmtar� Yxxgllrip TJr�� �N � e ,', frufurcJ ■ alloy U f uGtertuare JNS�. Plnr S1rVfuM rt c i � n e u Q. ~ Is, BCSLTH ' KIyiR liAaK arai amurl. .6LENW4LE. PARK GC+IJPSE 7 i�aa ia�ra �¢ 0 N�, nl dVVL. LYMM.AiPY NGv��«nm.e� , Tha bcBborre of the anous tmas of nodes 5hmuj)out the Wasts de Master Plan 'asludy area. LNJ '4 r a Fi The subject property (highlighted in yellow with bright red outline) is located within proximity (less than 1000 feet) from a designated neighborhood node. The Westside Master Plan states the following: "Neighborhood nodes rely on the neighboring residential properties because they are not intended to bear a heavy load of new residential development". In addition to the neighborhood node, a community node and a regional node are within walking distance. Nodes are intended to increase the stability of existing neighborhoods by providing necessary daily or discretionary retail and service options, and by providing opportunities for employment and recreation within the community. "The viability of the nodes relies on people to access their activities and services. To support these uses, more residents are needed within the vicinity". Page 34 of the WSMP states the following Special Single -Family Allowances: The Salt Lake City Planning Division should explore regulatory options for permitting unique, single-family residential development within the existing single-family zoning districts. Examples of special single-family developments include small -lot, detached, single-family residential units on parcels that are currently considered too small for development and attached single-family residential units. Multi -Family Infill Allowances: The Salt Lake City Planning Division should explore regulatory options for allowing two- or multi family development on lots that are zoned for only single-family where appropriate Appropriate cases include lots that have unique shapes or where the impact on adjacent properties would be negligible due to the unique properties of the parcels. Regulations such as these can help add even a small amount of additional density without impacting on the prevailing single-family character of the Westside. The unique size (.49 acres) and characteristics of the subject property make it an ideal candidate to build from within. *See attachment 2. "Supporting goals, objectives, and policies of the City" for additional adherence to Westside Master Plan, Housing SLC, and Plan Salt Lake. (d) Comparable Zoninq Amendments qranted Similar Zoning Amendments have been granted throughout Salt Lake City, with the most recent and similar request being granted for the City owned parcel at 1050 W 1300 S, which rezoned an R-1/5,000 lot surrounded by single family homes, near the Jordan River, within the "riparian corridor" (which subject property is not) to RMF-30. The same Master Plan and City policies apply to both this property as well as the Subject Property. Another is 238 S concord which was changed from R-1/5000 to RMF-30. *See attachment 3. "Comparable Approved Zoning Amendments" (e) Future Developments. Just a few hundred feet to the south, a proposed large townhome development has been proposed at the old Tejeda's market fronting Navajo St and Glendale Dr. Below are preliminary renderings of the project. + A;1_ C� 6UfLDILtG P + '� BULDING8 ire �......r-- Wo-� �EASEMEi11T•f 0 � � FAA ''.✓�( �.i .04� Q .���'� BUILDJWG2y, htt,os://buildinasciltlake. com/townhomes-in-ci/endo/e-to-be-for-sale-and-enerciv-efficient/ Another infill project close by is located at 1549 South 1000 West where the plans show 46 townhomes on 2.2 acres detailed below. (f) Adequate Public Facilities and Services. The Project is small scale and limited to residential units/lots, which will have a minimal impact on traffic and other required public facilities. (g) Affordable Housina Incentives consideration. The property owners have closely followed the AHI developments for years. While the plan is a good step in the right direction, the property owners have not been able to make the AHI work or pencil for this project. If the AHI path were to be taken, you really could only add 3 additional units of density. In theory, the property owners could build 1 large 4-Plex on the existing lot; however, they do not believe this is a desirable outcome as the goal is to create modest family sized housing which the City is significantly lacking. Ignoring the AHI and any rezone, as it stands today, a flag lot parcel could be created, the existing home could be demolished, and 2 large homes (4000 sq ft+) with 2 detached ADUs could be built while still meeting all setback and lot coverage requirements of R-1/5,000 without requiring any public input. This would not fit the character of the neighborhood or achieve the goals of the community and City; further, this demonstrates how the current zoning rules do not fit with the historical development pattern of the community. Salt Lake City needs more people in houses, not less We need more people in houses, not less people in bigger houses. *See attachment 4. Redevelopment potential under RMF-30 and R-1/5,000 (h) Community Benefit Anolvsis. Housing: Provision of affordable or family -sized housing. Throughout the application, the petitioners demonstrate alignment with stated city and community goals and plans. See *Att.2 Supporting goals, objectives, and policies of the City Following the historical development pattern and built environment of the neighborhood, the property owners would plan to maintain the existing single-family home and build additional family sized housing units similar in size, scale, and compatibility to the existing neighborhood in accordance with the Westside Master Plan. In addition, each home would be on its own lot allowing for the opportunity for fee simple ownership opportunities. The RMF-30 zone, with its increased options and flexibility would allow for a much better overall future development, that would be in line with the historical development pattern, built environment, and City plans and guidance. While formal plans and renderings have not been pursued or included in this application, RMF-30 allows for a variety of housing types and forms not included in R/1-5000. SLC is in dire need of missing middle housing options as is identified and highlighted in Housing SLC Plan 2023-2027. This was a major driver to the creation of the RMF-30 zone. An increase in density and development will help the identified nodes in the West Side Master Plan thrive. Looking at comparable comp sales in the neighborhood, as well as the characteristics of the lot location, modest family sized housing units built in this project are not anticipated to sell for greater than the area median priced house. Modernizing the zoning on the property to RMF-30 will bring land use regulations into agreement with stated city goals while incrementally increasing the density allowance. The RMF-30 Zone much like the R 1/5000 zone is a low -density residential zone in addition, development regulations are similar regarding bulk, setbacks, and building height. Support for Local Businesses: While local business would not be directly allowed on RMF-30 Parcels, the WSMP notes that identified nodes within the neighborhood need local residential support to thrive. Rental History: Over the past 5 years, the home has been rented at market rate and tenants are responsible for utilities. Current Occupants- As of the time of this application, only one tenant lived at the property. In closing: Recent City plans and documents have recognized that as the population of Salt Lake City grows, prices are spiking, leaving folks with fewer housing options and pushing some people out altogether. Family sized housing is desired and needed. This rezone provides the unique opportunity to build in an area where it will cause minimal disruption, and with the increased density of the project will come increased attainability in pricing. Creative infill projects are needed if Salt Lake City wants to create attainable family housing. Implementing these various goals, objectives, and policies, as reflected in the adopted planning documents, requires a unique approach of balancing the existing rules and regulations while exercising flexibility to achieve real and responsive changes that will encourage the market to develop the diverse and affordable housing needed to accommodate the growing community. We believe the Rezone Request is consistent with the City's development goals and objectives to provide diversity of housing types and to support attractive and well -maintained neighborhoods. We appreciate the City's consideration of these matters and look forward to working with you. Existing neighborhood development pattern examples: Throughout the Glendale community, there are homes on very narrow lots with small structures. These homes would not meet the lot size requirements or the mandatory street frontage requirements of R-1/5,000 today. Many pockets of Glendale have a historical development pattern that closely resembles RMF-30 zoning. On Navajo as well as Glenrose, there are multiple Duplex structures demonstrating a higher historical pattern of higher density than existing R1 zoning. It Lake City, Utah r v L. J •',1. - -w • • 1 1 1 1: . 305mlo; r32frfl01F _ ;3ib oea, 3p5�011l, Ajjj "i 30S_013. 305-009, 305 AL19? c !� n 326-603 i - Ilan s ;3b6=U22, �3'27't1Q7' l6 00d 306 11311 �306 006;�306 Q.083(16 1 `3d ARP; S3D6, 02 s 306...--o 0 7 " ;'327r016, E3Q6�©�4. Parcel Reenrd 1502306021D000 Owner CLADS, DONAL➢ E; if ASH, ANDREA; JT Address 1184 W 400 5 Total Acreage 0.05 T class Id - Property Type 103 T - Dist 'ct 13 % Exempt Exempt Type Municipal Zone R-1-50W MLS Number 16D9122 :327-0PB Valuatioe / T Year 2020 Land Value $20,700 Building Value $ 139,000 Final Value: $ 159,700 1 Legal Description: BEG 8 FF N OF SW CDR LOT 1, BLK 3, AMENDED PLAT OF GOLDEN PARK; E 40 FT; N 42 FT; W 40 FT,, 5 42 FT TO BEG 4529-0189 6196-0759 93063562 9406-6470 0—R.ecard .ACAk-4021a0M 0wirr MYG, AI,VA;MT ETU `..- O61 W4mS a� f .. •i ` � hx hma y INEW .: __ OW Ira cE—V Eren-pl 1PaM- 001 - MLS Ns Yar I `sa Y1'rtlm lTu xwat ZQx9 y 33A OI} 6 m jv SO.wo &AaryY iiN YaWk 9.9P3.100 1".7 I nw,• �. ,�. . E I 11 Ff 0EWL[iT 17 8 ALL LOff 6WTIff EI11-M A M Iffid ftTQ i14E 5Q.O FTM0R LOETIIEE 11-e0 FP AV 0RON EPT I.W ET VV: WAK 334,OGA- 334 OO ; ' 334 006 i `. 1 0.05iA6 16. 275l 0IR1(4Up. 0.651A[NlklL lUo2a ]1A6165fi 1xx11oabslal R µ f9 1 4 � I 3.r411)h . k I "M I I -Al m 2,400.9 Sq Feet %I—rw M45lauixw loon PTrW � E 2 MN n.SIT IM 25 F1TT551161Nfi 34 R TC JRNECMDCD- 5316 d 15MM92 24 S512 71T2M12 7116 LW "Mo. M" a OLW PLMM i�TC A=d-1 23ASINDW 411 UIC6- Id Now-ty M Im 1. thAH11 13 % F—,A ynn F-T" TYM 20118 116.1704 FALSN.*u mnit 156 DO!, Legal De,.ipik.; BEG 9 BE ODA LOT J5. OLK 1, CRAEBM OFFKE q 116 U07 AMY, W 16A? Oi Iq 2-Mr L 50.0 fT: h RM F F; 5 SE t 110 bk6 4MMI 5413 Ll%.?M M15 0 14lS 424 KEY CONSIDERATIONS The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: i. Implementation of the Westside Master Plan, Housing SLC, and Plan Salt Lake 2. Neighborhood Compatibility & Impact g. Development Potential Key Consideration 1: Implementation of the Westside Master Plan, Housing SLC, and Plan Salt Lake Westside Master Plan (2014) The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to support appropriately scaled housing choices as recommended by the Westside Master Plan. This plan was adopted in 2014 and focuses on land use related opportunities. The plan covers the area that is generally between I-15 and I-215 on the east and west, the city boundary on the south, and I-8o on the north. The subject property on Navajo is within the Westside Master Plan area. In general, the Westside Master Plan supports incremental increase in density by allowing different housing types provided the general scale and characteristics of the surroundings are respected. The policies that relate to neighborhoods identify that there is `some opportunity for incremental additions to density and minor adjustments to the development pattern within the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods.' The plan specifically calls for different types of housing options, including ADU's, duplexes and cottage developments. The plan also emphasizes that future housing should be compatible in terms of building height, bulk, setbacks, architecture, landscaping, and building materials. The plan specifically identifies vacant and underutilized parcels as opportune places for infill development and, depending on their size, opportune places for multi -family projects. The Westside Master Plan envisions: "The established and stable neighborhoods of the Westside will remain the core of the community, retaining traditional development patterns while also providing new housing opportunities." The Glendale neighborhood can be considered stable as there are limited opportunities for large-scale changes to the character and development pattern, but the larger lots and blocks provide flexibility for infill projects. As with many established communities, neighborhood stability is greatly valued by its residents. However, that does not mean there are no opportunities for growth. Nor does it imply that changes are neither desired nor anticipated. For example, some change within the neighborhoods will be required to attract more businesses and services. Although stable areas expect to see minor changes, development should be consistent with the scale of the surrounding structures and new zoning regulations should aim to maintain the existing development characteristics of the neighborhood while allowing appropriately scaled infill development. Nodes Nodes, or intersections, are defined in this plan as `integrated centers of activity. The subject property is located within proximity (less than l000 feet) from a designated neighborhood node. The Westside Master Plan states the following: "Neighborhood nodes rely on the neighboring residential properties because they are not intended to bear a heavy load of new residential development". In addition to the neighborhood node, a community node and a regional node are within walking distance. Nodes are intended to increase the stability of existing neighborhoods by providing necessary daily or discretionary retail and service options, and by providing opportunities for employment and recreation within the community. "The viability of the nodes relies on people to access their activities and services. To support these uses, more residents are needed within the vicinity". Proposed The proposal supports neighborhood stability by increasing density at a vacant property, since increasing density by expanding is not an option for the Glendale neighborhood or the Westside as a whole. Its size (.25 acres) and shape with access to multiple streets allow for flexibility in site layout and housing types. The development regulations for the RMF-3o are similar to the existing zone in regard to bulk, setbacks, and building height. Additionally, any new development will be bound by design standards for building materials, ground floor glass, and building entrances, which will ensure high quality design and compatibility with the neighborhood. Housing SLC (2023- 2027) The City has recently adopted a citywide 5-year housing plan includes goals to increase the overall supply of housing through -out Salt Lake City. The goal of the plan is to respond to the ongoing housing crisis by increasing housing stability throughout the City. The plan provide initiatives to "create sustainable, mixed -use, mixed -income neighborhoods with access to jobs, transit, greenspace, and basic amenities." The proposal would allow more density and housing type options in an existing neighborhood. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Plan Salt Lake is a Citywide vision for the City for the next 25 years and includes guiding principles for the City related to sustainable growth and development. The goal of the plan is to create a city that is resilient, inclusive, and economically viable. With this in mind, the plan outlines goals and initiatives to support a mix of housing types and increased density. Applicable initiatives from the plan are below: Growth: • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City's population. Housing: • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. The proposed rezone aligns with Plan Salt Lake's goals for housing and growth. The proposal will allow infill development of an underutilized parcel while increasing the number of housing types and options. Further Excerpts supporting the zoning amendment. The Project is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City. The Citywide vision, City Housing Plan, HUD Plan, Westside Master Plan, Affordable Residential Guide and Ordinances all recognize, support, and call for increasing the housing supply and expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, including removing local barriers to housing development. Below is supporting verbiage taken directly from adopted city plans and guidance supporting this type of request: Westside Master Plan Goals pg. 4 • Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community's vision while maintaining the character of Westside's existing stable neighborhoods. • Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low -density residential neighborhoods Opportunities pg. 26 Neighborhoods: There are opportunities for incremental additions to density and minor adjustments to the development pattern to make them more efficient and sustainable. The neighborhoods will see changes through modifications to how Salt Lake City regulates and promotes infill development Neighborhoods pg. 30 Vision: The established and stable neighborhoods of the Westside will remain the core of the community, retaining traditional development patterns while also providing new housing opportunities. Glendale can be considered stable in the sense that there is limited opportunity within the neighborhoods for large-scale changes to the character and development pattern. That does not mean, however, that they are without any opportunities for growth. Nor does it imply that changes are neither desired nor anticipated by the residents of the neighborhood or by the city itself. For example, some change within the neighborhoods will be required to attract more businesses and services. The Potential pg. 33 The current zoning in the majority of the Westside, and in nearly the entirety of the neighborhoods, is for Single -Family residential, which prohibits multi -family development. Another option is a zoning ordinance modification that allows for duplexes in single-family zones provided the infill parcel is over a certain size and the development meets certain design standards to ensure compatibility. Small lot single-family residential infill development, both attached and detached, are also options for adding new residential uses within the neighborhoods. A third option is to create zoning -based incentives to encouraging small -lot development. Can a community that is over 90 percent single-family with little room for large-scale infill development achieve the vision that its residents desire? Throughout the process of developing the Westside Master Plan, it appeared that the residents and stakeholders recognized that the answer is no unless there were substantial changes to the development pattern of the Westside. One of the aims of this plan is to demonstrate that localized changes in the community's development patterns can bring about the desired vision despite the perceived limitations. Moving Forward pg. 34 Special Single -Family Allowances: The Salt Lake City Planning Division should explore regulatory options for permitting unique, single-family residential development within the existing single-family zoning districts. Examples of special single-family developments include small -lot, detached, single-family residential units. Multi -Family Infill Allowances: The Salt Lake City Planning Division should explore regulatory options for allowing two- or multi -family development on lots that are zoned for only single-family where appropriate. Appropriate cases include lots that have unique shapes or where the impact on adjacent properties would be negligible due to the unique properties of the parcels. Regulations such as these can help add even a small amount of additional density without impacting the prevailing single-family character of the Westside and potentially introduce unique housing types and designs to the community or the city Plan Salt Lake Citywide Vision (adopted 2015) Growth Initiatives: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. 2. Encourage a mix of land uses. 3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. Housing Initiatives: 1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income). 2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. 3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. 4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people -oriented. 5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. Salt Lake 5-year housing plan 2023-2027 Key Finding' There is a mismatch between the types of housing the market is producing and the needs of the community. Residents perceive that most new housing is "luxury" while many desire more affordability throughout the city. Additionally, residents want more "missing middle" housing and more family -sized housing. Pg 10: Family Sized Unit shortfall Salt Lake City has a declining proportion of family households, decreasing from 56 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2021 (USCB, 2001, 2022). Among regional peer cities, Salt Lake City has the lowest percentage of family -sized housing units (3+ bedrooms) with only 41 percent of all units. Public Engagement Results: There is a mismatch between the types of housing the market is producing and the needs of the community. Residents perceive that most new housing is "luxury" while many desire more affordability throughout the city. Additionally, residents want more "missing middle" housing and more family -sized housing. When asked where they would like to see more affordable housing built, respondents expressed desires to have affordability throughout the city Thrivine'in Place Study: Displacement in Salt Lake City is significant and getting worse. It is an issue of high concern in the community; nearly everyone reported directly experiencing its impact in their lives and neighborhoods. There are no "more affordable" neighborhoods in Salt Lake City where lower income families can move once displaced. Salt Lake City is growing and there are not enough housing units at every price level, and a significant lack of affordable units for low-income families. There is a consensus view in the communitythat creating more affordable housing should be a high priority while also protecting renters from being displaced. The patterns of displacement reflect historic patterns of discrimination and segregation, with many areas experiencing high displacement risk being the same as areas that were redlined in the past. Guiding Principles: Increase housing everywhere. In addition, the plan says the city will keep pushing to create more tiny homes and accessory dwellings in existing neighborhoods as well as raising permitted density and building heights around its transit corridors and job centers. Comp #1 PLNPCM2023-00609 - Zoning Map Amendment at 1050 W 1300 S MASTER PLAN: Westside Master Plan Former ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential District Approved ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District This request is for a Zoning Map Amendment for city -owned property at 1050 West 1300 South. Requested to rezone the property from the R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential Zone to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone. The purpose of the proposal is to accommodate future residential development and the proposed RMF-30 zone would allow an incremental increase in density and more options for housing types — including duplexes, townhomes, multi -family, and cottage style development. Development within the R-1/5,000 zoning district is limited to primarily single-family dwellings. There is no current development plan or concept for future development. If the proposed rezone is adopted by the City Council, the City would then issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for development of the property. This proposal is very similar to the Subject Property as it is also surrounded by single-family homes. While the parcel is larger, a good portion of it is in the riparian corridor, which cannot be built on. }4 12G.1 119T 1zoo 1ZQ1 1 1 y7 11 0 '1TI� - 1r_i1i 7 r 1 3 10tM2. 1020 149 11� 1 17 1042,> 1113 �' 1064 J 1114 1106 lckix � •. �;< I�.1� `. .1030 1024 1 UI � F_ �_J faNLII Ci[.NI'AAYE Comp #2 PLNPCM2024-00389- 238 s Concord st MASTER PLAN: Westside Master Plan Former ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential District Approved ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District Petition to amend the zoning map for 238 S Concord St and 1255 W Pierpoint Ave. The proposed amendment would change the zoning of these properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to RMF-30 Low Density Multifamily Residential. The applicant has stated that they intend to build family sized housing units on individual lots. Currently between the two lots, there are 10,700 square feet and one single family home. W .lava,. Janes Pierpont Ave __ _.. ------ F_ 229- 228 _ — ~235 231 1255 233 235 234 238 242 239 237 239 24G 746 245 242 _ Z41 253 252 251 254 258 257 260 257 259 264 261 262 269 1304 277 1284 1280 1269 279 1238 1230 \ i Md G.1v 5r 9 Suolecs Property 1251 ryM P C hu rat yGF5elt Wk.' UT nG sPNII 7of1 Vll C715ilCLS J 75 _ Lens vse M Esc,. yrYgyaar-n, c n.ce�n"o9ef. 5se a OS Open Space __. _ Qaa t5[1, Pi. _ 'P ,1,40eau U. U R-i/SA00 Single-FalmEly Residential Sao Lake City Planning Division 412312024 Comp #3 PLNPCM2023-00452 — Zoning Amendment at 450 East 700 South — RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi Family to RMF-30 Low Density Multi Family Residential J � I 4 22 M 42'i rtiti � gra4>u.�`. �•sC [s,rrrh �nxV I � �� rPpl". R�l�•p 5 • 'rl f4( 0 a I � - I Ghtsc ! • ' csw' F, This request, while already in a higher zoned area, is a good comparison. It shows a similar plan to the Subject Property, where a lot is very underutilized and can accommodate infill development allowed with RMF-30. RMF-30 Development Potential Any future development on the property would be designed to utilize the deep nature of the parcel and minimize impact to the existing street. The RMF-30 zone was primarily created to enable new options for missing middle development that the R1 zones do not allow. Noes of housing allowed: Single Family Detached, Single Family Attached, Row housing, Tiny Homes, Cottage Developments, Twin Homes, and more. Below are potential redevelopment ideas for the property. These are simply ideas, not plans or renderings, and are intended to show the possibilities under RMF-30. Detached Single Family Cottage Homes Mixed Project Tiny Homes Attached Single Family M R/1-5000 Option As the parcel is today, 2 large single-family homes with ADU's could be built using a flag lot configuration. We estimate, they could have each home be over 4000 Square feet while meeting bulk, height, and setback requirements under the R/1-5000 zone. While not interested in going this route, it goes to show how the current zone is incentivizing larger houses with less density. AHI Option There is the potential to do a 4-Plex Unit on the parcel while building within the buildable box as is required under the AHI. The property owners are not looking to enter the highly competitive and saturated multi -family rental housing market and instead wish to develop family sized housing, which this city needs greatly. The intent of this example is to simply demonstrate what is allowed on the parcels under the AHI. As was demonstrated above, RMF-30 would provide more flexibility regarding building forms, while still having similar lot, height, and bulk requirements. This page has intentionally been left blank 5. MAILING LIST OWN —FULL —NAME OWN _ADDR CHARLES H VIOLETTE (JT); CLARENCE W VIOLETTE (JT); HELEN I VIOLE 3346 RIVERCREST DR KAYLEIGH MULLEN 1042 S NAVAJO ST LANCE LANGTON 1052 S NAVAJO ST M FM TRST 434 ZINFANDEL CIR RACHAEL HALL (JT); ALISON SCHEIG (JT) 1066 S NAVAJO ST CARL B STENHOLM (TC); GERRYANNE F MOREAU (TC) 1084 S NAVAJO ST MAKAH INVESTMENTS, LLC 10681 S TRAIL RIDGE CIR HSIAO-AN HUO; DYNASTY EMPIRE PROPERTY, LLC 10013 S ROCKVIEW DR EMMA F LAMBERT (JT) 1434 STONEWALL BND DYNASTY EMPIRE PROPERTY LLC 10013 S ROCKVIEW DR FIRST FIDELITY MORTGAGE CORP PO BOX 17172 GREG J GARCIA (JT); REBA MONTOYA (JT) 1078 S NAVAJO ST SYNDETIC INC PO BOX 17172 TYLER HADFIELD 1035 S NAVAJO ST FRANCINE M KOHART 1043 S NAVAJO ST MARK REITER 1053 S NAVAJO ST EARL M SUTTON 1061 S NAVAJO ST NAVAJO REAL ESTATE, LLC 2162 S BELAIRE DR HTOE WAY (JT); MA LET (JT) 1083 S NAVAJO ST SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 ROBERTO CARRILLO; RC & MAV FAM REV TR 1091 S NAVAJO ST SCOSHI CAHOON 1101 S NAVAJO ST DEAN SCHINDLER 1119 S NAVAJO ST RUSSELL S FRANKLIN (JT); MINDY J FRANKLIN-BOWEN (JT); JODI L FRE 1129 S NAVAJO ST GONZALO H SANCHEZ (JT); CONCEPCION S ALVAREZ (JT) 1040 S 1300 W GURMINDER SINGH PARMAR; KIRANJIT PARMER 2205 E CHAPARRAL OAK C ROSEMARIE HERNANDEZ 1054 S 1300 W CHRIS FRECKLETON 1062 S 1300 W LUCIA G PHAM 1068 S 1300 W GRAYSON M SMITH 1076 S 1300 W CLAUDIA MARGARITA TROCHEZ (JT); RENE BENJAMIN VAZQUEZ (JT) 1084 S 1300 W LISSETTE D LOPEZ AQUINO (JT); WILLIAM ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ MOF 1090 S 1300 W JENNIFER WILSON DAVIS 1096 S 1300 W AMANDA PARRANTO 1106 S 1300 W ANNA MARIA CAPUTO LIVING TRUST 06/25/2021 1112 S 1300 W WARREN GERRITSEN TRUST 08/02/2017 1126 S 1300 W UDIT CHAUHAN (JT); SHEELU KUMARI (JT) 1043 S 1300 W ELIZABETH LANGTON 1053 S 1300 W DONALD E CLAUS (JT); ANDREA C ASH (JT) 1061 S 1300 W OLEN D JR TURNER (JT); IRACI TURNER (JT) 1067 S 1300 W GERALDINE GRIMSDELL TRUST 5/16/15 1075 S 1300 W JOSE LUIS LOPEZ AGUILAR (JT); EDGAR LOPEZ (JT) 1083 S 1300 W EMILY THOMAS 1089 S 1300 W REBECCA RAY 1095 S 1300 W THULINH PHAM 1105 S 1300 W 1326 PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LLC 1326 S 900 E NICHOLAS JAMES SALMON 1062 S CONCORD ST SANTANA VILLANUEVA (JT); JULIA VILLANUEVA (JT) 1068 S CONCORD ST ESMERALDA OROZCO SENCION 1076 S CONCORD ST HALANI UTUONE (JT); VALENITAINE UTUONE (JT) 1084 S CONCORD ST LAZARO BUZOT (JT); SANDRA CEDENO (JT) 1090 S CONCORD ST Current Occupant 1036 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1058 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1094 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1112 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1118 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1102 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1078 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1082 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1067 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1073 S NAVAJO ST Current Occupant 1086 S 1300 W Current Occupant 1044 S 1300 W Current Occupant 1111 S 1300 W own —unit NFF1 NFF2 OWN CITY GRANTS PASS SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY C LAYTO N SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SANDY SANDY MESQUITE SANDY 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 COTTONWOOD HTS 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 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 Salt Lake City Salt Lake City OWN_STA OWN ZIP OR 97527 UT 84104 UT 84104 CA 94517 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84092 UT 84092 NV 89027 UT 84092 UT 84117 UT 84104 UT 84117 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84109 UT 84104 UT 84114 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84121 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84105 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 UT 84104 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2026 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1073 S Navajo Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 1073 S. Navajo Street from R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2025-01015. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on January 14, 2026 to consider a petition from Mark Overdevest to rezone a parcel of property located at 1073 S Navajo Street from R-1/5,000 Single -Family Residential District to R-1/7,000 Single -Family Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2025-01015; and WHEREAS, at its January 14, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Man. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 1073 S Navajo Street (Tax ID No. 15-11- 301-008-0000), identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R- 115,000 Single -Family Residential District to RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family Residential District. SECTION 2. Condition. This ordinance is conditioned upon the owner(s) of the property entering into a development agreement with the city requiring: a. The existing primary home on the site be retained. b. Any additional dwelling units over four units must be for -sale. 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 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) , 2026. APPROVED AS TO FORM Bill No. of 2026 Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Published: Date: 2/2/2026 Ordinance rezoning 1073 S Navajo St. /7 _GG2Z�L By. �2G� (� Courtney Lords, S66or City Attorney 4 Exhibit "A" Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 15-11-301-008-0000 GLENDALE PARK PLAT A" 0729,BEG 500 FT S FR NW COR LOT 61 GLENDALE PARK PLAT A S 70 FT E,306 FT N 70 FT W 306 FT TO BEG. 5110-1241, 5147-1358 ,5151-1080 7153-404 8647-4013 8741-8382 09161-6940 11208-0239" This page has intentionally been left blank Item C1 v � TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 MOTION SHEET RE: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00554 MOTION i (Adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (Reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. MOTION 3 (Defer) I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 �1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 RE: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00554 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY Item Schedule: Briefing: March 3, 2026 Set Date: March 10, 2026 Public Hearing: March 24, 2026 Potential Action: April 7, 2026 Three people spoke at the March 24, 2026 public hearing for this item. Concerns were expressed about granting extensions for properties that have code violations. As noted below, Planning staff said not granting extensions if a property has a code violation would likely not be allowed under State code. Another commenter discussed a nearby property that was vacant for many years yet repeatedly received time extensions. Planning staff is not aware of properties that have received numerous extensions. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During a March 3, 2026 briefing Council Members asked if the proposed changes only affect administrative actions or if any include City Council decisions. Planning staff said the only items that would involve the Council are final plats with subdivision amendments that involve streets. A question was asked about how often extensions are requested. They are frequently requested but generally for circumstances outside the applicants' control, such as delays with financing. The Council will be briefed about a text amendment initiated by the Administration that clarifies actions applicants may take to prevent approved land use applications from expiring. Final plat applications that CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM AdP.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 subdivide land, street dedication plats, conditional uses, planned developments, and design review approvals would all be affected by the proposed changes. The Planning Commission is the decision -making body for these applications, and they do not come to the City Council. Utah State Code allows approved land use applications to remain valid if there is "reasonable diligence" to implement the approval but doesn't define what that is. City code generally requires a building permit to be submitted within a given timeframe for conditional uses, planned developments, and design reviews, so an application doesn't expire. Some uses do not require a building permit and proposed changes add other actions discussed below that could be considered "reasonable diligence" and prevent applications from expiring. Under the proposal these land use approvals would expire if a development agreement, building permit, business license, or final plat application tied to the land use application also expires or becomes void. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its August 27, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke suggesting that extensions not be granted if the property has any current code violations. Planning staff responded, saying this would likely be in violation of State code. The Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The proposal recommends allowing an applicant to request one 12-month extension if the request is submitted before an original approval expires. The Council may wish to discuss whether this is sufficient or if they would like to allow for the potential for an additional time extension. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Final plats and street dedication plats do not currently have an expiration date and can be left for an indefinite period before they are recorded with the County. The proposal would require final plats to be recorded within 18 months of application submittal and street dedication plats to be recorded within 180 days of approval by the City. Conditional uses, planned developments, and design reviews all expire in 12 months unless a building permit application is submitted. However, not all land use applications require a building permit. Planning staff provided examples that are included in the Key Consideration section. The proposed amendment includes additional actions besides a building permit that would demonstrate the applicant is working with reasonable diligence to implement an approval: • Submitting a subdivision application as part of the approval • Obtaining a business license (conditional uses) • Finalizing a development agreement between the City and property owner (when authorized by State code or City ordinance) It is worth noting that under the proposal one 12-month extension could be requested on the above land use approvals if the request is made prior to the original approval expiring. KEY CONSIDERATION Page 12 Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal, found on page 3 of the Planning Commission staff report, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration i — Why Impose These Changes? The various land use approvals create certain property rights and allow applicants to begin working on other required approvals. Most land use approvals expire if a building permit application is not submitted within 12 months. Some uses have requirements that must be met before a building permit is issued. And, as noted above, not all land use applications require a building permit. Planning staff provided examples of land use applications that do not require a building permit. The following are two of several in the Planning Commission staff report. A proposed bar in the space used by a former restaurant may not need building modifications that require a building permit. In this case a business license may be all that is required, especially if the restaurant already had a liquor license. Another example is a planned development that includes a subdivision. The final plat needs to be recorded before a building permit is issued. It is Planning staffs opinion that recording a subdivision creates a degree of "vesting" with similar weight to submitting a building permit. Currently City code does not address what happens to land use approvals if a building permit, business license, subdivision, or development agreement expires. The land use approval continues to be valid and does not expire. The proposal ties the land use approval to the above -mentioned approvals or permits so if they expire the land use approval also expires. This would provide clarity for staff when administering the code, and for applicants so they understand the implications of allowing these to expire. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW This proposal was only reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Other departments and divisions are not involved in determining when land use applications expire and rely on the Planning Division. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • May 23, 2025 — Petition initiation signed by Mayor Mendenhall. • July 10, 2025 - 45-day public engagement period started. • August 15, 2025 — Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on Utah Public Notice website, City website, and provided through the Planning Division email listserve. • August 24, 2025 - 45-day public engagement period ended. • August 27, 2025 — Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A unanimous positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. • September 3, 2025 — Ordinance requested from the Attorney's Office. • September 4, 2025 — Ordinance received from the Attorney's Office. • January 22, 2026 — Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page 13 To: Salt Lake City Council Chair From: Department* Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Norris, Nick Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 01 /21 /2026 Submission Date: 01/16/2026 Subject: PLNPCM2025-00554 Expiration of Land Use Approvals Text Amendment Additional Staff Contact: Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Date Sent to Council: 01/22/2026 E-mail nick.norris@slc.gov Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 01/22/2026 Presenters/Staff Table Nick Norris Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the proposal consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing Required by city code. Public Process 45-day public engagement period, online open house on planning division open house webpage, public hearing with the planning commission. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This text amendment is intended to update Title 20 Subdivisions and Title 2 1 A Zoning to expand the actions an applicant for an approved land use application can take to prevent their approval from expiring. Utah Code 10-20-902(1)(f) states that an approved land use application is valid if the applicant moves to implement the approval with "reasonable diligence." State code does not define reasonable diligence. Salt Lake City has placed timeframes for implementation of an approved land use application, which usually requires submitting a building permit. However, there are other actions that an applicant can take, and sometimes is required to take, that would likely be considered acting with reasonable diligence. This text amendment expands actions that can be taken to avoid an approval expiring. In Title 20 Subdivisions, final plats do not have an expiration date. Once a final plat, if required, is submitted, it can sit indefinitely before being recorded. This proposal would add a requirement that the final plat be recorded within 18 months of submitting the application. An applicant can request a 12- month extension. If the plat is not recorded within 18 months due to actions of the city, the dealing is automatically extended by the amount of time the city action delayed the recording. In Title 21A, conditional use, planned development, and design review approvals expire in 12 months unless a building permit is submitted. However, there are other actions often associated with these types of approvals that demonstrate that the applicant is acting with due diligence. Conditional uses do not always require a building permit and may just need a business license if the use is occupying an existing space that does not require any construction. A planned development or design review may require recording a subdivision that has to be recorded before a building permit can be issued. The proposed amendments expand the actions that can start the implementation of approval based on the type of land use application as outlined in the ordinance. Each of these types of applications already includes an opportunity to ask for an extension. However, this text amendment limits the extension to a single, 12- month extension. This text amendment also includes a new provision to address what happens if one of the actions that can prevent a land use approval from expiring, also expires. For example, if a building permit submitted with a conditional use expires, the conditional use approval would also expire. Building permits expire if the permit has not been acted on for 180 days. It should be noted that there may be other actions an applicant can take that may satisfy the state code requirement for implementing an approval with reasonable diligence. An example may be that closing on the purchase of a property being delayed by a legal issue that does not involve the city or a lawsuit involving the property that is not resolved within the deadlines in city code. In those instances, the city would likely have to decide whether the applicant is still acting with reasonable diligence. However, the possibilities of what may be considered reasonable diligence are too many to codify into city code. It is rare that an approval expires without some action being taken by the applicant and the Planning Division does not expect many applications to face this type of situation. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.623o FAX 801.535.6005 PUBLIC PROCESS: This proposal included a 45-day public engagement period that started on July 10, 2025 and extended through August 24, 2025. All recognized organizations received notice of the 45-day public input period, as did all entities and people who have signed up to receive email notification of Planning Commission items that are subject to an online open house. The Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed on August 15, 2025 for the public hearing held on August 27, 2025. Please note, city code does allow a notice for a public hearing to occur within the 45-day public engagement period, provided the recommendation from the Planning Commission is made after the 45-day public input period. No public comment was received during the 45-day engagement period. One public comment was received prior to the public hearing, but after the staff report had been published. The comment was from the Sugar House Community Council, who indicated they supported the proposed changes. During the public hearing, here was public input made during the public hearing, which suggested that a requested extension not be granted if the property currently had any outstanding code violations. That suggestion was discussed by the commission and guidance was provided by staff that a requirement like that violated state code because the presence of a code violation is not related to the land use approval and is not related to the applicant acting with reasonable diligence. This item is a general text amendment that is not applicable to specific properties and has no geographic area. Furthermore, no one has indicated that they would like to receive written notice of any future public meetings or hearings on this matter. Therefore, there is not a mailing list associated with this item. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 27, 2025 b) PC Minutes of August 27, 2025 c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 27, 2025 EXHIBITS: The following is a list of attachments/files to be included in the final transmittal via Laserfiche. These files do not need to be combined into a single PDF; they can be uploaded as separate attachments. Please ensure that each Exhibit is saved with the exact file name specified below. 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 5) Original Petition This page has intentionally been left blank 1. ORDINANCE Project Title: Expiration of Land Use Approvals Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00554 Version: 1 Date Prepared: September 4, 2025 Planning Commission Action: Recommended August 27, 2025 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: 9/4/2025 By: /s/ Courtnev Lords Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only): • Modifies Subsection 20.16.080 by adding an expiration time for final plat approvals. • Adds section 20.22.060 to create an expiration date for approvals of street dedication plats. • Modifies Subsection 21A.54.120 to clarify the expiration time for conditional use approvals. • Modifies Subsection 21A.55.080 to clarify the expiration time for planned development approvals. • Modifies Subsection 21A.59.080 to clarify the expiration time for design review applications. 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. Amends section 20.16.080.F by adding an expiration time for final plat approvals. 20.16.080: FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCESS: 3 A. After preliminary subdivision approval has been granted, the subdivider may submit all requirements 4 for a final plat under Chapter 20.10. The final plat documents shall be consistent with the approved 5 preliminary subdivision documents and shall be approved if it complies with applicable provisions of this 6 title, matches the preliminary approval, includes all conditions of preliminary approval, and all applicable 7 provisions of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. All final plat applications shall be submitted within eighteen (18) 8 months of preliminary approval except for: 9 1. A subdivision that was indicated during preliminary approval to be phased; in which case the final 10 plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan approved as part of the preliminary approval. Each 11 phase shall require a separate final plat application; and 12 2. Condominiums where the subdivider desires to complete the framing of the building to ensure the 13 interior dimensions of the condominium as shown on the final plat are consistent with the built 14 dimensions of the building. In this case, the final plat shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of 15 final framing inspection. 16 B. City Review: City review processes and timelines shall be consistent with Utah Code Chapter 10-9a, 17 Part 6 or its successor. V1 18 C. Subdivision Improvement Construction Agreement: The subdivider and the city shall finalize an 19 agreement regarding the construction of all public improvements required or proposed as part of the 20 subdivision. The agreement shall be finalized prior to the city engineer signing the final subdivision plat. 21 D. The final plat to be recorded shall be on typical mylar material or the common material for plats at 22 the time. The printing or reproduction process used shall not incur any shrinkage or distortions, and the 23 reproduced copy furnished shall be of good quality, to true dimension, clear and readable, and in all 24 respects comparable to the approved final plat. The mylar plat shall be signed separately by all required 25 and authorized parties and shall contain the information set forth in this chapter. 26 E. Prior to the filing of the final plat with the mayor, the subdivider shall file the necessary tax lien 27 certificates and documents. 28 F. Final Plat Applications Expiration: A final plat application shall be submitted within 18 months of the 29 date of preliminary approval. A final plat that is not recorded within 18 months of the date the final plat 30 application is submitted shall be considered expired and become void. All preliminary approvals 31 associated with the final plat shall also be considered expired. If the final plat application is not recorded 32 within 18 months due to the failure of the city to complete a review in a timeline reauired by applicable 33 laws, the expiration period shall be extended by the number of additional days that it takes the city_ to 34 complete the review. An applicant may request a one-time extension of 12 months by submitting a written 35 request to the planning director prior to the expiration of the final plat application. 36 2. Creates section 20.22.060 Expiration of Street Dedication Plan to read: 37 20.22.060: EXPIRATION OF STREET DEDICATION PLAT 38 A street dedication plat shall expire in 180 days from the date of approval if not recorded with the Salt 39 Lake County Recorder's Office. 40 3. Amends section 21.54.120 to clam the expiration time. for conditional use approvals. 41 21A.54.120: LIMITATIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL: 42 St fl :e t t , o.Aensia of time gfaffted4)y t1N , i the ease of a6mnxcttxati-t 43 eanditional uses, Oho direeter- Of designee, e eanditien=Hsa abdk, be valid f a period longer- 44 tha o year- unless ., building rv,mit has bem, iomod rlete t.,t4&rg h vo—be-n mb wtted to 45 the division of building seFviees and lieensing within that period cmd is thereafter- diligepAly pur-sued to 46 eempletion, of tmiess a eei4ifieate of oeetipane is imuoa and a use eeffifflefleedwithin that rawer 47 cT)Zannin , in the ea 48 �cT)ea fain 49 ) . The approval of a 50 proposed conditional use by the planning commission, or, in the case of administrative conditional uses, 51 the planning director or designee, shall authorize only the particular use for which it was issued and shall 52 be valid subiect to this section. 53 A. All conditional use approvals expire 12 months from the date of approval unless one of the following_ 54 occurs before the approval expires: V1 55 1. A complete building permit application to construct or modify_ a building or DroDertv where the 56 conditional use will be located has been submitted to the city; 57 2. The conditional use is associated with a development agreement, if authorized by Utah Code and 58 City Code, and the development agreement is signed and executed between the owner of the DroDertv 59 and the city; 60 3. If a subdivision is required as part of the conditional use, a complete final plat application is 61 submitted to the city_ . For the purpose of this section, a subdivision includes a subdivision 62 amendment; 63 4. If no building_ _permit is required, a business license is issued for the conditional use on the subject 64 protect; or 65 5. If none of the above are required, the applicant notifies the planning director in writing_ that the 66 conditional use has been established, and all conditions of approval have been satisfied. 67 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the conditional use shall also be considered expired. 68 C. A one-time, one-vear extension may be granted by the planning commission, or planning director for 69 administrative conditional use, if a written reauest for an extension is submitted by the applicant to the 70 planning director prior to the expiration of the conditional use. Extensions authorized by this section only_ 71 apply to the conditional use approval and not to anv other required applications or approvals. 72 D. If one of the actions listed in Subsection A is satisfied, the conditional use shall be considered 73 established and the conditional use shall be allowed to continue until it ceases provided the conditional 74 use complies with applicable regulations, the plans approved as part of the conditional use, and all 75 conditions of aDDroval or the conditional use is revoked as Drovided for in this section. 76 E. If the DroDertv owner, or someone authorized to act on the owner's behalf, establishes a different, 77 allowed use on the DroDertv, the conditional use aDDroval shall be considered voluntarily terminated bv_ 78 the DroDertv owner. 79 4. Amends section 21.55.080 to clarify the expiration time for planned development approvals. 80 21A.55.080: TIME LIMIT ON APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: 81 No p1 =iad development appr-aval shall be valid for- a period i rge - than e o r un'rao�. 1-milding 82 p:rmnNt lno b2e- eor- eemple o building &xn lw e-beon oubc.,,\tted to the r,iyi& e ^f Building 83 Ser-viees-and Lieens ko pk- inixg a;ree*er ;n the ease of a admini t-We 84 pla*ned development, f , grant,_,x e*tensien-af aop)z_xmad development &f „p t e additional Yeff 85 t-in an umnitigate4 86 iffipavtt. E�Vnsien r-e"ests must be submi4ed prior- to the expir-ation of the planned d&velepme 87 appre�vah 88 A. A Dlanned development aDDroval expires in 12 months from the date of approval unless one of the 89 following occurs before the aDDroval exDires: 90 1. A complete building Dermit application to construct at least one of the DrinciDal buildings aDDroved 91 as Dart of the Dlanned development is submitted to the city; V1 92 2. A development agreement, if authorized by Utah Code and Citv Code, is sit_ ned and executed 93 between the owner of the property and the city: or 94 3. A complete final plat application is submitted to the citv if the planned development included 95 approval of a Dreliminary subdivision application. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision 96 includes a subdivision amendment if the planned development is located in an existing subdivision. 97 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the planned development shall also be considered expired. 98 C. A one-time, one-vear extension may be Lyranted by the Dlannin2 commission, or Dlannin2 director for 99 administrative planned developments if a written reauest for an extension is submitted by the applicant to 100 the Dlannin2 director prior to the expiration of the planned development. Extensions authorized by this 101 section only aDDly to the planned development approval and not to anv other required applications or 102 approvals. 103 D. If the property owner, or someone authorized to act on the owner's behalf, submits a building permit, 104 subdivision application, or other development authorized by city code that complies with the applicable 105 regulations and is different than the approved planned development application, the approved planned 106 development shall be considered voluntarilv terminated by the property owner. 107 5. Amends section 21.59.060 to clarify the expiration time for design review approvals. 108 21 A.59.060: TIME LIMIT ON APPROVED APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW: 109 No design r-eview appr-eval shall be valid tbr- a penod longer- than one year- 40M the date of appr-oval 110 unlaj � issued eemplete building ing plans and building po..:t wp!' Q :k= have 111 submitted to the Division of Buildins Sor iico3 an�ccff maq 1!—_-gate4 112 upr).icati 113 114 A. A design review approval expires in one vear from the date of approval_ unless one of the following 115 occurs before the approval expires: 116 1. A complete building permit application to construct at least one of the principal buildings approved 117 as Dart of the design review is submitted to the city; 118 2. A development aereement, if authorized by Utah Code or Cit_v Code, is sia_ ned and executed 119 between the owner of the property and the city; or 120 3. A complete final plat application is submitted to the citv if the design review application is 121 associated with a Dreliminary subdivision application. For the purpose of this section, a subdivision 122 includes a subdivision amendment. 123 B. If one of the actions listed above expires, the design review shall also be considered expired. 124 C. A one-time, one-vear extension may be granted by the planning commission, or planning director for 125 administrative design reviews, if a written reauest for an extension is submitted by the applicant to the 126 planning director prior to the expiration of the design review. Extensions authorized by this section only 127 aDDly to the design review approval and not anv of the actions listed in section A. V1 128 D. If the property owner or someone authorized to act on the owner's behalf, submits a building permit, 129 subdivision application, or other development authorized by city code that complies with the applicable 130 regulations and is different than the approved design review application, the approved desia_ n review shall 131 be considered voluntarilv terminated by the property owner. V1 This page has intentionally been left blank 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Chronology May 23, 2025 Petition initiation signed by Mayor Erin Mendenhall. July 10, 2025 45-day public engagement period started. August 15, 2025 Notice of Planning Commission public hearing posted on Utah Public Notice website, city website, and provided through Planning Division email listserve. August 24, 2025 45-day public engagement period ended. August 27, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing held. This page has intentionally been left blank 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00554 — Expiration of Land Use Approval Text Amendment — Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a zoning text amendment to expand the actions a land use applicant may take to prevent an approved land use application from expiring. The proposal helps clarify the actions a land use applicant may take to satisfy the requirement in Utah Code 10-20-902(1)(f) for an applicant to implement the approval with reasonable diligence. 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. 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 an in - person 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 Zoom connection information, please visit www.slc.2ov/council/virtual-meetin2s. 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 Nicholas Norris at 801-535-6173 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at nick.norris(&slc. og_v. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the "planning" tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2025-00554. 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(i_,,slc2_ ov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. This page has intentionally been left blank 4. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION Norris, Nick From:. Judi Short a Sent: Sunday, Auqust 24, 2025 5:46 PM To: Norris, Nick Subject: [EXTERNAL] PLNPCM2025-00554 ICaution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Nick, we discussed this at our July Land Use meeting. There were about 12 of us, and everyone said this seemed to be a reasonable solution to this problem. We feel it should be whatever is easiest on all parties. Don't iet someone milk the system, but be reasonable about why they can't meet the deadline. No one wants to hear a petition for a second time. We approve of this change, Judi Short, First -Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council Sugar Hggso] This page has intentionally been left blank 5. Original Petition MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COAIWTNTTY and To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Tammy Hunsaker, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director; Mark Kittrell, City Attorney. From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: May 23, 2025 Re: Initiation of a text amendment to modify the time limit for land use approvals The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a text amendment to the city code that would standardize the time limit for approvals of conditional uses, planned developments, design reviews, and final subdivision plats. Conditional uses, planned developments, and design reviews all expire within one year unless building permit plans are submitted or a time extension is granted. This code change would clarify that the time limit to submit a building permit be modified to also include approvals associated with a development agreement or a subdivision plat, which are both legally binding documents that establish some degree of entitlement for a property owner that the city code does not currently include. These two options would only applicable if either is legally authorized. Under the Utah Code, for example, the use of development agreements is limited and not all applications include a proposed subdivision. The proposal would also clarify that if a building permit has expired, the conditional use, planned development, or design review would also expire. In addition, in 2024 when the city adopted new subdivision regulations, the expiration timeline for recording a final plat was inadvertently left out of the ordinance adopted by the City Council. This proposed amendment would add a requirement that a final plat be recorded within 18 months of submitting the final plat application. The amendments may include modifying additional regulations that are related to the expiration of land use applications to improve administration of the code and consistency. The proposal will go through the typical public engagement process, with a minimum of 45-days public input period with notice to all recognized organizations and the division's email distribution list. It is anticipated that the planning commission will hold a public hearing in late summer, and the item will then be transmitted to the City Council for a decision. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is not to initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at 801-535-6173 or nick.norrisaslazov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. Erin Mendenhall (May23, 2025 Al2 MDT) Erin Mendenhall, Mayor SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 05/23/2025 Date W W W.SLC.GOV TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 Land Use Approval Expirations Final Audit Report 2025-05-23 Created: 2025-05-23 By: Nick Norris (nick.norris@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAkvn8b641HgAVAC1kjMsbv-xcbPRMoCfx "Land Use Approval Expirations" History Document created by Nick Norris (nick.norris@slc.gov) 2025-05-23 - 5:25:50 PM GMT Document emailed to Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov) for signature 2025-05-23 - 5:26:44 PM GMT Email viewed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov) 2025-05-23 - 5:27:56 PM GMT Document e-signed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov) Signature Date: 2025-05-23 - 7:12:33 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2025-05-23 - 7:12:33 PM GMT Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign This page has intentionally been left blank Item C3 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 2111 South 13oo East (Sugar House Hotel) PLNPCM2025-Oo622/PLNPCM2025-0 o624 MOTION i (Adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (Reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. MOTION 3 (Defer) I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 �1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY Item Schedule: Briefing: February 17, 2026 TO: City Council Members Set Date: March 10, 2026 Public Hearing: March 24, 2026 FROM: Brian Fullmer Potential Action: April 7, 2026 Policy Analyst DATE: April 7, 2026 RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 2111 South 13oo East (Sugar House Hotel) PLNPCM2025-Oo622/PLNPCM2o 25-0 o624 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE More than three dozen people spoke at the March 24, 2026 public hearing. most of whom expressed opposition to the proposal. Main topics of concern were vehicles entering and exiting the proposed hotel will add to existing traffic and congestion on 1300 East and 2100 South, increased traffic in the nearby single-family neighborhood, and limited parking. Additional commenters discussed that a large building would obstruct views of the mountains and valley and is inappropriate adjacent to the park. Objections to expanding the Sugar House Business District beyond its current boundaries were expressed, and limited community benefits a hotel would provide was mentioned. Other commenters suggested using the property as an extension of the park. Further concerns were focused on potential environmental impact of the proposed project. These include water runoff from the site, flooding from the park, possible damage to the Draw and Earthen dam, and potential for bird strikes. Commenters supportive of the proposed rezone discussed the public benefits and amenities that a hotel would bring, a hotel would be less disruptive than other potential uses on the site, and traffic impact from a hotel would be much less than with other developments that could be built on the property. Another commenter spoke in support of the rezone noting there were similar concerns about a large development at 21oo East and 2100 South when it was being proposed, that did not come to fruition. A member of the design team stated they reviewed the proposal with officials at Salt Lake County and the State of Utah about flooding and ground water issues. There were no concerns from either entity. Others noted activity CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM AdP.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 related to a hotel would be concentrated away from residential neighborhoods, today's needs are different than when the master plan was written, and when the former restaurant was built. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During a February 17, 2026 briefing the Council expressed appreciation for community engagement the developer has provided and changes that occurred as a result. It was reiterated that the property is privately owned and the proposal does not involve selling Sugar House Park property. The property would be leased to the developer. The recent mixed -use zoning changes were discussed, and a question was asked about when outcomes of these changes would be seen. Planning staff responded saying it typically takes about five years after a large-scale zoning change. Planning also noted that the requested zoning is the only one that will allow the proposed hotel use. Proposed community benefits including reduced rent for local businesses and paid parking were discussed. Council Members questioned whether paid parking is a community benefit given that visitors can park for free in the adjacent Sugar House Park. A concern that proposed parking may not meet demand. The developer stated that they exceeded parking requirements for the site at a cost that is well beyond revenue that will be generated. Their parking study suggests the proposed parking will exceed demand. Council Members expressed environmental concerns with the water table and location's proximity to Parley's Creek. The developer discussed an engineering study that indicated the water table is approximately 50 feet and the proposed garage will average 30 feet below grade. The site is outside the creek's flood plain and away from the earthen dam overflow area specified by state and county officials. ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the future land use and zoning maps for an approximately o.83-acre privately owned parcel at 2111 South 130o East adjacent to Sugar House Park in City Council District Seven from its current MU-3 zoning to MU-8. The Sugar House Master Plan's future land use map, adopted in 2001, is proposed to be amended from Mixed Use -Low Intensity to Business District Mixed -Use -Town Center Scale. A Sizzler restaurant was on the subject property for many years prior to building's demolition in 2024. The applicant's stated objective is to construct a hotel on the site. Concept plans call for the retail space on the ground floor, meeting space and a restaurant on the upper floors of the hotel, underground parking, and a path between the hotel and Sugar House Park. (The path would require approval from the Sugar House Park Authority.) The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its October 22, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing at which more than a dozen people spoke, mostly opposing the proposed rezone. Concerns included parking, traffic, building height, impact to the park, and environmental impact. Three people spoke in support of the proposal citing a need for the City to allow change and welcome a new type of use for the property. Planning staff recommended, and the Commission voted 7-i to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions to which the applicant is amenable: • Community benefits (outlined below) Page 12 • Installation of Sugar House gateway signage on 130o East • Enhanced active ground floor uses. The Commissioner who voted against the motion expressed concerns with expansion of the business district, housing is not proposed, and outcomes of the recently adopted mixed use consolidation have not yet been seen. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss potential impacts of allowing additional height east of 130o East. w 'I F JL.9 it ■n p i s Subject Property Irf_ t7A - LF f HLNiSt` R F SrR...i:�a.❑ Zouuxg flap — Adopted Jnly 2023 _ MU2 ■ MIJ3 ■ MU5 _ MU6 MUs Area zoning map showing the subject parcel. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division RM—MM — 101,wuc, Lc Pt(. WL'.-' ntL ■■ r Mull M-1 Transitional Overlay ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As shown in the area zoning map above, properties across 130o East to the west are zoned MU-11(max. height 150 feet), to the southwest across 130o East and 2100 South is MU-6 zoning (max. height 65 feet), to the north across 2100 South properties are zoned MU-3 and MU-2 (max. heights 35 feet and 3o feet, respectively). Sugar House Park is to the south and east of the subject property. Proposed community benefits include: o Below market retail space for local businesses. o Interest free tenant improvement financing. o Free community meeting space. o GREENbike station in Sugar House Park. (Would require Sugar House Park Authority approval. If not approved the station would be located on hotel property.) Page 13 o Public access to paid underground parking. It is important to note that if the zoning map amendment is adopted by the Council there is no guarantee the proposed development will be constructed. The property could be redeveloped with any use allowed within the zone or sold to another parry. The proposed community benefits will be memorialized and recorded in a development agreement that runs with the land. If the property is developed with another use or sold, the property owner will need to amend the terms of the development agreement. The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 13-19 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration i — How the Proposal Helps Implement City Goals and Policies Identified in Adopted Plans. Planning staff reviewed how the proposals align with Plan Salt Lake (2015), which is the City's vision for the next 25 years related to sustainable growth and development. They found the proposals are supported by several initiatives in the plan including growth, natural environment, beautiful city, and economy. Planning also considered whether the 2001 Sugar House Community Master Plan supports the proposals. Much has changed in the decades since this plan was adopted. Development in the Sugar House area exceeds what was defined in the plan but Planning staff believes that the plan supports expansion of the business district. It is their opinion that expanding the more intense Town Center Scale to this parcel is supported by the City's desire for higher density development. The subject site is the only developable parcel on the east side of 130o East between 2100 South and the Interstate-8o freeway. There are not homes adjacent to the site that would be impacted by additional height allowed in the MU-8 zone. Consideration 2 — Review of MU-8 Zoning District and its Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted that properties on the south side of 2100 South and 110o East (Highland Drive) are not expected to redevelop in the near future. However, the older shopping centers between 110o and 1300 East were rezoned to MU-11 as part of the recent mixed -use consolidation and allow buildings up to 150 feet. There is potential these centers will be redeveloped in the coming years. It is Planning staff s opinion that rezoning the subject parcel to MU-8 is compatible with the development potential on the west side of 130o East. Planning also believes area residents will not be negatively impacted by the proposed use and height for the parcel. Consideration 3 — Department Reviews No significant concerns from reviewing City departments and divisions have been expressed. As noted above, this proposal is only for the rezone and master plan amendment. Development plans will be submitted if the proposed changes are adopted by the City Council and the project progresses. The applicant submitted a traffic study which was reviewed by the City Transportation Division and meets industry standards. The study found that the proposed hotel would likely have minimal traffic impact, though afternoon drivetime traffic could back up at the adjacent intersection. Transportation staff Page 14 recommended outbound hotel traffic be routed to the 2100 South access point during these times. Further review would be included as part of the design review process if the project is developed. Consideration 4 — Public Input Applicable to the Review There has been significant input on the proposal from neighbors and others who visit the area. Concerns are primarily focused on building height and mountain views, environmental impacts, and congestion and parking. It is important to note that these will be addressed by City departments and divisions during design review if the property is rezoned and the proposal to construct a hotel advances. Building Height and Views This concern is about blocking views of the mountains looking east and west. While allowing a building up to go feet tall is much different than the single -story restaurant that was on the site, Planning staff noted zoning currently allows buildings up to 40 feet tall which will block views to the east. The following image from the Planning Commission staff report shows the former Sizzler restaurant sign which is approximately 20 feet tall. A building twice this height would be allowed in the current zone. Former Sizzler restaurant sign is approximately 20 feet tall. Buildings up to 40 feet would be allowed under current zoning. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division As discussed above, MU-11 zoning on the west side of 13oo East allows buildings up to 150 feet tall. This image shows a view of existing buildings that are —50-6o feet tall. New construction west of the subject property would allow significantly taller buildings. Page 15 View to the west from Sugar House Park showing existing buildings on the west side of 130o East. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division Environmental Impacts The subject site is near Parley's Creek, and The Draw. It is within the Groundwater Protection Overlay with additional regulations beyond what are required in MU zones. Congestion and Parking As discussed above, the Transportation Division reviewed a traffic study submitted by that applicant that found the proposed hotel would likely have minimal impact except during afternoon drive time. To mitigate potential traffic backups, it was suggested traffic exiting the hotel be routed to the 2100 South access point during these times. Some residents expressed concern that Sugar House Park would be used for parking and access to the hotel. Vehicle access from the park is not being proposed and would not be allowed by the City. Vehicles traveling to the hotel would enter and exit from 13oo East and 2100 South. As noted above, a pedestrian path between the hotel site and park is being proposed, but that would require approval from the Sugar House Park Authority. ZONING COMPARISON The tables below compare zoning and design standards for both the current and proposed zones. They are also found on pages 61-62 of the Planning Commission staff report. CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING STANDARDS FOR STOREFRONT BUILDING TYPES Building Height 35 feet 75 feet (up to 40 feet with design review). (up to go feet with design review). Lot Width 110 feet maximum No minimum or maximum Page 16 Front/Corner Side Yard Setback Interior Side Yard Setback Rear Setback Parking Context Open Space Sidewalk Width Ground Floor Use Durable Building Materials: ground floor Building Materials: upper floors Glass: ground floor Glass: upper floors Reflective Glass Building Entrances 5 feet No minimum No minimum Neighborhood Context to%, 20% of which shall include vegetation 8 feet No minimum Maximum io feet No minimum No minimum Varies, the parking context will be determined by the property's distance to Trax and FrontRunner to%, 20% of which shall include vegetation io feet CURRENT AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS Blank Wall Maximum Length Street Facing Facade Maximum Length Upper Floor Step Back — Upper -Level Front Lighting: Exterior Lighting: Parking lot Screening of Mechanical Equipment 75%, enhanced active ground floor use required on 2100 South At least 70% of street -facing facades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street -facing fagades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). 40% 15% o% 75% At least 70% of street -facing facades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). At least 70% of street -facing fagades must be clad in durable materials (excluding doors and windows). 40% 15% 0% - Spaces between entries cannot exceed 40 feet. 15 feet 30 feet no feet 200 feet X X X X X X X Screening of Service X X Areas Parking Garages or X X Structures Public Improvements I X X Analysis of Standards Attachment E (pages 68-74) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map and general plan amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Zoning Map Amendment Factors Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent Generally complies with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Generally complies specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Complies affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent Coordination with with the purposes and provisions of any applicable and approvals from overlay zoning districts which ...Qy hitpose additional City/County/State standards. will ensure compliance The potential impacts on the City to provide safe Some utility and drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the drainage systems property and other properties based on the may need upgrades to additional development potential of future be funded by development including any impact that may result in developers. Drainage em,mt'ltir, existing or planned capacities that may be study will be required located further away from the subject property. to preserve water quality. The status of existing transportation facilities, any Will require meeting planned changes to the transportation facilities, and conditions from the impact that the proposed amendment may have Engineering and on the city' s ability, need, and timing of future Transportation transportation ...1j.vVC...c..ts. divisions. Page 18 The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, Complies open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. The potential impacts to public safety resources Complies created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The potential for displacement of people who reside N/A (no existing in any housing that is within the boundary of the housing on property) proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The potential for displacement of any business that is N/A (no existing located within the boundary of the proposed businesses on amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to property) mitigate displacement. The community benefits that would result from the Complies (community proposed map amendment. benefits discussed above) General Plan Amendment Factors Factor qW VV Finding Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide Complies policies. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, Complies policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans.. Whether significant change has occurred that Salt Lake City warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to experienced an adopted plan. significant growth since the Sugar House Plan was adopted in 2001. The future land use map is proposed to be amended but the proposal reflects current Sugar House development. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation Many goals, policies, actions of the plan to be amended have been and implementation achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of actions of the Sugar Page 19 addressing the current issues or needs of the House plan have been neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned achieved. Expansion with policies in citywide plans. of the business district to the site adheres to initiatives in Plan Salt Lake. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the Planning staff extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the believes the proposed public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the public benefits are increase in development potential if the proposal proportional to the were to be adopted by the City Council. request. The potential for displacement of people who reside N/A in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The potential for displacement of any business that is N/A located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate Planning found the vicinity of the proposal. proposed zoning maintains an appropriate transition and does not encroach upon single-family neighborhoods to the north. Additional potential height will not impact the park more than current zoning. The potential impacts on the City to provide safe Some utility and drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the drainage systems property and other properties based on the may need upgrades to additional development potential of future be funded by development including any impact that may result in developers. Drainage exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be study will be required located further away from the subject property. to preserve water quality. The potential impacts to public safety resources Complies created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Page I io The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY .Public infrastructure and stormwater management will be required under current or proposed zoning. Development impact would generally be comparable, regardless of zoning. • June 19, 2025 — Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by Planning Division. • June 24, 2025 — Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. • July 10, 2025 — Early engagement signs describing the proposal were posted on the property and in Sugar House Park. • July 11, 2025 — Information about the proposal sent to the Sugar House Community Council. 45- day comment period began. • July 14, 2025 — Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. • July 15, 2025 — Online open house began. • August 18, 2025 — Applicant presented to the Sugar House Community Council. • September 11, 2025 — Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter opposing the proposed amendments. • October 1, 2025 — Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on the property. • October 10, 2025 — Planning staff posted notices on City and State websites and sent notices via the Planning listsery for the October 22, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Public hearing notice mailed. • October 22, 2025 — The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the request and voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation, with conditions, to the City Council. • November 12, 2025 — Ordinance requested from City Attorney's Office. • December 16, 2025 — Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney's Office. • December 24, 2025 — Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page I ii To: Salt Lake City Council Chair From: Department* Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Roman, Amanda Department Director Signature T y f f mock Director Signed Date 12/23/2025 Submission Date: 12/17/2025 Date Sent to Council: 12/24/2025 E-mail amanda.roman@slc.gov Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 12/24/2025 Subject: Sugar House Hotel Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments - 2111 S 1300 E Additional Staff Contact: Presenters/Staff Table Kelsey Lindquist, kelsey.lindquist@slc.gov Amanda Roman, amanda.roman@slc.gov Document Type Budget Impact? Ordinance Yes No Recommendation: Recommendation to adopt both the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item? Yes No Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL 1 ` ! DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor � 4r and NEIGHBORHOODS .T Tammy Hunsaker Director clTy CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner, is requesting amendments that would facilitate the redevelopment of the property located at 2111 S 1300 E. The subject property is approximately .80 acres in size and abuts the northwest corner of Sugar House Park. The property has historically been privately owned and is not a part of the Sugar House Park property. The site has been vacant since the former Sizzler restaurant was demolished in 2024. The applicant is seeking a zoning map amendment from MU-3 (Mixed -Use 3) to MU-8 (Mixed -Use 8) and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan to support the proposed rezone. The Planning Commission forwarded a 7:1 positive recommendation for both the General Plan Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment. The reasons for the recommendation are discussed later in this document. Proposed General Plan Amendment To support the change in zoning, the applicant seeks to the amend the Sugar House Master Plan's future land use map from Mixed Use -Low Intensity (MULI) to Business District Mixed -Use - Town Center Scale. The amendment to the future land use map would expand the boundary of the Sugar House Business District to the east side of 1300 East. The subject property is the only privately - owned land on the east side, so the business district would not be able to extend further in the future. The policies that that relate to high -intensity mixed -use areas identify that'the intent is to support more walkable community development patterns located SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.623o FAX 801.535.6005 near transit lines and stops.' The most intense development in this community should be located within the Town Center Scale subdistrict. The current MULI designation supports small-scale, walkable mixed -use development with one - to two-story buildings, while the proposed Town Center Scale designation allows greater height and intensity consistent with a transit -oriented, pedestrian -friendly corridor. The Sugar House Plan (p.15) specifically supports expanding the Business District along 2100 South to 1300 East and south to 1-80 to encourage cohesive, higher -density, mixed -use growth. In part, the plan states, "It is also appropriate to extend the zone southward to Interstate 80 as this area is considered to be part of the Business District. Therefore, the Sugar House Business District zone should be expanded to 1300 East to the east and 900 East on the west along both sides of 2100 South, and to Interstate 80 to the south between 1100 East and 1300 East." Similar rezonings to MU-6 or MU-8, on land designated on the future land use map as low -intensity (MULI), have already occurred nearby (see map on page 8 of the PC staff report), so this proposal would align with recent zoning and development patterns rather than set a new precedent. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment The proposal seeks to rezone the property from MU-3 to MU-8, both recently adopted under the City's zoning consolidation project that went into effect on October 8, 2025. The property was previously zoned CB (Community Business) since 1995 and has been commercially zoned since at least 1941. The site's current MU-3 zoning supports smaller -scale, neighborhood -oriented commercial and residential uses, allowing buildings up to 40 feet tall, but prohibits hotels. In contrast, MU-8 is intended for denser, transit -oriented areas with greater commercial activity and permits buildings up to 90 feet in height, subject to design review for anything above 75 feet. Both zones emphasize walkability and mixed -use design, but MU-8 allows higher intensity development. Community Benefit Proposal & Development Agreement As required by code for amendments initiated by a private -property owner, the applicant submitted a preliminary community benefit proposal for Planning Commission review, which will be formalized in a Development Agreement if the amendments are adopted. Planning staff is recommending any new development at this location be required to have "enhanced active ground floor uses". Enhanced active ground floor uses are defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2 as, "retail, restaurants, bars, art studios, civic spaces (theaters, museums, etc.), and other uses determined to be substantially similar by the Planning Director and/or Planning Commission". The condition retains what is already required at this specific location under the MU-3 zoning, reflecting the new development regulations within Sugar House and along 2100 South. The regulation would be applicable to any new development on the site. The proposed Development Agreement includes the following elements: 1. Community Benefits, as approved by the City Council and detailed below. 2. Gateway Signage: Installation of Sugar House signage along 1300 East, which will not count toward the maximum signage allowances outlined in Chapter 21 A.46 (Signs). See PC staff report for details. 3. Enhanced Active Ground Floor Uses: A requirement that new development must provide a minimum of 75% "enhanced active ground floor uses," as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2 (Desi,2n Standards). Planning staff reviewed the proposal and believes the proposed benefits meet the new policy requirements. The City Council has full discretion to determine whether these benefits fairly offset the increased development potential granted by the rezone. 1. Below -Market Retail Space for Local Businesses • Proposal: One of two ground -floor retail units (approx. 4,300 SF total) leased to a local business at 25% below market rate. 2. Interest -Free Tenant Improvement Financing Proposal: Developer (Magnus Commercial Properties) will finance 100% of tenant improvement and build -out costs up to $100/SF (max $430,000) at 0% interest. 3. Free Community Meeting Space Proposal: 2,000 SF second -floor meeting room available 12 times per year to community or nonprofit groups. 4. New GREENbike Station in Sugar House Park Proposal: Applicant will fund and maintain a new GREENbike station in partnership with GREENbike and the Sugar House Park Authority. 5. Public Access to Underground Parking Proposal: 180-stall underground parking garage will be publicly accessible (paid parking). Planning Commission Discussion The proposed amendment to the Sugar House Community Master Plan's future land use map and the proposed zoning map amendment was supported by the Commission. The Commission voted 7:1 to recommend approval of both amendments based on the following discussion: • Standards of approval have generally been met, and the City Council can decide if the proposed public benefits are appropriate. • The development potential is compatible with the surrounding community, specifically properties directly west, where the maximum building height is 150 feet. • The hotel use is appropriate for this location. The use may maximize benefits and public amenities (retail, meeting space, recreational offerings) on the site that wouldn't be possible under the existing zoning district. • Salt Lake City is a growing city and while the amendments would expand the Sugar House Business District, it is not expected to "creep" or expand to the north, south or east because the subject property is isolated and unique in nature. • Beneficial to have similar zoning districts located on street corners. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project: Early notification notices mailed out July 14, 2025 o Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within -300 feet of the proposal. • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period (emailed on July 11, 2025) notice to the Sugar House Community Council. The Council Chair submitted a letter of opposition on September 11, 2025, which is included in the PC staff report. o The Sugar House Community Council held a public meeting at Highland High School on August 18, 2025. The applicant, residents, and city staff attended the meeting. • An online open house was posted to the Planning Division's webpage on July 15, 2025 and remains open. The open house webpage was updated on July 31, 2025 with information on the applicant's updated MU-8 proposal. The project was originally scheduled for the October 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Due to an error on the public notice, the project was rescheduled for the October 22, 2025 meeting. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • Public hearing notice mailed on October 10, 2025 • Public hearing notice posted on October 1, 2025 • Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on October 10, 2025 Planning Commission (PC) Records: 1) PC Agenda of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access) 2) PC Minutes of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access) 3) Planninz Commission Staff Report of October 22, 2025 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Original Petition 5) Public Comments 6) Mailing List 7) Hales Engineering Traffic Study This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 202 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2111 South 1300 East from MU-3 Mixed -Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed -Use 8 District and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2111 South 1300 East ("Property") from MU-3 Mixed -Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed -Use 8 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00624; and amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use -Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use — Town Center Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on October 22, 2025, on an application submitted by John Potter to rezone the Property from MU-3 Mixed -Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed -Use 8 District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00624 and to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Mixed Use -Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use — Town Center Scale pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622. WHEREAS, at its October 22, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") on said applications. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from MU-3 Mixed -Use 3 District to MU-8 Mixed -Use 8 District. SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property from Mixed Use -Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use — Town Center Scale. SECTION 3. Conditions. This ordinance is conditioned upon the following: 1) The owner of the Property shall enter into a development agreement to be recorded against the Property with the following provisions: a. Any new development on the Property must provide a minimum of 75% "enhanced active ground floor uses" as defined in Section 21A.37.050.A.2; b. Installation of Sugar House gateway signage at the Property along 1300 East will not count toward the maximum signage allowances in Chapter 21A.46; c. Lease one unit of ground floor retail (approximately 4,300 square feet) to a local business at 25% below market rental rates; d. Provide interest -free tenant improvement financing: specifically, finance 100% of the construction costs, tenant improvement budget, and business property investments at 0% interest, with a cap of $100 per square foot, up to $430,000; e. Provide a second -floor meeting room (approximately 2,000 square feet) free of charge to nonprofits and community organizations a minimum of 12 times per year; and f. Provide general public access to an underground parking structure. OA 2) The owner of the Property shall enter into an agreement with the Sugar House Park Authority and GREENbike to pay for the installation and maintenance of a new GREENbike station within Sugar House Park. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 3 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 3 above have not been met within one year after adoption, then this ordinance shall become null and void. Prior to such one year period, the City Council may, for good cause shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 202 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 91 J CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 202. Published: 2111 South 1300 East to MU-8 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date.December 15, 2025 By Katherine D. Pasker, enior City Attorney EXHIBIT "A" Address: 2111 S 1300 E Tax ID: 16-20-230-007-0000 Legal Description A PART OF BLOCK 46, 10-ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET, SAID POINT BEING 66.00 FEET EAST AND 264.00 FEET SOUTH AND 45.05 FEET NORTH 84015'00" EAST FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF SAID BLOCK 46; RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°00'10" WEST 235.41 FEET ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 2100 SOUTH STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: (1) NORTH 89°52'10" EAST 33.31 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; (2) EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 766.20 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT A DISTANCE OF 51.16 FEET (CENTRAL ANGLE EQUALS 3°49'33" AND LONG CHORD BEARS NORTH 87057'24" EAST 51.15 FEET) TO A POINT OF NON -TANGENCY; (3) NORTH 00001'10"EAST 2.84 FEET; AND (4) SOUTH 89°58'50' EAST 66.58 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST SECTION LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 0014'54" WEST 225.07 FEET ALONG SAID SECTION LINE; THENCE SOUTH 84016' 10" WEST 150.80 FEET TO SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 1300 EAST STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 34,648 SQ. FT. OR 0.795 ACRES, MORE OR LESS This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor June 19, 2025 June 24, 2025 July 10, 2025 July 11, 2025 DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director Petition: PLNPCM2025-00622 & PLNPCM2025-00624 Petition for the zoning map and general plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Urban Designer. Early Engagement signs describing the proposal were posted every 500 feet along public street frontage by the applicant. Signage was also posted within Sugar House Park. Information about the proposal was sent to the Sugar House Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 14, 2025 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. July 15, 2025 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on July 15, 2025. The page remains open for review and comments. August 18, 2025 The applicant presented the proposal at the Sugar House Community Council public meeting. September 11, 2025 The Sugar House Community Council submitted a letter opposing the amendments. October 1, 2025 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on October 22, 2025 was physically posted on the property. October 10, 2025 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2025. Public hearing notice mailed. October 22, 2025 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 22, 2025. The Planning Commission voted 7:1 to forward positive recommendations, with 3 conditions, to the City Council. November 12, 2025 Ordinance requested from the Attorney's Office December 16, 2025 Ordinance received from the Attorney's Office 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 This page has intentionally been left blank PLANNING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION Thank you for your interest in submitting a General Plan Amendment application. The following packet will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start to finish. The package is broken down into three sections: Information about the application, a visual diagram of the application process, and the application form. We highly encourage you to work with our Planning staff prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre -submittal meeting please contact us at zoning(@s►cgov.com or give us a call at 901.535.7757. 1 2 3 Important Process Information PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 Process Timeline Application Form SLC.GOVPLANNING ZONINGaSLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7757 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 1 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION Title 19 PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS The general plan of the city includes any citywide plan, community plan, small area plan, corridor plan, or other plan that fits the requirements and definitions of a general plan under Utah Code 10-9a. Utah State Law requires every municipality to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for: 10 a. present and future needs of the municipality, and b. growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. EFFECT OF ADOPTED GENERAL PLANS (19.07-060) All general plans recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council for the City, or for an area of the City, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the zoning text or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. CONSIDERATION FACTORS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS In reviewing a proposal to modify the general plan, the planning commission and city council should consider, but are not limited to, the following factors: 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. 3. Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. 4. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of — the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the ®—_ proposal were to be adopted by the city council. 6. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 7. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 8. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. 9. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. 10. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. 11. The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that maybe impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 2 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION ORDINANCE Title 1 COMMUNITY BENEFIT (19.06.070.C) Every general plan amendment application must include a proposed community benefit and should demonstrate that the benefit would not otherwise be available without the proposed amendment. The proposed community benefit should be proportional to the increase in development potential should the amendment be adopted. The following are community benefits that could be proposed: • Housing: Provision of affordable or family -sized housing. • Dedication of Publicly Accessible Open Space: Dedication of open spaces o accessible to the public. • Preservation of Critical Lands: Conservation or restoration of critical lands such as wetlands, river corridors, or wildlife habitats. ® Historic Building Preservation: Safeguarding historic structures not already protected against demolition. • Support for Local Businesses: Inclusion of space for small businesses or charitable organizations within a development. • Expansion of Public Infrastructure: Enhancement of public infrastructure beyond what's necessary for future development. Any community benefit that is required as a condition of approval of the amendment(s) would be secured through a Development Agreement. TENANT DISPLACEMENT OBLIGATIONS (19.06.070.D) If a proposal is expected to involve the demolition of any residential unit, the City Council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance to the current tenant(s). It is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner to ensure compliance with this requirement and provide proof that the obligation has been satisfied. The applicant can submit the evidence along with their application, or it may be required as a condition for approval determined by the City Council. All payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. Relocation assistance includes the following: • Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum of $1,500. • Application fees for the replacement housing. • The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. • Rental assistance payment based on the difference, if any, between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished housing and a comparable unit. The rental payment total amount paid shall not be more than $7,200. DISCLAIMER: IF A HOUSING UNIT IS DEMOLISHED OR NEGLECTED TO THE POINT OF BEING UNINHABITABLE AT ANYTIME DURING THE FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO A PETITION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT BEING SUBMITTED OR IS PLACED ON THE CITY'S BOARDED BUILDING INVENTORY, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE THIS SECTION TO APPLYTO TENANTS THAT WERE DISPLACED BY THE DEMOLITION OR REQUIRE THE TENANT RELOCATION AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OTHER TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 3 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION Title 1 DEMOLISHED UNIT REPLACEMENT (19.06.070.E) The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit should have the same number of bedrooms as the demolished unit. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed below: 401 a. The replacement unit shall be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. b. The applicant may propose a payment to the city in lieu of the rental restriction on the new unit to go toward the city's housing fund to offset the loss of affordable housing. The payment shall be equal to the monthly rent of the unit prior to demolition multiplied by the number of months between the time the unit is vacated prior to demolition until a Certificate of Occupancy for the replacement dwelling is issued. CONSULTATION If you have questions regarding the General Plan Amendment regulations or process, please contact the Salt Lake City Planning Counter staff at zoningPslcgov.com or give us a call at 801-535-7757. If you would like to discuss your development plan in more detail, you can 4D request a pre -submittal meeting with Planning staff by contacting the Planning Counter. Pre -submittal meetings are held on Thursdays in 30 minute slots between 1:30 and 3:30 pm. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 4 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 PROCESS TIMELINE APPLICANT STAFF a=� - 4 APPLICATION RECEIVED Application submitted and pre-screened to ensure submittal requirements are met and fees are paid. APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS Modifications based on public input & City Department review comments (if needed, applicant must submit updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval. Note: Significant issues may cause additional delays. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Open House and/or Community Council presentation held. Note: The Planning Director has the discretion to extend the public engagement period, including additional public hearings on complex proposals. 0 CITY COUNCIL PROCESS City Council holds a briefing with staff during work session, Public hearing and action follows. Timeline determined by City Council office. www.slc.gov/council Q 6 - 12 MONTHS Q 14 days PLANNER ASSIGNED Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete documentation (if incomplete, the applicant will be provided a list of missing info to submit). Q 45 days :'J PUBLIC NOTICE Public notices sent to nearby neighbors, property owners and Community Councils (when required by ordinance). Application routed to City Departments for review. 01 21 days PLANNING COMMISSION Public hearing scheduled, notices sent, staff report produced, and commission recommendation made. 21 days TRANSMITTAL TO COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Commission minutes approval and public record are assembled by staff. After review, the package is transmitted to City Council. DISCLAIMER: APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONSULTATION Available prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding the requirements, email us at zoning@slcvov.com. IMPORTANT INFORMATION SUBMISSION Submit your application online through the Citizen Access Portal. Learn how to submit online by following the step-by-step guide. REQUIRED FEES • $1,183 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (in excess of 1 acre). ® Additional required notice fees will be assessed after submission. APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL) Sugar House Hotel ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 2111 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84106 REQUEST Amend General Plan from Mixed Use Low Intensity to Business District Mixed Use - Town Center Scale NAME OF APPLICANT PHONE John Potter MAILING ADDRESS EMAIL APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY (' owner's consent required) IF OTHER, PLEASE UST i a Owner 'f 7 Architect* F. Contractor* F✓! Other Ground lease tenant of the subject property NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (if differentfrom applicant) PHONE Romney Farr Properties, Inc. - Paula Farr MAILING ADDRESS EMAIL CASE NUMBER OFFICE USE RECEIVED BY TYPE OF AMENDMENT General Plan Text Land Use Map DATE RECEIVED DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAYBE REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT PLANNER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS. ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS WILL BE COPIED AND MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC REVIEW BY ANY INTERESTED PARTY. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 6 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 1. This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. 2. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. 3. 1 understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 4. 1 understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. NAME OF APPLICANT EMAIL John Potter MAILING ADDRESS PHONE APPLICATION TYPE SIAGNATUR DATE Amend General Plan to Business District Mixed Use -Town Ctr. PROPERTYLEGAL OWNER CONSENT If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Properties with a single fee title owner may show consent by filling out the information below or by providing an affidavit. Affirmation of sufficient interest: I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY See Attached NAME OF OWNER Romney Farr Properties, Inc. - Paula Farr MAILING ADDRESS EMAIL SIGNATURE DATE (,P—l P-Z5 1. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 2. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach copy of agreement authorizing action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owner's Association is the applicant then the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. DISCLAIMER: BE ADVISED THAT KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE, WRITTEN STATEMENT TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS A CRIME UNDER UTAH CODE CHAPTER 76-8, PART 5. SALT LAKE CITY WILL REFER FOR PROSECUTION ANY KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANTS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 7 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 Please provide the following information with your application. Confirm that you have included each of the requirements listed below by adding a check mark for each item. CHECK STAFF REQUIREMENTS O A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. O A written description of the proposed modification to the general plan, including any changes to the future land use map, future land use designation, or description of scale and density/ intensity of the proposed change. Any proposed amendment to the text of the plan shall include the exact proposed text & changes that are proposed in a strike and underline format. 0 If the request is specific to a property, please list the parcel numbers and a map that shows the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, the anticipated impact to existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal, and any additional land use petitions that may be anticipated to develop the site. Visual renderings and basic site plans may be provided by the applicant. COMMUNITY BENEFIT (19.06.070.C) A written description regarding the proposed community benefit(s) associated with the amendment. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development right if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. See 19.06.070.0 for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. DATA COLLECTION (19.06.040) DISCLAIMER: FILL OUT THE REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION BELOW BY USING THIS LliylS. DO NOT UPLOAD THIS INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENS ACCESS PORTAL. httos://bit.1- slcolannine-datacollection Q For residential properties, the following information must be provided: • The current or prior number of dwellings; • Square footage and number of bedrooms for each dwelling unit; • The current cost of rent and the cost of rent for the previous 36 months; • The total number of people residing on the property. For nonresidential properties, the following information must be provided: • Details on the nature of the existing and prior use; • Square, footage of the leasable area; • Detailed list of current or prior occupants; • The current cost to lease and the cost to lease for the previous 36 months. INCOMPLETE• • NOT INITIALS DISCLAIMER: I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED, I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 8 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 Sugar House Hotel General Plan Amendment Request Per SLC code: 21A.50.050 The Sugar House Hotel project located at 2111 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City (A.P.N.: 16-20-230- 001 & 16-20-230-003) requests a General Plan Amendment change to the General Plan for the subject property from Mixed Use —Low Intensity (MULI) to Business District Mixed Use —Town Center Scale (BDMU-TC). Our proposed project which we plan to develop pursuant to BDMU-TC is consistent with and Master Plan across the street on the west side of 1300 East and is the only private, developable parcel on the east side of 1300 East between 2100 South and 1-80 to the south. The developers of the Sugar House Hotel understand that there is pending zoning changes which, if adopted, will affect available zoning for the subject property. The proposed development is intended to be compatible with the goals of the contemplated MU11 zoning, conforming to the requirements for height, setback, sidewalk, landscaping, parking, etc. Sugar House Hotel responses and comments for each point are listed in Blue following each item. A. CONSIDERATION FACTORS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS In reviewing a proposal to modify the general plan, the planning commission and city council should consider, but are not limited to, the following factors: 1. Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies. Yes, we believe the project is consistent with citywide policies as Items 2 -11 address. 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the general plan, including applicable element plans. Sugar House Hotel is a " pedestrian first", "vibrant character", "mixed -use" (Sugar House Master Plan [hereinafter "SHMP" ), pg. 1 scope and goals) project is complimentary to the Business District — Mixed Use designation on the west side of 1300 East. The project will include streetside amenities to a walkable community from the front door of the park to the surrounding uses. 3. Whether significant change has occurred that warrants the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted plan. Our project changes the use of the subject property brings increased and various amenities in close proximity to the Sugar House Park by changingthe prior use of a sit-down restaurant to an upscale hotel with a restaurant, event venue and retail space which are not only desirable for the Sugar House community, but is perfectly aligned with both the Master Plan designation of BDMU-TC applied on the west side of 1300 East and the pending MU-11 zoning which will be replace the SHBD1 zoning currently existing on the west side of 1300 East. 4. Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no longer aligned with policies in citywide plans. The proposed amendment will implement and extend the updated BDMU-TC designation to the east side of 1300 East and be complimentaryto the same master plan designation on the west side of 1300 East providing an attractive bridge from the BDMU-TC to the Sugar House Park. 5. For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent, effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit proposed by the petitioner to the increase in development potential if the proposal were to be adopted by the city council. The mixed -use hotel and retail building will "promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed -use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population" (SHMP, pg 4). Our hotel use is the 24-hour east anchor of the walkable community and a tie to the park. Additionally, our retail components are walkable and accessible to park users and the city's population. 6. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Not Applicable — Subject site is vacant with no structures. 7. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Not Applicable — Subject site is vacant with no structures. 8. The potential impacts to properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. The proposed project is designed to provide services for park visitors and will construct sidewalks providing easier access and landscaping which will be complimentary and tie together the park and the Sugar House Hotel amenities. 9. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on the additional development potential of future development. Initial DRT review indicates that city infrastructure can handle the loads. Water supply is Located in 2100 South and appears to have enough pressure to handle all site needs. Storm water and sewer are located in 1300 East and can connect from the southeast corner of the site. Other utilities including power and data needs also appear to be sufficient. 10. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. The project improves public safety with eyes on the park. The prominent position of the hotel relative to the park will provide increased monitoring by hotel employees of the west end of the park 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Employees will be present at all times. Security cameras will also be present. 11. The potential impacts to any other city service, infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment. Aside from the impacts discussed above, we are not aware of any adverse impacts. B. COMMUNITY BENEFITS Every general plan amendment application must include a proposed community benefit and should demonstrate that the benefit would not otherwise be available without the proposed amendment. The proposed community benefit should be proportional to the increase in development potential should the amendment be adopted. The following are community benefits that could be proposed: 1. Plan: Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable, attractive, harmonious, and pedestrian -oriented community. Proiect: Hotel works as a connection between Park and business district with a mixed use first floor including food, bike rental, and activities equipment rental. 2. Plan: Maintain, protect, and upgrade Sugar House as a residential community with a vital supporting commercial core. Proiect: Proposed project provides walkable retail spaces for residents and a hotel, whose guests will utilize the local community as they visit the neighborhood overnight. 3. Plan: Strengthen and support existing neighborhoods with appropriate adjacent land uses and design guidelines to preserve the character of the area. Project: The Hotel will match the feel of the MU11, but our location will allow us to be a gateway to the park from other MU11 areas. 4. Plan: Provide the needed infrastructure improvements through public, as well as public/private partnerships. Proiect: The hotel will work with existing infrastructure. Working with Sugar House Park, we hope to improve the open space surround our project as part of our park/city gateway and integration goals. 5. Plan: Encourage new development that substantially strengthens and unifies the Sugar House Business District focused at the Sugar House Plaza Monument at 2100 South and 1100 East. Project: The Hotel is a boutique project focused on a local experience, including enhancing use of the nearby Plaza Monument. 6. Plan: Improve all modes of mobility including street and trail networks, transit, pedestrian and bicycle movement opportunities, and off-street cooperative parking facilities. Project: All Hotel parking is underground, with a focus on walkability and bike trail connectivity. 7. Plan: Provide pedestrian -scale activities in the Sugar House Business District by providing open space corridors and useful streetscape amenities. Project: The Hotel Streetscape wilt connect to the park through upgraded hotel plaza and landscape connection 8. Plan: Direct a mixed -land use development pattern within the Sugar House Business District to include medium and high -density housing and necessary neighborhood amenities and facilities. These developments will be compatibly arranged, takingfull advantage of future transit stations, Sugar House Park, Fairmont Park, and the proximity to the retail core. Project: The Hotel is focused on a local experience with a strong symbiotic relationship to the Sugar House Park and the neighborhood. Our hotel use satisfies short term housing needs and frees up other housingfor longterm residents. 9. Plan: Encourage increased intensity, greater diversity of land use, and locally owned businesses in the Sugar House Business District. Project: The Hotel retail, especially the lobby experience and cafe will have a local focus and product focus. The design of the hotel will feature local relevant custom designs and will be operated locally. The area is underserved by hotels so the additional rooms will add to diversity of land use. 10. Plan: Support small locally owned neighborhood businesses to operate harmoniously within residential areas. Proiect: The Hotel is all about a local experience in its design, operations, and services to and within the community.. UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER AND SOLE DIRECTOR OF ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES, INC. June 16, 2025 Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 16-10a-704 and 16- I Oa-821 of the Utah Revised Business Corporation Act, as amended and supplemented (the "Act"), the undersigned, constituting the sole and all of the shareholders (the "Shareholder") and constituting the sole and all of the directors (the "Director") of ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES, INC., a Utah corporation (the "Corporation"), waiving any and all notice to which she may be entitled, does hereby take the following actions and adopt the following resolution: The Shareholder and Director hereby adopts the following resolution: Regarding the General Plan Amendment of John Potter, dated June 9, 2025: RESOLVED, that ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES, INC., agrees to and consents to the General Plan Amendment Application being filed by John Potter, to amend the current General Plan on the property located at 2111 So. 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106, from Mixed Use Low Density to Business District Mixed Use — Town Center Scale, as part of the Sugar House Hotel development by Sugar House Hotel, LLC. The undersigned expressly understand that this Unanimous Written Consent is in lieu of a special meeting of the Shareholders of the Corporation and has the same legal effect as the unanimous vote of the Shareholders of the Corporation at a duly called, convened, and held meeting of the same. The undersigned expressly understand that this Unanimous Written Consent is in lieu of a special meeting of the Directors of the Corporation and has the same legal effect as the unanimous vote of the Directors of the Corporation at a duly called, convened, and held meeting of the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Shareholder of the Corporation has signed this Unanimous Written Consent as of the ` day of June, 2025. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Director of the Corporation has executed this Unanimous Written Consent as of the day and year first above written. SHAREHOI,R: Paula Romney arr ' DIRECTOR: i�aula Romney F f PLANNING PROCESS ZONING AMENDMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION Thank you for your interest in submitting a Zoning Amendment application. The following packet will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start to finish. The package is broken down into three sections: Information about the application, a visual diagram of the application process, and the application form. We highly encourage you to work with our Planning staff prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre -submittal meeting please contact us at zonin slc og v.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757. � e 1 2 3 Important Process Information PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 Process Timeline Application Form 51 C•GQV/PLANNING ZONING(@SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535.7757 ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 1 PLANNING DIVISION V7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS An amendment may be initiated to modify the text of the Zoning Ordinance or to change the designations or boundaries of the Zoning Map. The amendment process is not intended to relieve particular hardships nor to confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to make adjustments necessary in light of changed conditions or changes in public policy. WHO CAN INITIATE AN AMENDMENT? Applications for amendments may be initiated by the Mayor, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Owner of the property included in the application, or the Property Owner's Authorized Agent. CONSIDERATION FACTORS FOR AMENDMENTS (z1A.50.05Q) A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. A. In making its decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and ®— 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional — practices of urban planning and design. 5. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. 6. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. 7. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, 21 A.50.050.C. B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed snap amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and S. The potential impacts on the City to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 2 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the cit (s ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access 4 these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. - 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development — potential that may result from the proposed amendment. 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 10.The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. 11.The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. COMMUNITY BENEFIT (21A.50.050.C) Every zoning text and zoning map amendment application must include a proposed community benefit and should demonstrate that the benefit would not otherwise be available without the proposed amendment. The proposed community benefit should be proportional to the increase in development potential should the amendment be adopted. The following are community benefits that could be proposed: • Housing: Provision of affordable or family -sized housing. • Dedication of Publicly Accessible Open Space: Dedication of open spaces accessible to the public. • Preservation of Critical Lands: Conservation or restoration of critical lands such as wetlands, river corridors, or wildlife habitats. • Historic Building Preservation: Safeguarding historic structures not already protected against demolition. • Support for Local Businesses: Inclusion of space for small businesses or charitable organizations within a development. • Expansion of Public Infrastructure: Enhancement of public infrastructure beyond whats necessary for future development. Any community benefit that is required as a condition of approval of the amendment(s) would be secured through a Development Agreement. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 3 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION TENANT DISPLACEMENT OBLIGATIONS (21A.50.050,DA If a proposal is expected to involve the demolition of any residential unit, the City Council may require the petitioner to provide relocation assistance to the current tenant(s). It is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner to ensure compliance with this requirement and provide proof that the obligation has been satisfied. The applicant can submit the evidence along with their application, or it may be required as a condition for approval determined by the City Council. All payments should be received by the tenant 24 hours in advance of leaving the unit to be demolished. 0 Relocation assistance includes the following: • Moving expenses based on a reasonable estimate provided by the tenant, up to a maximum • of $1,500. • Application fees for the replacement housing. • The deposit that the displaced tenant would have to pay to secure replacement housing. • Rental assistance payment based on the difference, if any, between the cost of the monthly rent of the demolished housing and a comparable unit. The rental payment total amount paid shall not be more than $7,200. DISCLAIMER: IF A HOUSING UNIT IS DEMOLISHED OR NEGLECTEDTO THE POINT OF BEING UNINHABITABLE AT ANYTIME DURING THE FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO A PETITION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT BEING SUBMITTED OR IS PLACED ON THE CITY'S BOARDED BUILDING INVENTORY, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE THIS SECTION TO APPLY TO TENANTS THAT WERE DISPLACED BY THE DEMOLITION OR REQUIRE THE TENANT RELOCATION AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OTHER TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, DEMOLISHED UNIT REPLACEMENT (21A.50.050.E) The future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. The replacement housing unit should have the same number of bedrooms as the demolished unit. In addition, the applicant shall propose one of the options listed below: a. The replacement unit shall be rented at the same amount as the demolished unit with no more than a 3% annual increase on the rental rate for a period of 20 years. b. The applicant may propose a payment to the city in lieu of the rental restriction on the new unit to go toward the citys housing fund to offset the loss of affordable housing. The payment shall be equal to the monthly rent of the unit prior to demolition multiplied by the number of months between the time the unit is vacated prior to demolition until a Certificate of Occupancy for the replacement dwelling is issued. CONSULTATION If you have questions regarding the Zoning Amendment regulations or process, please contact the Salt Lake City Planning Counter staff at zoning(@sicgoy.com or give us a call at 801-535-7757. If you would like to discuss your development plan in more detail, you can request a pre -submittal meeting with Planning staff by contacting the Planning Counter. Pre -submittal meetings are held on Thursdays in 30 minute slots between 1:30 and 3:30 pm. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 4 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 PROCESS TIMELINE APPLICANT i STAFF e •_ APPLICATION RECEIVED Application submitted and pre-screened to ensure submittal requirements are met and fees are paid. APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS Modifications based on public input & City Department review comments (if needed, applicant must submit updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval. Note: Significant issues may cause additional delays. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Open House and/or Community Council presentation held. Note: The Planning Director has the discretion to extents the public engagement period, including additional public hearings on complex proposals. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS City Council holds a briefing with staff during work session. Public hearing and action follows. Timeline determined by City Council office. www.slc.gov/council TIME FRAME Q 6 -12 MONTHS ego14 days PLANNER ASSIGNED Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete documentation (if incomplete, the applicant will be provided a list of missing info to submit). 45 days ecl PUBLIC NOTICE Public notices sent to nearby neighbors, property owners and Community Councils (when required by ordinance). Application routed to City Departments for review. s s o PLANNING COMMISSION Public hearing scheduled, notices sent, staff report produced, and commission recommendation made. 21 days TRANSMITTAL OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Commission minute approval and public record are assembled by staff. After review, the package is transmitted to City Council. .......................................................................................... DISCLAIMER: APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS. ZONING AMENDMENT CONSULTATION Available prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding the requirements, email us at Toning0slcgov.com. PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL) SUBMISSION REQUIRED FEES Submit your application online • Map Amd: $1,262 filing fee, plus through the Citizen Access Portal. $121 per acre (in excess of 1 ac). Learn how to submit online by • Text Amd: $1,262 filing fee. following the step-by-step guide. • Additional required notice fees assessed after submission. Sugar House Hotel ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 2111 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84106 REQUEST ,Zone Change to Mixed Use 11 (MU11) NAME OF APPLICANT John Potter MAILING ADDRESS 4700 South Highland Drive Suite B, Millcreek, UT 84117 APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY ('oumer'sconsent required) Owner Architect" Contractor" ✓ Other °" NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (if differentfrom applicant) Romney Farr Properties, Inc. - Paula Romney Farr MAILING ADDRESS 1052 Oak Hills Way, Salt Lake City 84108 CASE NUMBER RECEIVED BY PHONE 801-550-0849 EMAIL John@magnushm.com IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST Ground lease tenant of the subject property PHONE 801-809-4418 EMAIL pmfarr@gmail.com DATE RECEIVED DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT PLANNER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS. ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR STAFF ANALYSIS WILL BE COPIED AND MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, FORTHE PURPOSES OF PUBLIC REVIEW BYANY INTERESTED PARTY. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 6 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 1„ This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. 2. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. 3. 1 understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 4. 1 understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. NAME OF APPLICANT EMAIL John Potter john@magnushm.com MAILING ADDRESS PHONE 4700 South Highland Drive Suite B, Millcreek, UT 84117 801-550-0849 APPLICATION TYPE SIGNATURE DATE Zoning Amendment to MU11 NP, r PROPERTYLEGAL OWNER CONSENT If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Properties with a single fee title owner may show consent by filling out the information below or by providing an affidavit. Affirmation of sufficient interest: 1 hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY NAME OF OWNER EMAIL Romney Farr Properties, Inc. - Paula Romney Farr pmfarr@gmail.com MAILING ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE 1052 Oak Hills Way, Salt Lake City 84108IL'4tf 1':'L- 1. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 2. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach copy of agreement authorizing action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owner's Association is the applicant then the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. DISCLAIMER: BE ADVISED THAT KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE, WRITTEN STATEMENT TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS A CRIME UNDER UTAH CODE CHAPTER 76-8, PART 5. SALT LAKE CITY WILL REFER FOR PROSECUTION ANY KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANTS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 7 PLANNING DIVISION v7.1.24 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 'I Please provide the following information with your application. Confirm that you have included each of the requirements listed below by adding a check mark for each item. CHECK STAFF REQUIREMENTS 21A.50) Q A statement declaring the purpose and justification for the proposed amendment. O A written general description of any future development that is planned for the property including the anticipated use, density, scale of development, timing of development, the anticipated impact to existing land uses and occupants of the land subject to the proposal, and any additional land use petitions that may be anticipated to develop the site. Visual renderings and basic site plans may be provided by the applicant. O Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed and a map that shows the current use of the subject property and adjacent properties. O Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Text that is proposed to be added shall be underlined and text that is proposed to be deleted shall be shown with a strikethrough line. COMMUNITY BENEFIT (2.1A.50.050.C) ® A written description regarding the proposed community benefit(s) associated with the amendment. The description shall adequately describe the necessary details to demonstrate that the proposed community benefit is roughly proportionate to the potential increase in development right if the proposed amendment were to be adopted. See 21A.50.050.0 for a list of community benefits that can be proposed. DATA COLLECTION (21A.50.040.A) DISCLAIMER: FILL OUT THE REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION BELOW BY USING THIS LINK, DO NOT UPLOAD THIS INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENS ACCESS PORTAL. hht ps:Hbitbit.Wlcol/slcolannine-datacollection QQ For residential properties, the following information must be provided: • The current or prior number of dwellings; • Square footage and number of bedrooms for each dwelling unit; • The current cost of rent and the cost of rent for the previous 36 months; • The total number of people residing on the property. For nonresidential properties, the following information must be provided: • Details on the nature of the existing and prior use; • Square footage of the leasable area; • Detailed list of current or prior occupants; • The current cost to lease and the cost to lease for the previous 36 months. INCOMPLETE• • NOT INITIALS DISCLAIMER: I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SALT LAKE CITY REQUIRES THE ITEMS ABOVE TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE MY APPLICATION CAN BE PROCESSED, I UNDERSTAND THAT PLANNING WILL NOT ACCEPT MY APPLICATION UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS 8 PLANNING DIVISION V7.1.24 Sugar House Hotel Zoning Amendment Request Per SLC code: 21A.50.050 The Sugar House Hotel project located at 2111 South 1300 East Salt Lake City (A.P.N.: 16- 20-230-001 & 16-20-230-003) requests a Zoning change to Mixed Use 11(MU11), given the adoption of MU11 seems imminent. Our proposed project which we plan to develop pursuant to MU11 is consistent with and complimentary to the MU11 zoning across the street on the west side of 1300 East. Furthermore, we plan to utilize the Design Review process working with the planning department and planning commission. We are hopeful that the combination of our requested zoning and the Design Review process will approve a non -high-rise 7 story above ground building only up to a height of 95 feet. The zero setback, sidewalk sizes, and tree landscaping requirements for MU11 will be met. However, we hereby request a waiver of the step back requirements up to the 95' height. Additionally, given our unique location, our project will serve as the unofficial entrance to the Sugar House neighborhood, with its proximity to 1300 East and 1-80 and as a bridge between the city and the park. As such, we also request that through the Design Review process our project be granted a variance to standard city/zoning signage that recognizes that entrance and gateway element of our project. Our development of the Sugar House Hotel anticipates the pending MU11 zoning changes will be adopted. Accordingly, we are requesting the MU11 zoning applyto this property. The terms of the proposed Design Review standards are planned to bring compatibility with the goals of the contemplated MU11 zoning, should they occur similar to the drafted version, to closely match those future zoning requirements for height and setback and. See the standard for general amendments listed below. Sugar House Hotel responses and comments for each point are listed in Slue following each item. 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: A. Decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by anyone standard. Items 1 through 7 for planning commission consideration are noted. B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the city council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Sugar House Hotel is a " pedestrian first", "vibrant character", "mixed -use" (Sugar House Master Plan [hereinafter "SHMP"], pg .1 scope and goals) project and is complimentary to the CSHBD1 zone on the west side of 1300 East. It will meet the MU11 requirements for setback, sidewalk, and landscape requirements. The project will include the 10' sidewalks, trees on the street, and mixed -use streetside amenities to a walkable community from the front door of the park to the surrounding uses. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The mixed -use hotel and retail building will "promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed -use town center that can support a twenty-four (24) hour population" (SHMP, pg 4). Our hotel use is the 24-hour east anchor of the walkable community and a tie to the park. Additionally, our retail components are walkable and accessible to park users and the city's population. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent and nearby properties due to the change in development potential and allowed uses that do not currently apply to the property; The change in zoning allows this project to form a symbiotic relationship with Sugar House Park. It brings retail and restaurant amenities that park patrons are encouraged to use, as well as hotel patrons enjoying the park. Our project, at 7 stories above ground, is of similar height to buildings west of the site. The project includes improvement in access to the park with new sidewalks and plantings. The Sugar House Hotel project is working with the Park Authority to make these improvements. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and The proposed amendment will implement MU11 on the east side of 1300 East and be complimentary to the MU11 zoning on the west side of 1300 East. There are no overlay districts for this property. 5. The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking water, storm water, and sewer to the property and other properties based on the additional development potential of future development including any impact that may result in exceeding existing or planned capacities that may be located further away from the subject property. Initial DIRT review indicates that city infrastructure can handle the Loads. Water supply is Located in 2100 South and appears to have enough pressure to handle all site needs. Storm water and sewer are located in 1300 East and can connect from the southeast corner of the site. Other utilities including power and data needs also appear to be sufficient. 6. The status of existing transportation facilities, any planned changes to the transportation facilities, and the impact that the proposed amendment may have on the city's ability, need, and timing of future transportation improvements. "The community envisions an experience where a pedestrian can walk from Sugar House Park to Fairmont Park, utilizing paths and sidewalks to shop, recreate, or just relax" (SHMP, pg 4). The Sugar House Hotel is the anchor to this vision. It provides its own parking directly adjacent to the park with amenities and improvements consistent with the MU11 requirements, especialtywalkable streetscapes. Our traffic study shows that our proposed project has a minimum impact on existing traffic through the adjacent intersection. The project will reduce the number of curb cuts from 3 to 2, and the remaining curb cuts are placed as far as possible from the traffic signal, further than the existing curb cuts. Additionally, through our bike rental program area from our lobby, we can actively encourage bike from the hotel to the park or nearby destinations, farther reducing use of cars and street infrastructure from our guests and park users. 7. The proximity of necessary amenities such as parks, open space, schools, fresh food, entertainment, cultural facilities, and the ability of current and future residents to access these amenities without having to rely on a personal vehicle. The project is symbiotic with Sugar House Park. It is anticipated that hotel patrons will use the park facilities and park patrons will use the hotel facilities. This includes use of the restaurant, rented banquet hall, lobby cafe, outdoor activities rental equipment, bicycle rental, and third -party retail shops/dining. All of these different uses are very walkable from each other and our project. 8. The potential impacts to public safety resources created by the increase in development potential that may result from the proposed amendment The project improves public safetywith eyes on the park. The prominent position of the hotel relative to the park will provide increased monitoring by hotel employees of the west end of the park 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Employees will be present at all times. Security cameras will also be present. 9. The potential for displacement of people who reside in any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Site is currently empty. 10. The potential for displacement of any business that is located within the boundary of the proposed amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate displacement. Site is currently empty. 11. The community benefits that would result from the proposed map amendment, as identified in Section 21A.50.050.C. See C.1, C.2, and C.3 below C. Community Benefit. Each petition for a zoning amendment that is initiated by a private property owner shall identify a community benefit(s) provided by the proposal that would not otherwise be provided without the amendment as provided for in this section. 1. The proposed community benefit(s) shall be within any of the following categories: a. Providing housing that aligns with the current or future needs of the community as determined by the general plan. Needs could include the level of affordability in excess of the number of dwellings that exist on the site, size in terms of number of bedrooms, or availability of housing for purchase; This hotel project supplies the transient need for short-term housing in this 24 hour mixed -use zone. It competes with and outperforms the short-term housing rental that can overpower nearby neighborhoods when homes are used for short term rentals instead. b. Providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations; • The proposed development provides commercial/retail space for local businesses on the ground floor, facing both the street/sidewalk and Sugar House Park. The active commercial/retail space occupies approximately 30% of the space on the ground floor while the remainder is for hotel functions. The hotel -operated Cafe space will be local -product focused as we expect guests staying at the hotel to be looking for a local experience. c. Providing a dedication of public open space; • While no new open space is provided on the site of the parcel, the proposed development is working with the Sugar House Park Authority to enhance the relationship between the site and the park. Landscaping improvements and access between the site and the park are integrated into the project design. We also hope to be able to feature local artists in key part of our site, including the circle near the drop off between the hotel and the park. d. Providing a dedication or other legal form of protection from future development of land that is adjacent to a river, creek, wetland, floodplain, wildlife habitat, or natural lands; • The project team is aware of the adjacent earthen dam and the important role it plays in flood control. The necessary easements for accessing the earthen dam are provided on the south side of the site. • The design mitigates impact between the hotel and the adjacent properties and uses with a concrete wall that will be constructed below grade for the underground parking. e. Preserving historic structures not otherwise protected; No historical features on site. f. Expanding public infrastructure that expands capacity for future development. • As part of the building and site design, updates and improvements will be made to the sidewalk and streetscape, with 10-foot-wide sidewalks and appropriately spaced street trees. The wider sidewalks will support better pedestrian flow. • No upgrades to utilities are anticipated or required as part of the project. 2. The proposed community benefit may be evaluated based on the following, if applicable: a. For proposals that are intended to increase the housing supply, the level of affordability of the additional density that may be allowed if the proposal were to be adopted; Hotel provides transient housing needs allowing for greater restriction on short-term rental housing. b. The percentage of space allocated to commercial use compared to the total ground floor area that could be developed on the site; Ground floor is 30% commercial uses with support space for both hotel and retail needs. Public use lobby space is an additional 10%. While the ground floor contains drop off area and loading spaces, 100% of parking is below ground. c. The size of the public open space compared to the total developable area of the lot, exclusive of setbacks, required landscaped yards, and any open space requirement of the proposed zoning district; As noted above no dedicated public open space is included in the project. Our property will contain an entry plaza, just under 20% of the site, including works by local artists. The vehicle entry plaza is the connection between hotel amenities and the park. The project does not intend to have a fence or barrier between the park and hotel. d. The relative size and environmental value of any land that is to be dedicated; As stated previously no dedication is planned. The project will include access and landscaping improvements to the park within its scope of work. e. The historic significance of the structures proposed to be preserved; No historical features on site. f. The amount of development that could be accommodated due to the increase in public infrastructure capacity compared to the general need for the area; No increase in public infrastructure capacity is anticipated or required. g. The input received related to the community benefit during the 45-day engagement period; Pending h. Policies in the general plan that support the proposed community benefit. Key points and policies in the Sugar House Master Plan that support the proposed community benefit include the following Community Development Objectives: • Plan: Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable, attractive, harmonious, and pedestrian -oriented community. Proiect: Hotel works as a connection between Park and business district with a mixed use first floor including food, bike rental, and activities equipment rental. • Plan: Maintain, protect, and upgrade Sugar House as a residential community with a vital supporting commercial core. Project: Proposed project provides walkable retail spaces for residents and a hotel, whose guests will utilize the local community as they visit the neighborhood overnight. • Plan: Strengthen and support existing neighborhoods with appropriate adjacent land uses and design guidelines to preserve the character of the area. Proiect: The Hotel will match the feel of the surrounding MU11 but our location will allow us to be a gatewayto the park from otherMU11 areas. • Plan: Provide the needed infrastructure improvements through public, as well as public/private partnerships. Project: The hotel will work with existing infrastructure. Working with Sugar House Park, we hope to improve the open space surround our project as part of our park/city gateway and integration goals. • Plan: Encourage new development that substantially strengthens and unifies the Sugar House Business District focused at the Sugar House Plaza Monument at 2100 South and 1100 East. Project: The Hotel is a boutique project focused on a Local experience, including enhancing use of the nearby Plaza Monument. • Plan: Improve all modes of mobility including street and trail networks, transit, pedestrian and bicycle movement opportunities, and off-street cooperative parking facilities. Project: ALL Hotel parking is underground, with a focus on walkability and bike trail connectivity. • Plan: Provide pedestrian -scale activities in the Sugar House Business District by providing open space corridors and useful streetscape amenities. Project The Hotel Streetscape will connect to the park through upgraded hotel plaza and Landscape connection • Plan: Direct a mixed -land use development pattern within the Sugar House Business District to include medium and high -density housing and necessary neighborhood amenities and facilities. These developments will be compatibly arranged, taking full advantage of future transit stations, Sugar House Park, Fairmont Park, and the proximity to the retail core. Project: The Hotel is focused on a local experience with a strong symbiotic relationship to the Sugar House Park and the neighborhood. Our hotel use satisfies short term housing needs and frees up other housing for long term residents. • Plan: Encourage increased intensity, greater diversity of land use, and locally owned businesses in the Sugar House Business District. Proiect: The Hotel retail, especially the lobby experience and cafe will have a local focus and product focus. The design of the hotel will feature local relevant custom designs and will be operated locally. The area is underserved by hotels so the additional rooms will add to diversity of land use. • Plan: Support small locally owned neighborhood businesses to operate harmoniously within residential areas. Proiect: The Hotel is all about a local experience in its design, operations, and services to and within the community. 3. The community benefit shall be subject to public input as part of the required 45- day public input period. • Community benefits discussed at these meetings include: o the provision of the retail/commercial space for local businesses; o the restaurant and dining options available as part of the project; and o the ability to rent meeting rooms for community needs; • The project will provide local jobs as well. • Community organizations have expressed interest in the potential of leasing the upper floor banquet space for high school events, such as a school dance, or weddings, etc. • Friends and Family of local residents have space for hotel use. 4. The planning commission may make a recommendation to the city council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. 5. The city council has final authority regarding requiring a public benefit. The city council may accept the proposed public benefit, modify the benefit, require a different public benefit, or waive the public benefit based on the merits of the proposal. 6. Any future development where a public benefit is required shall be subject to a development agreement to ensure that the agreed upon public benefit is provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any building within the future development. Through the Design Review process, the SHH project will confirm the requirements of the planning department, planning commission, and city council, including, but not limited to, height and step back requirements allowed and signage relative to our neighborhood entrance and gateway location. 7. A violation of the development agreement that includes not providing the agreed to public benefit shall require the property owner to pay a fine that is equal to the fair market value of the public benefit in the development agreement plus the fines identified in Section 21A.20.040. D,E,F Housing demolition and replacement requirements. Site is currently empty. 2025-04-23 5:29:55 PM a C I 0„ 1„ 2„ E N W cri n 0 C 0 1300 EAST 01, 2 , E `. !CD f .j VJ O C I w N w -01 Ln R SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL D o m m 0 1300 E. 2100 S. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 m m SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL, LLC z M Zoning Amendment - 2025-04-23 PPKR ARC ITrCTS 730 Pacific Avenue • Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 O 801.521.6186 • FFKR.COM 1 2 3 4 59 N w n U Q 1 O1 SITE LEVEL • ► a i f- d-mv 4000=00 qj ' PLANT SCHEDULE SITE LEVEL SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME TREES Ao Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' Standing Ovation TM Serviceberry Gd Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Draves' • Street Keeper® Honey Locust Gd2 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' • Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree 0 Kp Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree Mh Malus x 'Hargozam' • Harvest Gold® Crab Apple Picea pungens 'Glauca' • Pg Blue Colorado Spruce %. T My1NYIV bdj�`i s0 • - Ps2 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine SHRUBS Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' �• Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass Pinus mugo 'Slowmound' • Ps Slowmound Mugo Pine VINES Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Lh Halls Honeysuckle Flowering Vine SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME GROUND COVERS Ag Annuals Mix TBD P Poa pratensis p Kentucky Bluegrass SPACING 6" o.c. QTY 4 rd 1 1 55 87 0' 20' 40' 80' REFERENCE NOTES OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON -SITE OPEN SPACE AREA TOTAL ON -SITE LANDSCAPE AREA TOTAL SITE AREA KEY PLAN 7,492.6 SQFT 2,365.5 SQFT 34,648 SQFT `0 C) L � N O 00 N 2 J Q W I- N N F_ Z 0 U � J LU W Cn > W LU 0 0 C) Z A/ _j LU v) r N 0 DATE REVISION PROJECT NUMBER 24096 Planting Plan 1 2 1 3 4 9 I. LA501 1 2 3 4 61 59 REFERENCE NOTES ZIP w ral U m Q 7771, I I,! O El 4� f E �\ -1 III C L_ _II (§D LEVEL 2 -AMENITY DECK PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 2 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY TREES Amelanchier alnifolia 'Obelisk' • Ao Standing Ovation TM Serviceberry 3 SHRUBS Juniperus communis 'Effusa' 0 Je Effusa Common Juniper 5 Pd Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Desert Plains' 6 - Desert Plains Prairie Winds® Fountain Grass Taxus x media 'Tauntonii' Tt Taunton's Anglo-Japanese Yew 8 t 02 LEVEL 7 -AMENITY DECK PLANT SCHEDULE LEVEL 7 SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME QTY SHRUBS Je Juniperus communis 'Effusa' 127 Effusa Common Juniper 0' 30' 60' i 90, OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL ON -SITE OPEN SPACE AREA TOTAL ON -SITE LANDSCAPE AREA TOTAL SITE AREA KEY PLAN 7,492.6 SQFT 2,365.5 SQFT 34,648 SQFT O O 00 J Q W H 0 = U W Cn " i W 0 O i O Q/1 V � r co N 0 DATE PROJECT NUMBER Planting Plan M REVISION 24096 1 Ira 3 4 9 I. LA502 04 0 0 Q 01 1 MA- PROPERTY LIN� LLI z I I w 7.96% a 0 a Lu z J w a v a I I I I I I 'I I I wl I z \ 'I �I I 1 - 0 wx� - �4 I PROPERTY LINE i 2 I I � F - r — I I I I � El I I RETAIL B 130 I I I I 4 J I I I I I I I 1 LEVEL 1 FL001R PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"�� OF Go I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 4 5 6 OH oj OK OL om-No OP - oQ- ®R SO PROPERTY LINE mri I I I I I I I I I \ I _I-RD 1 1 R2 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 7 00�0 1 I I I I I I A3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 EA 1 11 R1 EB �I --- 1 1 - - - _ ED STAIR I I P 190 -7 I i I I GM / � I I OFFICE - I 131 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 / MAIN ENTRANCE _ I c RESTAURANT 74-/ L. I InRRY I// 'li I ��I, II �711 E2 _= IDF/MDF �� ' I l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 I I I - 113 I I I I IIII IIIII VESTIBULE _ i 107 E1 I _ _ -! T-------------- ELEV. 1 1 1 1 1 a b P - - - In � _ IIIII I � � - - -6- _ 7 OFFICE - I - - �T� I. - - - �- - - �� - - I- -r - ! I- - - - 5 u OFFICE 123 HR I � cMu - - 125 OFFICE ELEV. s 127 E2 I� ACTIVITY I �r� -- ELEV. 0 4 I I :NTE� I -i I En 00 O TAIR _ , s3 - SALES SALES I- - - - - -1 � - -- - 121 119 ❑ :Ell 0 I ;, I�� �d � I I I❑ I I i I I I O I ° LOBBY - uu - - - - - - - - - - 3 I I I I I I 104 I I �J W W �J 6J f 1A GRAB N' GO CAFE DN 102 Ii RETAIL A Ij DIN - - if O O VESTIBULE I I 114 I I , I I I I I STAIR 1� l i i I I - I I O O O 109 I I O� - J L O O oc ir m PROPERTY LINE I I I I I I I I I I I I I OK OL o No OP �J U SO REFERENCE NOTES C �go go Z ID V D Go ® 0 o P � C) 00 M U N L J O J i J W Q J � w N o O J O i < U = ♦--+ a W L E cn D VJ vJ 0 C:)D p a� = _o IN E Q W Q � C)(D .� D O Q Cf) T--- C) N Q DATE REVISION PROJECT NUMBER 24096 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 AP101 1 2 3 4 5 6 CV 1 2 3 4 5 L w 0 U .. Q 01 M 4 lql- 66 LO N O N N N LO PROPERTY LINE 1u, I� w z J i H w a O w a rA W z J � w - 0- 0 o wx PROPERTY LINE i 0 f r PRESENTATION LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN A 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-O —0 PROPERTY LINE O "O m r Z Room Types Legend m ❑ JUNIOR SUITE (2) / 435-455 SF ❑ KING (8) / 318-351 SF ❑ QQ (3) / 342-345 SF FIVEST. cO MEETING ROOM #1- 201 ME= 32 Training ' e e CJ PROPERTY LINE W � �go go Z �® ®LL �LL �. Go ®0 L.L 0 P® OD `0 0 r M� W I— M U N w J c) � J , LO J W Q J Wo N N O J 0}+ W v / W E cnc/) = C/) -0 O O D p � 0 = _o N = O (D D O D 0 cf) v— C) N Q DATE REVISION PROJECT NUMBER 24096 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVE L 2 l li 1 2 3 4 5 E. CV 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 0 0 Q 01 M 66 LO N O N N N LO PROPERTY LINE w z _J J w 0 a WA 0 m r z m IL =1_0 O O L O �� SUITE O 344 C 746 SF cl QQ ADA 371 SF o- QQ 340 ® [ 348 SF r - I L0 c T - SU ITE 345 O 714 SF 0 0 KING ADA 343 320 SF 3 KING 341 1 C=� 309 SF KI IN U 339 0 309 SF PROPERTY LINE "O m Room Types Legend r z m JUNIOR SUITE (7) / 388-464 SF KING (15) / 309-424 SF KING ADA � QQ _ (8) / 344 371 SF QQ ADA SUITE (3) / 680-746 SF VALET STAIRS #2 VEST. Ew KING JUNIOR JUNIOR ELEV. JUNIOR JUNIOR JUNIOR JUNI 336 — QQ SUITE SUITE E2 ELEVATOR SUITE SUITE SUITE -SUITE- 1 SF 321 I 319 3317 I I' �� LOBBY I 311 309 307 I 305 - E �� �-� KING 334 353 SF w z J w R-1 I PROPERTY LINE Al LEVELS 3-6 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" OI KING 302 425 SF F- I O L- r z m PROPERTY LINE REFERENCE NOTES W �go go Z u -Ti �® ®L6 �L6 �. go ® O P � `0 0 r M� W I— M U N J L o � J J uj Q J W N o � � � N J O � TO vJ cn D vJ vJ -0 O � D p � 0 = _o N = Q L Q O (D .� D O O cf) V_ C) N Q DATE REVISION PROJECT NUMBER 24096 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVELS 3-6 AP 103 1 2 4 2 04 3 4 5 6 o� w A -B- C -D- E F I I I I I I PROPERTY LIN� z 1 1 1 �t I I _I LU H a_ O I I I I BANQUET D C: 750 G H J K L -M- N P -Q- R S I I I I I I I I I I I PROPERTY LINE — 12 "O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 L� 132 Seats I I I I I I I I I I I I I CD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CD CD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nL U Q 01 ,'I- LO 66 LO N O N N N OO '*'� L OO DO PRE-FUNCTION740 0 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m UP NSTAIR- Tr u I / LINEN - ---; - - - - - ELEV. - - -6- — — — — 733 -- — — p E1 — L13 — — — — — — — -6- O O IIs — — — — — — — — — — — - - -r--� - UNISEX T u I RR a ELEV. II TI j�pl 717 E2 __ 0 02 CIRCULATION E=F- � o I O O RESTAURANT IL Cj_L O O O O _ LIBRARY o o � .. �D CE '�-{ i-�` 707 k -L— 721 20 Dining `7— — — — — — — —ELEV. — _ —=------- =----- —1= -= 4-Lounge— — k3- I J E3 a ROOM ELECTRICAL --- ) I -- I 723 � L �, �� ELEVATOR ICEI) Cl-ID SERVICE �� _ �D �D 732 —0= LOBBY 713 ROOF -TOP L�J,I TERRACE \ 11701 --- - _ / 84 Dining REST USTODIAL I � ROOM 725 \ I 727 O �— +' �— _ _ -� — IIII LOUNGE I FURNITURE I I I I I STORAGE r----�- �r--rt-�- I I I 0cEr) 1 I � I 11— - �� r- - —11® 730 — — — — -KITCHEN=� _' - - - - JANITOR- - - - - - k3- - - - L� 720 714 -- _�I oil I �I V I I I I I I —rl r- - ----- I� O❑ � S STAIR.. —II — II I- S2 DRY KITCHEN ,"--1� 10 _I JI ���� - -- O O COOLER r, __ _ j STORAGE FREEZER ,� _ ----=•STORAGE — � 8 Dinin LU 728 726 724 OFFICE _ I' O = _-I ____ -- -- —lam 716 t � �3 Counter O 3 Lounge m _ - O�. f \ O � � _ �r-1 r NEW- All— PRO11PERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE A -B- C -D- E F G H J K L -M- N P -Q- R S Al PRESENTATION LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-O" cf) W � �go go Z ® L6 � L6 Go O P OD `0 O r M� W D ~ M U N U L J O J i J W Q J W N C)F_� � N 0 J ' W VJ L � cn Dc: VJ vJ - 0 O 0 a) = _0 N = E Q L Q 0) C) (D .� D O D 0 Cf) T--- C) N Q DATE REVISION PROJECT NUMBER 24096 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVE L 7 AP 107 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 [: NORTH SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH 2111 S 1300 E, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84106 2100 SOUTH (PUBLIC STREET) y d O A i I b J a A I v ' r n ve a FJ 1% GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 I I I I (IN FEET) 1 inch = 20ft. II � WESTMINSTER AVE \ CD 0 0 r � c UD J n w g CD z CD o J 0 0 z T 0 � Q 2100 S WILLMINGTON AVE SITE J ~ \o SIMPSON AVE z g J W J U U 1-80 J VICINITY MAP N.T.S wa OWNER/DEVELOPER: RON WITZEL SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL, LLC 4700 S HIGHLAND DRIVE, SUITE B MILLCREEK, UT 84117 801.860.9644 ron@rdwitzelconstruction.com DRAWING INDEX w CD CD T COVER COVER SHEET CGN.01 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND & ABBREVIATION CGN.02 SALT LAKE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL NOTES CDP.01 DEMOLITION PLAN CSP.01 SITE PLAN CUP.01 UTILITY PLAN CGD.01 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN CEP.01 EROSION CONTROL PLAN CEP.02 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CDT.01 DETAILS & NOTES PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLANS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 A 1111 ,"CHMA ��,ONAL �,�c BENCHMARK ENGINEERING & No. 60773LAND S U RV E Y I N G M. CHRISx P SUGAR HOUSE HOTEL 2111 SOUTH 1300 EAST SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH No. DATE DESCRIPTION 9138 SOUTH STATE STREET SUITE # 100 SANDY, UTAH 84070 (801) 542-7192 www.benchmarkcivil.com PROJECT N0. 2409146 DRAFT DESIGN: CHECK: AD TJB MCP DATE: DATE: DATE: 12/17/2024 XX/XX/2024 XX/XX/2024 COVER ■ � I`y BENCHMARK ENGINEERING CONTACT: ALLISON G. ALBERT, PE 1 OF 11 r GENERAL 1. ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. SEWER 32. ALL SEWER LINE TO BE FLUSHED, PRESSURE TESTED TO 5 PSI VIDEO INSPECTED AND OTHERWISE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT STANDARDS PRIOR TO PLACING IN SERVICE. LINETYPES: NEW EXISTING '////////////////// ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑- 0 ❑ ❑ A - - - - - - 4475- - - xx.xx TOC CU _'D W IRP OHP UG GAS T CATi FO CONSTRUCTION NOTES '////////////////// ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑- ❑ ❑ x ----4475--- SE SD W IFIR -OHP UG GAS T CATV 11 FO RESPONSIBLE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS CITY OR COUNTY- SALT LAKE CITY WATER UTILITY COMPANY- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES SEWER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES STORM DRAIN/GROUNDWATER- SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES ELECTRICAL- ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TELEPHONE- CENTURY LINK NATURAL GAS- ENBRIDGE GAS UTAH APPLICABLE STANDARDS: APWA 2017 STANDARDS NOTE IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONFLICT WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARD NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS GOVERN. N_14IN1,010IW11y:11111t0ZK01►1I:7_L"t01:6i SECTION LINE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PL or LOT LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CENTERLINE of ROAD EASEMENT LINE CURB & GUTTER EDGE OF ASPHALT FENCE / WALL, STONE FENCE, BLOCK FENCE, BRICK FENCE, CHAIN FENCE, IRON FENCE, VINYL FENCE, WIRE FENCE, WOOD INDEX CONTOUR LINE INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR LINE SPOT ELEVATION SANITARY SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE WATER LINE IRRIGATION LINE OVERHEAD POWER LINE UNDERGROUND POWER LINE GAS LINE TELEPHONE LINE CABLE TELEVISION LINE DRAINAGE / DITCH CENTERLINE TREE LINE EDGE FIBER OPTIC LINE PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY: THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS; AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AN HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. SYMBOLS: NEW EXISTING SECTION CORNER (FOUND) SECTION CORNER (NOT FOUND) STREET MONUMENT (FOUND) STREET MONUMENT (NOT FOUND) BRASS CAP MONUMENT POWER POLE & OVERHEAD POWER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE TELEPHONE MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CATCH BASIN DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE WATER METER FIRE HYDRANT IRRIGATION VALVE GAS MANHOLE TREE TRAFFIC VAULT / PULL BOX TRAFFIC CABINET FIBER OPTIC PULL BOX FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FIBER OPTIC CABINET FIBER OPTIC RISER TRAFFIC SIGNAL ABBREVIATIONS BC BAR & CAP PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BOW BOTTOM OF VISIBLE WALL R RADIUS OF CURVE COR. SECTION CORNER RR RAILROAD CB CATCH BASIN ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY CF CUBIC FEET R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY D DELTA ANGLE SCO SEWER CLEANOUT EG EXISTING GROUND SSMH SEWER MANHOLE EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT SD STORM DRAIN EOC EDGE OF CONCRETE SF SQUARE FEET EX EXISTING TBC TOP BACK OF CURB FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION TMH TELEPHONE MANHOLE FG FINISHED GRADE TOA TOP OF ASPHALT FH FIRE HYDRANT TOC TOP OF CONCRETE FL FLOW LINE TOF TOP OF FOOTING GB GRADE BREAK TOE TOE OF SLOPE GW GUY WIRE TOG TOP OF GRATE HW HEAD WALL TOP TOP OF SLOPE I.E. INVERT ELEVATION TOW TOP OF WALL LIP LENGTH OF CURVE TR TELEPHONE RISER L LIP OF CURB UGP UNDERGROUND POWER LF LINEAR FEET VPC VERTICAL POINT OF LP LOW POINT CURVATURE M-M MONUMENT TO MONUMENT VPI VERTICAL POINT OF MH MANHOLE INTERSECTION MON. SURVEY MONUMENT VPT VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENCY OHP OVERHEAD POWER WM WATER METER PVC POINT OF CURVATURE WV WATER VALVE PVI POINT OF INTERSECTION PP POWER POLE PVT POINT OF TANGENCY 2. CONTRACTOR AND APPLICABLE SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL ATTEND ALL PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCES AND PERIODIC PROGRESS MEETINGS. PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY FOR A PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE PROJECT CONTACTS (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF SAID MEETING. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PUBLIC SAFETY AND OSHA STANDARDS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FAMILIARIZE HIM/HER SELF WITH THE PLANS, THE GEOLOGY REPORTS AND THE SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE OF WORK PRIOR TO BIDDING TO SATISFY THEMSELVES BY PERSONAL EXAMINATION OR BY SUCH OTHER MEANS AS THEY MAY PREFER, OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK, AND OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF AND AT THE SITE OF WORK. CONDITIONS WHICH APPEAR TO THEM TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE LETTER OR SPIRIT OF THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THEY SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION BEFORE SUBMITTING THEIR BID. SUBMISSION OF A BID BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTITUTE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT, IF AWARDED THE CONTRACT, THEY HAVE RELIED AND ARE RELYING ON THEIR OWN EXAMINATION OF (1) THE SITE OF THE WORK, (2) ACCESS TO THE SITE, AND (3) ALL OTHER DATA AND MATTERS REQUISITE TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE WORK AND ON THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING FACILITIES ON AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE OF THE WORK TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR, OR A SUPPLEMENT TO, THE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE EXTENT SUCH INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF SITE CONDITIONS IS DEEMED NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE BY THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE NOT RELIED SOLELY UPON OWNER OR ENGINEER FURNISHED INFORMATION REGARDING SITE CONDITIONS IN PREPARING AND SUBMITTING THEIR BID. 5. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION UTAH CHAPTER (APWA) MANUAL OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 2017 EDITION AND THE MANUAL OF STANDARD PLANS 2017 EDITION. SAID STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS SHALL BE SUBSIDIARY TO MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS BY APPLICABLE LOCAL JURISDICTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SKILLED AND REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL CLASS AND TYPE OF WORK CALLED FOR IN THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THEREFORE, THE OWNER IS RELYING UPON THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF THE CONTRACTOR, IT SHALL BE EXPECTED THAT THE PRICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL INCLUDE ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE WORK CONTEMPLATED AND THAT THE WORK BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE COMPETENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVE SPECIAL SKILLS ON THE NATURE, EXTENT AND INHERENT CONDITIONS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REGULAR AND INHERENT CONDITIONS EXISTENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTICULAR FACILITIES WHICH MAY CREATE, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, UNUSUAL OR PECULIAR UNSAFE CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO PERSONS, PROPERTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE AWARE OF SUCH PECULIAR RISKS AND HAVE THE SKILL AND EXPERIENCE TO FORESEE AND TO ADOPT PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO ADEQUATELY AND SAFELY PERFORM THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WITH RESPECT TO SUCH HAZARDS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND LICENSES REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, AND SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF ALL PERMITS AND APPROVALS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND/OR PERMITS ARE SECURED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROPRIATE PERMITS WHERE APPLICABLE FOR ANY WORK DONE WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS FROM THE CITY AND/OR UDOT, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CITY, COUNTY, AND/OR STATE, 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF COMMUNICATING THE WORK, OR AS REQUIRED BY SAID PERMITS. 8. CONCRETE PLACEMENTS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. CONTRACTION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED FOR SLAB -ON -GRADE SUCH THAT THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN JOINTS IS 20 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION FOR LIGHT DUTY TRAFFIC AND 12 FEET IN EITHER DIRECTION FOR HEAVY DUTY TRAFFIC. 9. IT IS INTENDED THAT THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE WORK CONTEMPLATED AND THAT THE WORK BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY REGARDING ANY DISCREPANCIES OR AMBIGUITIES WHICH MAY EXIST IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. THE ENGINEER'S INTERPRETATION THEREOF SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FIELD CHANGES MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER. 10. ALL WORK OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THESE PLANS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DESIGN. THESE PLANS DO NOT REPLACE ANY STRUCTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL, OR MECHANICAL PLANS. SHOULD A DISCREPANCY ARISE BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND ANOTHER PLAN SET, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CONTACT BOTH PARTIES TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED. 11. ALL STAIRS AND RAILINGS ARE DESIGNED BY OTHERS AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN. SAID STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS SHALL BE SUBSIDIARY TO MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS BY APPLICABLE LOCAL JURISDICTION. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATELY SCHEDULING INSPECTION AND TESTING OF ALL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. ALL TESTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY'S STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. ALL TESTING AND INSPECTION SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE OWNER; ALL RE -TESTING AND/OR REINSPECTION SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR. 13. IF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE DISTURBED AND OR REMOVED FOR THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS FROM DAMAGE. COST OF REPLACING OR REPAIRING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICE BID FOR ITEMS REQUIRING REMOVAL AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ANYTHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THERE WILL BE NO EXTRA COST DUE THE CONTRACTOR FOR REPLACING OR REPAIRING EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. WHENEVER EXISTING FACILITIES ARE REMOVED, DAMAGED, BROKEN, OR CUT IN THE INSTALLATION OF THE WORK COVERED BY THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, SAID FACILITIES SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, AFTER PROPER BACKFILLING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, WITH MATERIALS EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN THE MATERIALS USED IN THE ORIGINAL EXISTING FACILITIES. THE FINISHED PRODUCT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, THE ENGINEER, AND THE RESPECTIVE REGULATORY AGENCY. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A NEATLY MARKED SET OF FULL-SIZE AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHOWING THE FINAL LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF ALL MECHANICAL; ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT; PIPING AND CONDUITS; STRUCTURES AND OTHER FACILITIES. THE AS-BUILTS OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE THE STREET LIGHT LAYOUT PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF LIGHTS, CONDUITS, CONDUCTORS, POINTS OF CONNECTIONS TO SERVICES, PULLBOXES, AND WIRE SIZES. AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL REFLECT CHANGE ORDERS, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND ADJUSTMENTS TO ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED. WHERE NECESSARY, SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 15. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DELIVER TO ENGINEER. ONE SET OF NEATLY MARKED AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHOWING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ABOVE. AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND THE COMPLETE AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWING SET SHALL BE CURRENT WITH ALL CHANGES AND DEVIATION REDLINES AS A PRECONDITION TO THE FINAL PROGRESS PAYMENT APPROVAL AND/OR FINAL ACCEPTANCE. UTILITIES 16. CONTRACTOR TO SPACE UTILITIES TO PROVIDE MINIMUM DISTANCES AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND INDIVIDUAL UTILITY CODES. 17. ALL UTILITIES INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. COORDINATE ALL SERVICE LATERAL AND BUILDING CONNECTIONS WITH CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL DRAWING FOR LOCATION AND ELEVATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED. 19. ALL STORM DRAIN MANHOLES AND CATCH BASINS ARE TO BE PRECAST CONCRETE FROM APPROVED LOCAL MANUFACTURER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. AND COMPLY WITH CITY/COUNTY STANDARD 20. ALL STORM WATER CONVEYANCE PIPING TO BE RCP - CLASS 3 OR ADS HDPE PIPE OR EQUAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21. ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUITS/LINES TO BE PVC SCH 40 OR BETTER. 22. ALL GAS LINES TO BE HDPE WITH COPPER TRACER WIRE AND DETECTA TAPE. TERMINATE TRACER WIRE AT APPROVED LOCATIONS. 23. ALL GAS LINE TAPS, VALVES AND CAPS TO BE FUSED USING ELECTRO - FUSION TECHNOLOGY. 24. ALL PHONE AND TV CONDUITS TO BE PVC SCH 40 OR BETTER. 25. NO GROUNDWATER OR DEBRIS TO BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE NEW PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE OPEN END OF ALL PIPES IS TO BE COVERED AND EFFECTIVELY SEALED AT THE END OF EACH DAYS WORK. 26. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL SHORING, BRACING, SLOPING OR OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WORKMEN FOR ALL AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 4' OR MORE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH SAFETY ORDERS SECTION 68 - EXCAVATIONS, AND SECTION 69 - TRENCHES, ALONG WITH ANY LOCAL CODES OR ORDINANCES. 27. PRIOR TO OPENING AN EXCAVATION, EFFORT SHALL BE MADE TO DETERMINE WHETHER UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS; I.E. SEWER, WATER, FUEL, ELECTRIC LINES, ETC., WILL BE ENCOUNTERED AND IF SO, WHERE SUCH UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS ARE LOCATED. WHEN THE EXCAVATION APPROACHES THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SUCH AN INSTALLATION, THE EXACT LOCATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CAREFUL PROBING OR HAND DIGGING; AND, WHEN IT IS UNCOVERED, ADEQUATE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING INSTALLATION. ALL KNOWN OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN THE AREA CONCERNED SHALL BE ADVISED OF PROPOSED WORK AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF ACTUAL EXCAVATION. 28. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSTALL PIPE OF ADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION WITH SUFFICIENT BEDDING TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR H-20 LOAD REQUIREMENTS. 29. ACTUAL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATER LINES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF STERILIZATION AND TESTING OF NEW WATER MAINS. ALL EXISTING WATER VALVES TO BE OPERATED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY/COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ONLY. 30. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE IN PLACE INSPECTED, TESTED, AND APPROVED BY AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, AND STREET PAVING. 31. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL NEW AND THE REMOVAL, RELOCATION, AND/OR BURIAL OF ALL EXISTING DRY UTILITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO POWER, GAS, AND COMMUNICATION LINES. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH AN EXISTING DRY UTILITY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING UTILITY WITH THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. ALL WORK FOR DRY UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH AND COMPLETED TO THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. 33. ALL SEWER PIPES ARE TO BE SDR-35 PVC PIPE. 34. SEWER MANHOLES, LATERALS AND CLEANOUTS TO BE INSTALLED PER RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS. THE UNIT COST OF THE SEWER LATERAL INCLUDES CONNECTION TO THE SEWER MAIN. THE CLEANOUT RISER FOR EACH SERVICE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 35. SEWER CLEANOUTS MUST BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM OF EVERY 50 L.F. FOR 4 INCH 0 LATERALS AND EVERY 100 L.F. FOR 6 INCH 0 LATERALS, OR PER THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS, WHICHEVER IS MORE FREQUENT. 36. A SEWER CLEANOUT MUST BE INSTALLED 5 L.F. TO 10 L.F. FROM ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE, OR PER THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS. 37. ALL SEWER LATERAL BENDS AND ANGLES TO BE INSTALLED AS SWEEPING BENDS WITH SEWER CLEANOUTS 38. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEWERLINE, WYES NEED TO BE INSTALLED FOR THE LATERALS. LATERALS ARE 4" AND NEED TO COME IN AT THE TOP OF THE PIPE WITH A WYE. (SEE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS) 39. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL SEWER PIPES SHALL SLOPE TO AN EXISTING SEWER CONNECTION VIA GRAVITY FLOW. CONTRACTOR TO START AT THE LOW END OF GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THAT ALL INVERT ELEVATIONS PROVE SLOPE TO EXISTING CONNECTION VIA GRAVITY. SLOPES MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE SEWER DISTRICTS MINIMUM STANDARDS. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD CAUSE THE SEWER UTILITY NOT TO DRAIN VIA GRAVITY ON THE SITE. WATER 40. WATERLINES TO BE PVC C-900. WATER LINES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 O' HORIZONTALLY FROM SEWER MAINS. CROSSINGS SHALL MEET STATE HEALTH STANDARDS. (MECHANICAL JOINTS REQUIRED WHEN LESS THAN 18" VERTICAL OR TEN FEET HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM SEWERLINE 41. ALL WATERLINES SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM SIZE AND SERVICE LATERALS SHALL BE 1-1/2" MINIMUM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 42. WATER SERVICE LATERALS TO INCLUDE ALL BRASS SADDLE; CORP. STOP LATERAL, DOUBLE CHECK VALVE AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND SHUTOFF VALVE IN BOX NEAR BUILDING EDGE. 43. ALL WATERLINES SHALL BE 48" BELOW FINISH GROUND TO TOP OF PIPE. ALL VALVE BOXES AND MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED OR LOWERED TO FINISH GRADE AND SHALL INCLUDE A CONCRETE COLLAR IN PAVED AREAS. ALL WATER LINES SHALL BE LOOPED AROUND GRAVITY LINES OR ROPED PER RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY INSPECTOR. 44. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY FOR CHLORINE TEST PRIOR TO FLUSHING LINES, CHLORINE LEFT IN PIPE 24 HRS. MINIMUM WITH 25 PPM RESIDUAL. ALL TURNING OF MAINLINE VALVES, CHLORINATION, FLUSHING, PRESSURE TESTING, BACTERIA TESTING, ETC. TO BE COORDINATED WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. ALL TESTS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY. 45. BOTTOM FLANGE OF FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE SET TO APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES ABOVE BACK OF CURB ELEVATION. HYDRANTS TO INCLUDE TEE, 6" LINE VALVE, AND HYDRANT COMPLETE TO MEET RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. EXISTING UTILITIES 46. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE PLANS WITH REGARDS TO THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS WAS DERIVED FROM FIELD INVESTIGATION AND/OR RECORD INFORMATION. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID UTILITY INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE FACILITIES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER FACILITIES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AND TO EXPOSE ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RELATED TO THE PROJECT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, WATER IRRIGATION, GAS, ELECTRICAL, ETC. AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EXPOSING THE UTILITIES SO THAT THE EXACT LOCATION ELEVATION MATERIAL ETC. CAN BE VERIFIED AND DOCUMENTED. THE COST ASSOCIATED TO PERFORM THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN EITHER THE LUMP SUMP CLEARING COST OR IN THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK. IF LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION DIFFERS FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS, PROVISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW LOCATION BE MADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 47. PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE EACH UTILITY COMPANY LOCATE, IN THE FIELD, THEIR MAIN AND SERVICE LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY BLUE STAKES 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD THE BLUE STAKES ORDER NUMBER AND FURNISH ORDER NUMBER TO OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTORS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DIRECTLY CONTACT ANY OTHER UTILITY COMPANIES THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF BLUE STAKES. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SO THAT NO DAMAGE RESULTS TO THEM DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT. ANY REPAIRS NECESSARY TO DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTORS AND UTILITY COMPANIES INSTALLING NEW STRUCTURES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE TO THE PROJECT. 48. ALL MANHOLE RIMS, LAMPHOLES, VALVE BOX COVERS, MONUMENT BOXES AND CATCH BASIN GRATES ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE FINISHED GRADE AFTER PAVING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. COST FOR THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICES FOR SAID FACILITIES. 49. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ASSURE THAT ALL PIPES, WALLS, ETC, ARE ADEQUATELY BRACED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CLEARING AND GRADING 50. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM EARTHWORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APWA 2017 STANDARD DRAWINGS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND THE RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATION FOUND IN THE PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. 51. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS FROM THE SITE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE; ALL EXISTING WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR ABANDONED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THE COST TO PERFORM THIS WORK SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE LUMP SUM CLEARING COST. 52. SUBSOIL INVESTIGATIONS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE SITE OF THE WORK. ALL FOOTING, FOUNDATION OR STRUCTURAL WALL CONSTRUCTION MUST ADHERE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS DETAILED BY THE PROFESSIONAL REPORT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, CREATED BY GSH GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 53. SOIL INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED BY GSH GEOTECHNICAL, INC FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY, AND THE DATA SHOWN IN THE REPORTS ARE FOR SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION. THE OWNER AND ENGINEER DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTERPRETATION BY THE CONTRACTOR OF DATA, SUCH PROJECTION OR EXTRAPOLATION, FROM THE TEST HOLES TO OTHER LOCATIONS ON THE SITE OF THE WORK, SOIL BEARING VALUES AND PROFILES, SOIL STABILITY AND THE PRESENCE, LEVEL AND EXTENT OF UNDERGROUND WATER FOR SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 54. ALL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO DEDUCT THE THICKNESS OF THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION FOR TOP OF SUB GRADE ELEVATIONS. 55. IF AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION ANY UNFAVORABLE GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED, WORK IN THAT AREA WILL STOP UNTIL APPROVED CORRECTIVE MEASURES ARE OBTAINED FROM THE ENGINEER. 56. UNSUITABLE MATERIAL, SUCH AS TOP SOIL, WEATHERED BED ROCK, ETC., SHALL BE REMOVED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER (AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WHERE EMPLOYED) FROM ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE COMPACTED FILL OR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. 57. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM PROPERTY OWNER 58. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY GALLOWAY & COMPANY ON 8/16/2024 AND MAY HAVE BEEN MODIFIED SINCE THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED. 59. FILLS IN EXCESS OF 4 FEET IN THICKNESS AND BENEATH ALL FOUNDATIONS OR PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY THE ASTM D-1557 COMPACTION CRITERIA. ALL OTHER STRUCTURAL FILL LESS THAN 4 FEET IN THICKNESS SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90 PERCENT OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. REFERENCE GSH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 60. COMPACTION TESTING WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR THE CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE SUCH TESTING ACCOMPLISHED BY A SEPARATE CONTRACTOR. TEST RESULTS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER TEST, 61. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PROCTOR AND/OR MARSHALL TEST DATA 24 HOURS PRIOR TO COMPACTION TESTS. 62. STRAIGHT GRADE SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN CONTOUR LINES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS. 63. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL. ALL SLOPES IN ADJOINING STREETS, DRAINAGE CHANNELS, OR OTHER FACILITIES SHALL BE GRADED NO STEEPER THAN 2 TO 1 FOR CUT AND FILL. 64. GRADES WITHIN ASPHALT PARKING AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 0.10 FEET OF THE DESIGN GRADE. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ALL PAVEMENT AREAS AND ALONG ALL CURBS. ALL CURBS SHALL BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PLAN. CURBS AND PAVEMENT AREAS WHICH ARE NOT INSTALLED PER PLAN MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. 65. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING HIS OWN ESTIMATE OF EARTHWORK QUANTITIES 66. WHERE NEW CURB AND GUTTER IS BEING CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO EXISTING ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY: PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A LICENSE SURVEYOR VERIFY THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING HARDSCAPE TIE-INS AS WELL AS THE CROSS SLOPE TO THE CURB AND GUTTER FORMS, PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A LICENSE SURVEYOR VERIFY THE GRADE AND CROSS SLOPE OF THE CURB AND GUTTER FORMS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SLOPE AND GRADES TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY SECTION WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN OR TYPICAL CROSS SECTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB AND GUTTER POURS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 67. SITE WORK SHALL MEET OR EXCEED OWNER'S SITE SPECIFICATIONS. 68. ALL SITE CONCRETE OR CONCRETE ELEMENT NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AND DETAILED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF 4000 PSI. 69. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT. 70. ALL DESIGN SLOPES AND TIE-IN SLOPES SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CIVIL ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF ANY AREAS EXCEED THE FOLLOWING SLOPES PRIOR TO FORMING, POURING OR PAVING ANY HARDSCAPE. 70.1. LANDSCAPING SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 2%AND MAXIMUM OF 33% IN ANY DIRECTION 70.2. ASPHALT SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1.5%AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN ANY DIRECTION, SEE 68.6 70.3. CONCRETE FLATWORK SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1 % AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN ANY DIRECTION, SEE 68.6 70.4. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 0.5% AND MAXIMUM OF 8% IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION 70.5. ROADWAY CROSS SLOPES SHALL BE BETWEEN 2%AND 4% OR WITHIN THE RESPONSIBLE DISTRICT OR AGENCY'S LIMITS 70.6.FINISHED GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM ALL BUILDINGS FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET WITH THE FOLLOWING SLOPES: LANDSCAPING AT A MINIMUM OF 5%, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AT A MINIMUM OF 2% 70.7. ALL ADA COMPONENTS SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA AND APWA SLOPE REQUIREMENTS DEWATERING 71. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ALL MACHINERY, APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN ALL EXCAVATIONS FREE FROM WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF THE WATER SO AS NOT TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, OR TO CAUSE A NUISANCE OR MENACE TO THE PUBLIC OR VIOLATE THE LAW. THE DEWATERING SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND OPERATED SO THAT THE GROUND LEVEL OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION IS NOT REDUCED TO THE EXTENT WHICH WOULD CAUSE DAMAGE OR ENDANGER ADJACENT STRUCTURES OR PROPERTY. ALL COST FOR DEWATERING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICE BID FOR ALL PIPE CONSTRUCTION. THE STATIC WATER LEVEL SHALL BE DRAWN DOWN A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT BELOW THE BOTTOM OF EXCAVATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE UNDISTURBED STATE OF NATURAL SOILS AND ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF ANY FILL TO THE SPECIFIED DENSITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ON HAND, PUMPING EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY IN GOOD CONDITION FOR EMERGENCIES AND SHALL HAVE WORKMEN AVAILABLE FOR ITS OPERATION: DEWATERING SYSTEM SHALL OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL BACKFILL HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO 1 FOOT ABOVE THE NORMAL STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVEL. 72. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTROL SURFACE WATER TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO EXCAVATIONS. AT EACH EXCAVATION, A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF TEMPORARY OBSERVATION WELLS TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED. 73. SUMPS SHALL BE NO DEEPER THAN 5 FEET AND SHALL BE AT THE LOW POINT OF EXCAVATION. EXCAVATION SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN TO THE SUMPS. 74. THE CONTROL OF GROUNDWATER SHALL BE SUCH THAT SOFTENING OF THE BOTTOM OF EXCAVATIONS, OR FORMATION OF "QUICK" CONDITIONS OR "BOILS", DOES NOT OCCUR, DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND OPERATED SO AS TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF NATURAL SOILS. THE RELEASE OF GROUNDWATER AT ITS STATIC LEVEL SHALL BE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MAINTAIN THE UNDISTURBED STATE OF NATURAL FOUNDATION SOILS, PREVENT DISTURBANCE OF COMPACTED BACKFILL, AND PREVENT FLOTATION OR MOVEMENT OF STRUCTURES, PIPELINES AND SEWERS. IF A UPDES (UTAH POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM) PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL OF WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ACTIVITIES, IT SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ANY DEWATERING ACTIVITIES. 75. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT STANDBY PUMPING CAPACITY SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES AND SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE DEWATERING SYSTEM PIPING AS TO PERMIT IMMEDIATE USE, IN ADDITION STANDBY EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES FOR ALL ORDINARY EMERGENCIES, AND COMPETENT WORKMEN FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL DEWATERING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES, STANDBY EQUIPMENT SHALL INCLUDE EMERGENCY POWER GENERATION AND AUTOMATIC SWITCH OVER TO THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR WHEN NORMAL POWER FAILS. DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE SHUT DOWN BETWEEN SHIFTS, ON HOLIDAYS, ON WEEKENDS, OR DURING WORK STOPPAGES. SITE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE 76. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE JOB SITE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY, AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 77. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT: A. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CLEAN THE JOB SITE AT THE END OF EACH PHASE OF WORK. B. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TRASH, SCRAP AND UNUSED MATERIAL AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE IN A TIMELY MANNER. C. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE SITE IN A NEAT, SAFE AND ORDERLY MANNER AT ALL TIMES. D. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND TRASH OUT OF THE WAY OF OTHER CONTRACTORS SO AS NOT TO DELAY THE JOB. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN A DEDUCTION FOR THE COST OF CLEAN UP FROM THE FINAL PAYMENT. E. THEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY, TRAFFIC CONTROL, PERMITS, RETESTING AND REINSPECTIONS AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. F. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL EXCESS SOILS AND MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE LAWFULLY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, BARRICADES, SIGNS, FLAGMEN OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE ALL WATER, POWER, SANITARY FACILITIES AND TELEPHONE SERVICES AS REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRACTORS USE DURING CONSTRUCTION. I. ALL DEBRIS AND FOREIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT APPROVED DISPOSAL SITES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIAL TO AND FROM THE SITE. 78. FOR ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR EASEMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL, THROUGH THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESS, VERIFY WITH THE NECESSARY REGULATORY AGENCIES, THE NEED FOR ANY TRAFFIC ROUTING PLAN. IF PLAN IS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PLAN AND RECEIVED PROPER APPROVALS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. WORK IN EASEMENT AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REGULATORY AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF SAID AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN UDOT RIGHT- OF -WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE STATE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT INSPECTIONS TAKE PLACE WHERE AND WHEN REQUIRED AND TO INSURE THAT ALL WORK IS COMPLETED TO UDOT STANDARDS. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: 79. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6" FOR ALL ON -SITE DEVELOPMENT. ALL OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE DONE PER APWA STANDARDS. 80. AGGREGATE SUB -BASE: AGGREGATE SUB -BASE SHALL BE GRANULAR BACKFILL BORROW. AGGREGATE SUB -BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE FROM VEGETABLE MATTER AND OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE. AGGREGATE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS FOUND IN THE PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED OF THE SOILS INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED ON THIS SITE. 81. AGGREGATE BASE: AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE GRADE 3/4 UNTREATED BASE COURSE, AND COMPLY PREPARED REPORT OF THE SOILS INVESTIGATION PREPARED ON THIS SITE. 82. ALL SIDEWALKS AND CROSSINGS TO MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS/ APWA STANDARDS. 83. PAYMENT FOR PAVEMENT WILL BE MADE ONLY FOR AREAS SHOWN ON PLANS, REPLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT WHICH IS BROKEN OR CUT DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE WORK COVERED BY THESE GENERAL NOTES, AND WHICH LIES OUTSIDE OF SAID AREAS, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTOR'S UNIT PRICE FOR PAVEMENT, AND NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR SUCH WORK. 84. INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS 85. PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS BUILT BY THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER, CITY, AND POWER COMPANY TO HAVE THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND ALL STREET LIGHTS ENERGIZED. 86. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL STRIPING AND/OR PAVEMENT MARKINGS NECESSARY TO THE EXISTING STRIPING INTO FUTURE STRIPING. METHOD OF REMOVAL SHALL BE BY GRINDING OR SANDBLASTING. 87. STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH MUTCD & APWA 32 17 23 88. DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS, CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW DESIGN SLOPES SHOWN FOR PAVEMENT AND WARRANTY THE PAVEMENT TO THE OWNER BASED UPON THE DESIGN SLOPES SHOWN HEREON. CONCERNS WITH SLOPES MUST BE BROUGHT DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS. 89. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SLOPE TO A CATCH BASIN, INLET BOX OR OUT INTO A STREET. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY FINISH SPOT ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFY ENGINEER IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES THAT WOULD CAUSE PUDDLING ON THE SITE. z O �__ 0- co �__ of 0)w w w� o =W CO fV WU) IV c� E�)W O -I :::) u-LW zof O 0 _ U- U } Z J -O coz � of ::D O U) U Lu Q U LL o U) W Q o U) Q z T ~ (O C/) I O �0-M CDU Q - mU 2E Q��oI w m oo Z Y U J - Q U w U K 0 i U w t� Q 3: 0 Itr - a (c4No. $%ON9L � }l2/ I 10360773 M. CHRIS 14 / A a 06 Z_�" �e V L W " LL v Z U)E u, w o 2 Of \ W o - / W 80 .0 n/ = w I..L o E 0 W D U " c p - zU)=�� Z W0 0 M z 700 CO Q M w Q Z 9 14 / I, W O Q Q = W D LJJ o >_ D Ir- = U O I--- w 0 O 7- J Q,r--Li V N U) D U) 14 P, PROJECT NO. ^ �9 ^ r a GEN. NOTES LEGEND & ABBREV. CGN.01 2 OF 11 9 I. SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL NOTES 1. COMPLIANCE: ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE MOST RECENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE, UTAH DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS, APWA MANUAL OF STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MODIFICATIONS TO APWA STANDARD PLANS AND APPROVED MATERIALS AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES APWA SPECIFICATIONS MODIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE -MENTIONED DOCUMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE SALT LAKE CITY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. 2. COORDINATION: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY ALL APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE ENTITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE CONTACTED 48-HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT: PUBLIC UTILITIES: BACKFLOW PREVENTION - 483-6795 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING - 483-6781 INSPECTIONS, PERMITS, CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS - 483-6727 PRETREATMENT - 799-4002 STORM WATER - 483-6721 SLC DEPARTMENTS: ENGINEERING - PUBLIC WAY PERMITS AND ISSUES - 535-6248 ENGINEERING - SUBDIVISIONS - 535-6159 FIRE DEPARTMENT - 535-6636 PERMITS AND LICENSING (BLDG SERVICES) - 535-7752 PLANNING AND ZONING - 535-7700 TRANSPORTATION - 535-6630 - ALL OTHER POTENTIALLY IMPACTED GOVERNING AGENCIES OR ENTITIES - ALL WATER USERS INVOLVED IN WATER MAIN SHUTDOWNS - APPLICABLE SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE DISTRICTS - BLUESTAKES LOCATING SERVICES - 532-5000 - COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT - 743-7231 - COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL - 468-2779 - COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT - 385-468-3913 - COUNTY PUBLIC WAY PERMITS - 468-2241 - HOLLADAY CITY - 272-9450 - SALT LAKE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - 468-3705 OR 468-2156 - THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR RE-ROUTING SERVICE - 262-5626 - UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE - 595-3405 - UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REGION #2 - 975-4800 - UTAH STATE ENGINEER - 538-7240 3. SCHEDULE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE, AND WILL UPDATE AS CHANGES OCCUR, A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING OR SALT LAKE COUNTY REGULATIONS AS APPLICABLE FOR WORKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC WAY. 4. PERMITS, FEES AND AGREEMENTS CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS AND PAY ALL APPLICABLE FEES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CONTACT SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING (535-6248) FOR PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK CONDUCTED WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. APPLICABLE UTILITY PERMITS MAY INCLUDE MAINLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS AND SERVICE CONNECTION PERMITS. ALL UTILITY WORK MUST BE BONDED. ALL CONTRACTORS MUST BE LICENSED TO WORK ON CITY UTILITY MAINS. CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UTAH POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (UPDES) STORM WATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (538-6923). A COPY OF THE PERMIT'S STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH SALT LAKE CITY'S CLEAN WHEEL ORDINANCE. 5. ASPHALT AND SOIL TESTING THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE MARSHALL AND PROCTOR TEST DATA 24-HOURS PRIOR TO USE. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE COMPACTION AND DENSITY TESTING AS REQUIRED BY SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING, UDOT, SALT LAKE COUNTY OR OTHER GOVERNING ENTITY. TRENCH BACKFILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION TESTS ARE TO BE TAKEN PER APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 330520 - BACKFILLING TRENCHES, OR AS REQUIRED BY THE SLC PROJECT ENGINEER IF NATIVE MATERIALS ARE USED. NO NATIVE MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PIPE ZONE. THE MAXIMUM LIFTS FOR BACKFILLING EXCAVATIONS IS 8-INCHES. ALL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION TESTING IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A LAB RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED BY SALT LAKE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND/OR SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND HAUL ROUTES TRAFFIC CONTROL MUST CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF SALT LAKE CITY TRAFFIC CONTROL MANUAL - PART 6 OF "MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY AND STATE ROADS. SLC TRANSPORTATION MUST APPROVE ALL PROJECT HAUL ROUTES (535-7129). THE CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO CONFORM TO UDOT, SALT LAKE COUNTY OR OTHER APPLICABLE GOVERNING ENTITIES REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL. 7. SURVEY CONTROL CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR OR PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO SET STAKES FOR ALIGNMENT AND GRADE OF EACH MAIN AND/OR FACILITY AS APPROVED. THE STAKES SHALL BE MARKED WITH THE HORIZONTAL LOCATION (STATION) AND VERTICAL LOCATION (GRADE) WITH CUTS AND/OR FILLS TO THE GRADE OF THE MAIN AND/OR FACILITY AS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SURVEYOR SHALL PROVIDE TO SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES CUT SHEETS FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CLEARLY SHOWING THE PERTINENT GRADES, ELEVATIONS AND CUT/FILLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIELD STAKING OF THE MAIN AND/OR FACILITY. THE CUT SHEET FORM IS AVAILABLE AT THE CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OFFICE AT PUBLIC UTILITIES. ALL MAINS AND LATERALS NOT MEETING MINIMUM GRADE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY ORDINANCE OR AS REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FLOWS OR AS APPROVED MUST BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED TO MEET DESIGN GRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL STAKES AND MARKERS UNTIL PUBLIC UTILITY SURVEYORS COMPLETE FINAL MEASUREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING, MAINTAINING, OR RESTORING ALL MONUMENTS AND REFERENCE MARKS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT; CONTACT THE COUNTY SURVEYOR FOR SECTION CORNER MONUMENTS (801-468-2028) AND/OR THE SALT LAKE CITY SURVEYOR (801-535-7973) FOR SALT LAKE CITY MONUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. ALL ELEVATIONS SHALL BE REFERENCED TO SALT LAKE CITY DATUM UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS. 8. ASPHALT GUARANTEE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE, DISPOSE OF, FURNISH AND PLACE PERMANENT ASPHALT PER SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING, UDOT, COUNTY, OR OTHER GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE ASPHALT RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING ENTITY. 9. TEMPORARY ASPHALT IF THE CONTRACTOR CHOOSES TO WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC WAY WHEN HOT MIX ASPHALT IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING ENTITY PRIOR TO INSTALLING TEMPORARY ASPHALT SURFACING MATERIAL. WITHIN SALT LAKE CITY, WHEN PERMANENT ASPHALT BECOMES AVAILABLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THE TEMPORARY ASPHALT, FURNISH AND INSTALL THE PERMANENT ASPHALT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE ASPHALT RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING ENTITY FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION. 10. SAFETY THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL MEET ALL OSHA, STATE, COUNTY AND OTHER GOVERNING ENTITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO LOCAL AND FEDERAL CODES GOVERNING SHORING AND BRACING OF EXCAVATIONS AND TRENCHES, AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS. 11. DUST CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNING ENTITY STANDARDS. USE OF HYDRANT WATER OR PUMPING FROM CITY -OWNED CANALS OR STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES IS NOT ALLOWED FOR DUST CONTROL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR. 12. DEWATERING ALL ON -SITE DEWATERING ACTIVITIES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY PUBLIC UTILITIES. PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATIONS AND ESTIMATED FLOW VOLUME CALCULATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADEQUATE MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE. PUBLIC UTILITIES MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR SEDIMENT CONTROL AND REMOVAL. 13. PROJECT LIMITS THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE APPROVED PROJECT LIMITS. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT STAGING, MATERIAL STORAGE AND LIMITS OF TRENCH EXCAVATION. IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AND/OR EASEMENTS FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING ENTITY AND/OR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S) FOR WORK OR STAGING OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT LIMITS. 14. WATER, FIRE, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES A. INSPECTIONS - IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE ANY WATER, SEWER, BACKFLOW AND DRAINAGE INSPECTION 48-HOURS IN ADVANCE TO WHEN NEEDED. CONTACT 483-6727 TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS. B. DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES - THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE, CAUSED BY ANY CONDITION INCLUDING SETTLEMENT, TO EXISTING UTILITIES FROM WORK PERFORMED AT OR NEAR EXISTING UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADWAY AND UTILITY FACILITIES. DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR, MUST BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS/HER EXPENSE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER OF SAID FACILITIES. ORDER TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND PROBLEMS WITH FUTURE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES' MAPS MUST BE ASSUMED AS APPROXIMATE AND REQUIRING FIELD VERIFICATION. CONTACT BLUE STAKES OR APPROPRIATE OWNER FOR COMMUNICATION LINE LOCATIONS. D. UTILITY RELOCATIONS - FOR UTILITY CONFLICTS REQUIRING MAINLINE RELOCATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY THE APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANY OR USER A MINIMUM OF 2-WEEKS IN ADVANCE. A ONE -WEEK MINIMUM NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR CONFLICTS REQUIRING THE RELOCATION OF SERVICE LATERALS. ALL RELOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANY AND/OR USER. E. FIELD CHANGES - NO ROADWAY, UTILITY ALIGNMENT OR GRADE CHANGES ARE ALLOWED FROM THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS/DOCUMENTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR. CHANGES TO HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND/OR FIRE LINES MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY OR SALT LAKE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT (AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT) AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. F. PUBLIC NOTICE TO PROJECTS IN THE PUBLIC WAY - FOR APPROVED PROJECTS THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE AND DISTRIBUTE WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL RESIDENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AT LEAST 72-HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. WORK TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS MAY REQUIRE A LONGER NOTIFICATION PERIOD AND ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR COORDINATION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. THE WRITTEN NOTICE IS TO BE APPROVED BY THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER. G. PUBLIC NOTICE FOR WATER MAIN SHUT DOWNS - THROUGH THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR AND WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER APPROVAL, SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST BE CONTACTED AND APPROVE ALL WATER MAIN SHUTDOWNS. ONCE APPROVED THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY ALL EFFECTED USERS BY WRITTEN NOTICE A MINIMUM OF 48-HOURS (RESIDENTIAL) AND 72-HOURS (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) PRIOR TO THE WATER MAIN SHUT DOWN. PUBLIC UTILITIES MAY REQUIRE LONGER NOTICE PERIODS. H. WATER AND SEWER SEPARATION - IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTAH'S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS, A MINIMUM TEN -FOOT HORIZONTAL AND 1.5-FOOT VERTICAL (WITH WATER ON TOP) SEPARATION IS REQUIRED. IF THESE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE MET, STATE AND SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THESE CONDITIONS. I. SALVAGE - ALL METERS MUST BE RETURNED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND AT PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUEST ALL SALVAGED PIPE AND/OR FITTINGS MUST BE RETURNED TO SLC PUBLIC UTILTIES (483-6727) LOCATED AT 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE. J. SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS - SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST APPROVE ALL SEWER CONNECTIONS. ALL SEWER LATERALS 6-INCHES AND SMALLER MUST WYE INTO THE MAINS PER SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALL 8-INCH AND LARGER SEWER CONNECTIONS MUST BE PETITIONED FOR AT PUBLIC UTILTIES (483-6762) AND CONNECTED AT A MANHOLE. INSIDE DROPS IN MANHOLES ARE NOT ALLOWED. A MINIMUM 4-FOOT BURY DEPTH IS REQUIRED ON ALL SEWER MAINS AND LATERALS. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL INVERT COVERS IN ALL SEWER MANHOLES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AIR PRESSURE TESTING OF SEWER MAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PIPE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALL PVC SEWER MAIN AND LATERAL TESTING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNI-BELL UN-B-6-98 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR LOW PRESSURE AIR TESTING OF INSTALLED SEWER PIPE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SEWER LATERAL WATER TESTING AS REQUIRED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. A MINIMUM OF 9-FEET OF HEAD PRESSURE IS REQUIRED AS MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE HIGH POINT OF THE PIPELINE AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS ALONG THE PIPELINE AS DETERMINED BY THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. TESTING TIME WILL BE NO LESS THAN AS SPECIFIED FOR THE AIR TEST DURATION IN TABLE I ON PAGE 12 OF UNI-B-6-98. ALL PIPES SUBJECT TO WATER TESTING SHALL BE FULLY VISIBLE TO THE INSPECTOR DURING TESTING. TESTING MUST BE PERFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF A SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVE. ALL VISIBLE LEAKAGE MUST BE REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. K. WATER AND FIRE MAIN AND SERVICE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS - SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST APPROVE ALL FIRE AND WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS. A MINIMUM 3-FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN ALL WATER AND FIRE SERVICE TAPS INTO THE MAIN. ALL CONNECTIONS MUST BE MADE MEETING SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. A 5-FOOT MINIMUM BURY DEPTH (FINAL GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE) IS REQUIRED ON ALL WATER/FIRE LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES. WATER LINE THRUST BLOCK AND RESTRAINTS ARE AS PER SLC APPROVED DETAIL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL EXPOSED NUTS AND BOLTS WILL BE COATED WITH CHEVRON FM1 GREASE PLUS MINIMUM 8 MIL THICKNESS PLASTIC. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL NUTS, BOLTS AND WASHERS FOR HIGH GROUNDWATER/ SATURATED CONDITIONS AT FLANGE FITTINGS, ETC. ALL WATERLINES INSTALLATIONS AND TESTING TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA SECTIONS C600 C601 C651 C206 C200 C900 C303 AWWA MANUAL MI AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE AWWA UPWS ASTM AND ANSI SPECIFICATIONS RELEVANT TO THE INSTALLATION AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. AMENDMENT TO SECTION C600 SECTION 4.1.1; DOCUMENT TO READ MINIMUM TEST PRESSURE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 200 P.S.I. GAUGED TO A HIGH POINT OF THE PIPELINE BEING TESTED. ALL MATERIALS USED FOR WATERWORKS PROJECTS TO BE RATED FOR 150 P.S.I. MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE. CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL WATER SERVICE LINES, METER YOKES AND/OR ASSEMBLIES AND METER BOXS WITH LIDS LOCATED AS APPROVED ON THE PLANS PER APPLICABLE PUBLIC UTILITIES DETAIL DRAWINGS. METER BOXES ARE TO BE PLACED IN THE PARK STRIPS PERPENDICULAR TO THE WATERMAIN SERVICE TAP CONNECTION. ALL WATER METERS CATCH BASINS CLEANOUT BOXES MANHOLES DOUBLE CHECK VALVE DETECTOR ASSEMBLIES, REDUCED PRESSURE DETECTOR ASSEMBLIES AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ALL APPROACHES, DRIVEWAYS, PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND OTHER TRAVELED WAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED ON PLANS. BACKFLOW PREVENTORS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL IRRIGATION AND FIRE SPRINKLING TAPS PER PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SLC FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTORS SHALL INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES ON FIRE SPRINKLER CONNECTIONS. DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 SYSTEMS. REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON CLASS 4 SYSTEMS. ALL FIRE SPRINKLING BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES SHALL CONFORM TO ASSE STANDARD 1048, 1013, 1047 AND 1015. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PERFORM BACKFLOW PREVENTION TESTS PER SALT LAKE CITY STANDARDS AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. ALL TESTS MUST BE PERFORMED AND SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN 10 DAYS OF INSTALLATION OR WATER TURN -ON. BACKFLOW TEST FORMS ARE AVAILABLE AT PUBLIC UTILITIES' CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OFFICE. L. GENERAL WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAIN REQUIREMENTS - ALL WATER, FIRE AND SEWER SERVICES STUBBED TO A PROPERTY MUST BE USED OR WATER AND FIRE SERVICES MUST BE KILLED AT THE MAIN AND SEWER LATERALS CAPPED AT THE SEWER MAIN PER PUBLIC UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS. ALLOWABLE SERVICES TO BE KEPT WILL BE AS DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT ENGINEER. ALL WATER AND FIRE SERVICE KILLS AND SEWER LATERAL CAPS ARE TO BE KILLED AND CAPPED AS DETERMINED AND VISUALLY VERIFIED BY THE ON -SITE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. ALL MANHOLES, HYDRANTS, VALVES, CLEAN -OUT BOXES, CATCH BASINS, METERS, ETC. MUST BE RAISED OR LOWERED TO FINAL GRADE PER PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDARDS AND INSPECTOR REQUIREMENTS. CONCRETE COLLARS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED ON ALL MANHOLES, CLEANOUT BOXES, CATCH BASINS AND VALVES PER PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDARDS. ALL MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, OR CLEANOUT BOX CONNECTIONS MUST BE MADE WITH THE PIPE CUT FLUSH WITH THE INSIDE OF THE BOX AND GROUTED OR SEALED AS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. ALL MANHOLE, CLEANOUT BOX OR CATCH BASIN DISCONNECTIONS MUST BE REPAIRED AND GROUTED AS REQUIRED BY THE ON -SITE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSPECTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ALLOW ANY GROUNDWATER OR DEBRIS TO ENTER THE NEW OR EXISTING PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY TRENCHING, BACKFILL, AND PIPE ZONE AS PER SLC PUBLIC UTILITIES, "UTILITY INSTALLATION DETAIL." M. STREETLIGHTS ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT SALT LAKE CITY STANDARDS AND N.E.C. (NATIONAL ELCTRICAL CODE. A STREET LIGHTING PLAN SHOWING WIRING LOCATION, WIRING TYPE, VOLTAGE, POWER SOURCE LOCATION, CONDUIT SIZE AND LOCATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO SALT LAKE CITY AND BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NO DEVIATION OF STREETLIGHT, PULL BOXES, CONDUITS, AND ETC. LOCATIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE STREEGHT LIGHTING PROGRAM MANGER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE. STREETLIGHT POLES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET OF A FIRE HYDRANT. THE LOCATION SHALL BE SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT HINDER THE OPERATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND WATER LINE OPERATION VALVES. STREETLIGHTS AND STREETLIGHT POLES SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET FROM ANY TREE, UNLESS WRITTEN APPROVAL IS RECEIVED FROM THE STREET LIGHTING PROGRAM MANAGER. BRANCHES MAY NEED TO BE PRUNED AS DETERMINED BY THI INSPECTOR IN THE FIELD AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. STREETLIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF ANY DRIVEWAY ANTI -SEIZE LUBRICANT SHALL BE USED ON ALL COVER BOLTS AND GROUND BOX BOLTS. ALL EXISTING STREET LIGHTING SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE STREET LIGHTIN PROGRAM MANAGER. IF APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE REMOVAL OF STREETLIGHT POLES DURING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POLES WHILE THEY ARE DOWN. THE POLES SHALL BE STORED IN A SECURE z O a U) U)w w U) U) w p w Nw N W U) tV p Fn W J � u- p a W Z Ckf O of = O Ull } Z J C> U Z Lu p Of of =) O u) U Lu Q W p W N Q� U Q o U) Q z � T O 3: 0 H O �I o U M U Q L (D o N m o w d' o J CZ Y U U 0 w ly U K = w Q � r A. a (D V06 Z.- z W w c co ti 0 0 > W W O — w .� w W 0LLI � Y o v 00 Z Z �^ VJ = c Q � q W(DC)=off co_o M z z M U)O W _I J W 2 O Q a Lu LLJ o ce) V/ = U O LLI = O Q Ury J Q V N W D v r lk C. UTILITY LOCATIONS - CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND AVOIDING ALL UTILITIES AND SERVICE LATERALS, AND FOR REPAIRING ALL DAMAGE THAT OCCURS TO THE UTILTIES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S r OF ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE, MATERIAL AND OUTSIDE DIAMETERS OF UTILITIES IN THE FIELD BY POTHOLING A MINIMUM OF 300-FEET AHEAD OF SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION IN ' PROJECT NO. 2409146 , SALT LAKE CITY GENERAL NOTES CGN.02 3 OF 11 r r NORTH EX. 30" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN W EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.12 INV IN 12"RCP(N) = 4412.72 (PROTECT) SS SS SS EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.06 INV IN 24"RCP(S) = 4408.96 INV OUT 24"RCP(E) = 4408.86 (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) EX. SDMH RIM 4415.66 INV IN 24"RCP(N) = 4408.76 INV OUT 24"RCP(S) = 4408.76 (PROTECT) \ EX. 8" RCP EX. SD INLET BOX RIM 4415.36 INV OUT 12"CPP(E) = 4413.01 (PROTECT) EX. SDMH RIM = 4415.76 INV IN 12"CPP(W) = 4412.26� INV IN 24"RCP(N) = 4408.16 INV IN 18"RCP(E) = 4410.26 INV OUT 24"RCP(S) = 4407.96 (PROTECT) EX. SIGN SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT) W - W EX. SDMH SD RIM = 4417.47 ( (PROTECT) EX. SDMH RIM = 4416.92 INV IN 12"RCP(SE) = 4413.62 INV IN 30"RCP(N) = 4408.92 BOTTOM OF BOX = 4408.72 SD ��S - (PROTECT) ISS 1= SS-" 1 EX. SSMH 1 RIM = 4416.32 INV IN 10"RCP(N) 4405.62 INV IN 12"RCP(E) = 4405.02 INV IN 8"RCP(S) = 4406.12 INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4405.02 U) (PROTECT) EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN D (PROTECT)) II EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) -X. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH 'ROVIDER TO ROUTE \ROUND NEW BLDG) I EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4417 V OUT 18"RCP(W) = 4411.6 (PROTECT) o EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & GUTTER & PARK STRIP) o U) of Co EX. DRIVE APPROACH (SAWCUT & REBUILD CURB & Co GUTTER AS NEEDED) C/) EX. SSMH RIM - 4416.05 U' U) INV OUT (N) = 4408.25 (PROTECT) SD EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4415.07 INV OUT 12"RCP(E) = 4411.57 EX. SDMH (PROTECT) RIM = 4415.69 (PROTECT) I EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4414.97 INV IN (W) = 4406.47 INV IN 18"RCP(N) - 4406.77 INV OUT (E) - 4406.37 (PROTECT) . 12" RCP SEWER MAIN (PROTECT) SD EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.37 (PROTECT) EX. SD INLET BOX - UG (HLIVIUVC) (UUUML GAS UT p U p (REMOVE) SD SD EX. SD PIPE (REMOVE) EX. SDMH RIM = 4419.10 (PROTECT) EX. WATER SERVICE LINE 19" (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) --- EX. TREE 133"" (REMOVE) 18� EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE 36" (REMOVE) EX. TREE (REMOVE) EX. TREE / (REMOVE) / 24" EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN SD EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE & GUY WIRE (PROTECT) EX. SD INLET BOX RIM = 4420.25 INV IN 6"PVC(W) = 4417.75 INV OUT 6"PVC(N) = 4417.45 (REMOVE) EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 I I I I 111111111111111 111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII, (IN FEET) 1 inch = 20ft. z O w U of N w wU) � w w Nw N N n Lu J � LL o = Of O of =O U } Z J c� Uz �O U U Lu Q U w Q o w U) am o U)Q z � T O o ~ 0- O M �I o < U Q u- 2i O o Q r� o w CV o Z Y U � r �1pNAL rNo./ IF 06 V o Z?N �(D L� Lu zw�L:,lE Q g 1 U \ Ell o C / M .0 LJ w OfCD 2 O E w Z v U z " U) U) z- __ W 0 0 0 z z o Q _M W Q �' Q a a � r 4 J W O Qa 1 w LLJ o � V) C D = U O = O Q Q (D r N U) �Z) U) � r PROJECT NO. 2409146 DEMO CDP.01 4OF11 r IF NORTH EX. TRAFFIC LIGHT (PROTECT) EX. ADA RAMP (PROTECT) REPLACE PARK STRIP O WITH CONCRETE \ WALKWAY (TYP) NEW HANDRAIL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) REPLACE PARK STRIP WITH CONCRETE O5 / WALKWAY (TYP) N89°52'10"E 33.31' (ML 10 Ct _ i � 5 -/ 121.8' a - � 54 00ul- / a 5.0' —, / 10 0 '� fQ EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) m N W 0 10 o' o '1 0.0' 2 10 i it ui 0 / ° 41 4 STEF-S EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) °ai �� -C10 �o I' 2 r V4.0' f� n QZ 6.0' �— ` W clo G\ � 9 � �I / j/ ✓ � 4.0' co a U a 4.8' .17 5 l ° C EX. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT) EX. CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PROTECT) NEW BUILDING 17,360 S.F. 8.0' 5a,� J U 1. .. - - WALKWAY TO SUGARHOUSE PARK 2100 SOUTH / (PUBLIC STREET) 4 2 29.4' A 1�p EX. STONE FENCE (REMOVE) WATER FEATURE (DESIGN BY OTHERS) GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 IIIIIIIIIIII1 IIIIIIII♦ IIIIIIIIIII, ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20ft. CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO. DESCRIPITON DETAIL O ASPHALT PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1A/CDT.01 O2 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER APWA #205 TYPE'A' O3 STAMPED CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE (PER ARCH.) 1 B/CDT.01 U DRIVE APPROACH PER APWA #222 �5 SIDEWALK PER APWA #231 © CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH GRANULAR BASE 1 B/CDT.01 O7 BRICK PAVERS PER ARCHITECT ® 4' WATERWAY PER APWA #211 O9 SAWCUT PER SLC STDS* 10 TREE PLANTER W/ GRATE PER SLC URBAN FORESTRY 11 ROCK OR BLOCK RETAINING WALL (DESIGN BY OTHERS) 12 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP 1/CDT.02 *SAWCUT AND REPLACE ASPHALT V OFF LIP OF GUTTER WHERE REMOVING CURB & GUTTER AREA TABLE PARTICULARS S.F. % BUILDING 17,360 50.1 HANDSCAPE 15,340 44.3 LANDSCAPE 1,942 5.6 TOTAL 34,642 100.0 NOTE: SLOPE ACROSS THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS & ACCESS ISLE SHALL NOT EXCEED A 1:48 (2.00%) SLOPE, THE MAX GRADE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASPHALT SURFACE, ACCESSIBLE RAMP, AND SIDEWALK SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/4 INCH VERTICAL OR 1/2 INCH WHEN BEVELED. THE ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY PORTION SHALL NOT EXCEED A SLOPE OF 1:20 (5.0%) & A CROSS SLOPE OF 1:48 (2.0%). ALL EXTERIOR DOOR WAY ACCESS REQUIRE AN EXTERIOR LANDING 60 INCHES IN LENGTH WITH A SLOPE NOT EXCEEDING A 1:48 (2.0%) SLOPE NOTE: SAWCUT WIDTH, LOCATIONS AND TIE-IN ELEVATIONS TO EXISTING GRADE ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LOCATION, EXTENT OF SAWCUTTING, AND TIE-IN SLOPES TO EXISTING GRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SHALL TIE INTO EXISTING GRADE PER SLOPES LISTED ON CGN.01 NOTE 70. SEE NOTES 66, 70, 82, & 83 ON CGN.01 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. NOTE: ALL WORK WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS TO BE DONE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH SLC STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS z — Co u- Y cn W _ �__ 2= W �_ L p = W- U) N- W w- N p- N W J U =_ J � Ll W _ Z of O �= O- U W =_ Z J— uJ p = (If w- l o-- Cn O= im W Q= p W C_ J Z_ U o= (n Q= o z �. < Lo uj 0 O N- V J M o U � o CD °a w N > m Cl K o J - Z < Y U U 0 w U of w 0 U ILL A 4 06 o Z�N N V >_ � ti LL z w C Qo U W W v � ` W O 2 �'�`� � W ::) V U z z " a �_�� w (D o o M `o Q W z Z °M° cn w Q;, J Q �. a Z ■ of J W O 1 Qa w LLJ o U) CY)� = U O LLII = OQ U) J Q (D N C) �D V ) .n p, PROJECT No. 2409146 SITE PLAN CSP.01 5OF11 ol J EX. 30" RCP STORM DRA NI MAIN W I rl 'r I o � W VV - W � �— SD SD® SS EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN (PROTECT) SS SS SS 0 0/J o EX. SEWER MAIN Co (PROTECT) <, o < Co Cn EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN G C) Cn G EX. WATER MAIN (PROTECT) EX. WATER LATERAL (KILL AT MAIN) EX. 12" RCP SEWER MAIN \ (PROTECT) / S� IJD W W W W W jLL Q SD SD SD 5� EX. 12" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN �� I o / (PROTECT) 2 EX. WATER SERVICE LINE SS SS ss SD Ss SS SS SS SD B SD Q EX. SSMH 0 I RIM = 4416.32 7 EX. WATER METER I INV IN 10"RCP(N) = 4405.62 (REMOVE) INV IN 12"RCP(E) 4405.02 EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE INV IN 8"RCP(S) = 4406.12 (PROTECT) A 5 o D w INV OUT 12"RCP(W) = 4405.02 S SD ` EX. GAS LINE SD 2 (PROTECT) D SD FO SD SD FO FO FO HP cC SD SD — 5� �— FFO FO FO —c?1Al o 0.3' U) 32.5' - Co - ° W<° 6 Y. EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PROVIDER TO ROUTE AROUND NEW BLDG) 105.4' EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) sC C @ N`Zo'� @ 23 L.F. @ 5.2% Co @9 85 L. F. @ 4.8% Cn ) (PROTECT) EX. SSMH RIM = 4416.05 CO INV OUT (N) = 4408.25 INV (NEW NE) = 4408.45 SD \ NEW SAMPLING MANHOLE \ g RIM: 4415.95 IE (E):4412.83 IE (W):4412.50 —1� /i 9 /V/�J' 4 5 1 / / 0 FIRE RISER ROOM 1) n FFE=4418.50 IE: 4413.50 19 L.F. @ 2.0%®D 'C ri 10 00i iJ O 4 n n hu iui a d n d 0 - NEW GREASE TRAP 14 ARIM:4416.50 11 a n Cn c IE (E):4413.12 -AO O IE (W):4412.87 IN j 2 L.F. @ 2.0%® SD Sid _ TRANSFORMER ACCESS 4,1 � I EX. GAS LINE (PROTECT) EX. 24" RCP STORM DRAIN MAIN ONP EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE (PROTECT) EX. POWER POLE (PROTECT) NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 I I I I I ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20ft. CONSTRUCTION KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO. DESCRIPITON DETAIL 10 GATE VALVE PER SLCPU STDS. @ 4" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE LINE @ 4" WATER METER & VAULT PER APWA #523 ® 4" POLY WATER SERVICE LINE @5 6" PVC C-900 FIRELINE © FIRE HYDRANT PER APWA #511 @7 THRUST BLOCK PER APWA #561 ® 4" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 2.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 @9 6" PVC SDR-35 SEWER LATERAL @ 1.0% MIN SLOPE PER APWA #431 10 SEWER CLEANOUT PER APWA #431 11 1500 GAL SEWER GREASE TRAP PER APWA #441 12 SAMPLING MANHOLE PER APWA #341.2 NOTE: PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, BEGIN AT THE LOW END OF ALL GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THE INVERT ELEVATION OF THE POINT OF CONNECTION. NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF CONNECTION POINT IS HIGHER THAN SHOWN OR IF ANY UTILITY CONFLICTS OCCUR. GRAVITY CONNECTIONS MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO BUILDING FOOTINGS AND ROUGH PLUMBING ARE CONSTRUCTED. EXISTING UTILITIES NOTE: EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN NOTED TO THE BEST OF ENGINEERS KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER IT IS THE OWNER'S AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE UTILITIES IN FIELD. POTHOLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFLICTS BEFORE ANY PIPE INSTALLATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS EXIST PRIOR TO CONTINUING ANY CONSTRUCTION. NOTE A:O 12" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN STORM AND WATER LINES. LOOP WATER MAIN IF IN CONFLICT. 18" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SEWER AND WATER LINES. CONTACT ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF NECESSARY NOTE C:@ 12" OF VERTICAL SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWEEN SEWER AND STORM. CONTACT ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF NECESSARY. DEMAND CULINARY WATER 200 GPM SEWER 237 GPM FIRE SPRINKLER XXX GPM FIRE FLOW XXX GPM z 0 W COW wU) U) w w Nw N N 0 � W U J � u-o wwr 0 [if O = 0 Z � c� Nz �0 U Q w o wW U � o COQ Z � r O o ~ U Q � C� o C'V m o w o � U J Z Y ly of Cl = U w LL Q � r 14 W V o Z�N / W ti z U 0 _ U)_ o \ W o / W a� Cu .V N LU o E w_ Is U ZzU) < w 0 = o m z z oo a � U)Co w Q Q a a J W O Qa W W o� U) ce)� = U O = OQ U) J Q V N W rD �/ � r PROJECT NO. 2409146 UTILITY PLAN CUP.01 6 OF 11 �- SD �C�® I / SD _S9__ - --- SD/-®' SO / / C9 SD CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND \ REPLACE CONCRETE AS / --- - p / NECESSARY TO ENSURE 5'X5' \ \ CONCRETE PAD OUTSIDE DOORS I I \ \ COMPLIANT WITH ADA STANDARDS \ N _ N - � (0 ^ I o \ 1 Q I SD T SD SD 23.06 I \ SD -�- SD SD S� 19D6 19.46 I 23.06 TOC C _ _ TO \ - - 4414- I� \ I \ TOC _ TO _ - - _-- - - - - I 4. \ 23.16 / I I Cl) C\j N / i SD - �DI I MATCH EX '\ I 1 19.56 1 TOC I cn 8 TOC I ' 17.85± I / 19.8918.87 1 1 i I TOC \ TOC EG 1 / 171 ' I .95 MATCH EX TOC \ \ ' -7 79± i 23.1 E { TOC I � 17.89 Q \ TOA 14 MATCH EX. r TOC \ `J� I17.68± TOC 18.50 No 23.16 o I TOC �, roc RAMP TO LOWER PARKING GARAGE TOA MATCH E�" j� (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR j 17.60± I 18.41 \ ELEVATIONS AND CONTINUATION) * TOC _ % TOC co / I I N SD ° 17.69 I TOC 18.48 4 STEPS � <; I TOC 17.77 (SEE ARCHITECTURAL \ FL o PLANS FOR DETAILS) 18^47 2F/ , II / IM TCH EX. i I 6.48± I I TO �l MATC EX. ° I o I II 16.39± "I J I TOC co a � _ 14 UNDERGROUND CONCRETE STORM WATER 16.25\i / cTo T 3C-TAPER STORAGE SYSTEM VOLUME:3800 C.F. ', ��5 64 TCH EX (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS To INCLUDING CONNECTIONS AND EJECTION PUMP) To '7 1 I NEW 3'X3' CATCH BASIN (#405)Cf)� I r ®O RIMA415.97 ;�- IE (SW):4407.00 ' / a 'IVIATCH EX. 15.72-t / a U) �TOC I 15"0RCP CLASS III -SD `\D623 L.F. a;1.00% SLOPE 9 SI Sr'' SD '� SD S i II i I 1 TBC I EX. SDIB (#406) TBC A414.97 I / I IE (NE):4406.77 J IE (W) :4406.47 IE (E):4406.37 J I l TOW BOW _T 24.76124761 r TBC BOW _ [26.77126.771 EG TOW 22.79122.7,9122.79 TOW BOW TBC EG FG \�25.66 25.66I I 1 EG FG -NEV SUIE (#4U2) d TBC:4416.89 0 18.37 -I .9% IE (S) :4413.89 TBC i 18.50 p 17.46 TOC LO 2 8/ FL -4 3 o 26 17.91 / -4.1 % �22 17.15 TOC -1 TOC % 17.56 / 17 7-8 TOC /'//TB/C c '� /' � `? 0 20.18 n/ TBC O Qv \ � / ° 4p2 0 4 R-../ _ Slo o 0 / / 12" 0 HDPE SD PIPE° 2 `--26 L.F. @ 0.50% SLOPE 2 2% X - 20.93 � � i a 9 119.75119.75 EG TBC EG / 1TBC 19.12 4419 �4419 EG NEW SDIB (#401) _ 4418- �D TBCA417.46 0 -4417, IE (NW):4413.76 PIPE 2 �12 L..FH@ 0 ODPE D SLOPE � 2 I -NEW OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (#404), .,, RIMA416.64 O IE (SE):4413.70 (SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR \ 1 CONNECTION AND CONTINUATION) I / GRADING AND DRAINAGE KEY NOTE REFERENCE NO.I DESCRIPITON DETAIL 1O GRADE SITE TO ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN O2 12" DIAMETER HDPE ADS N-12 STORM DRAIN LINE U STORM DRAIN INLET BOX 3/CDT.01 ® 3X3 CATCH BASIN 2/CDT.01 O5 OIL -WATER SEPARATOR (OLDCASTLE OR EQUAL) © 15" DIAMETER RCP -CLASS III STORM DRAIN LINE ALL HDPE/RCP CLASS III PIPE TO HAVE SOIL TIGHT JOINTS EXISTING UTILITIES NOTE: EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN NOTED TO THE BEST OF ENGINEERS KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER IT IS THE OWNER'S AND CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO LOCATE UTILITIES IN FIELD. POTHOLE TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFLICTS BEFORE ANY PIPE INSTALLATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS EXIST PRIOR TO CONTINUING ANY CONSTRUCTION. NOTE: PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION, BEGIN AT THE LOW END OF ALL GRAVITY UTILITY LINES AND VERIFY THE INVERT ELEVATION OF THE POINT OF CONNECTION. NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR REDESIGN IF CONNECTION POINT IS HIGHER THAN SHOWN OR IF ANY UTILITY CONFLICTS OCCUR. GRAVITY CONNECTIONS MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO BUILDING FOOTINGS AND ROUGH PLUMBING ARE CONSTRUCTED. SURVEY CONTROL NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR OR SURVEYOR PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PER THE APPROVED PLANS ONLY. THE SURVEYOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING HORIZONTAL CONTROL FROM THE SURVEY MONUMENTS AND FOR VERIFYING ANY ADDITIONAL CONTROL POINTS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY OR IMPROVEMENTS PLANS OR ON ELECTRONIC DATA PROVIDED BY BENCHMARK ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING. THE SURVEYOR SHALL ALSO USE THE BENCHMARKS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, AND VERIFY THEM AGAINST NO LESS THAN THREE EXISTING HARD IMPROVEMENT ELEVATIONS INCLUDED ON THESE PLANS OR ON ELECTRONIC DATA PROVIDED BY BENCHMARK ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE SURVEYOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AND RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING. IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SURVEYOR TO VERIFY ANY ELECTRONIC DATA WITH THE APPROVED STAMPED AND SIGNED PLANS AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES. NOTE: SAWCUT WIDTH, LOCATIONS AND TIE-IN ELEVATIONS TO EXISTING GRADE ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LOCATION, EXTENT OF SAWCUTTING, AND TIE-IN SLOPES TO EXISTING GRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE INTENT ON THESE PLANS THAT ALL PAVEMENT SHALL TIE INTO EXISTING GRADE PER SLOPES LISTED ON CGN.01 NOTE 70. SEE NOTES 66, 70, 82, & 83 ON CGN.01 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. NOTE: O STORM WATER TO ENTER CATCH BASIN FROM UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM VIA EJECTOR PUMP, SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Rational Method (Q=CIA) Rational Area Identification (A) C*A Coefficient (C) Roof= 17,360 0.9 15624 S.F. Pavement = 15,340 0.9 13806 S.F. Landscaping = 1,942 0.2 388.4 S.F. Sum: 34642 S.F. Sum: 29818 S.F. NOAA ATLAS 14 (100 YEAR STORM) - Allowable Discharge = .20cfs/acre Rainfall Allowed Time Intensity Rainfall Volume to Detain Excess Discharge (min) (in:'hr) (inches) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) 15 4.14 1.035 2572 143 2429 30 2.79 1.395 3466 286 3180 60 1.72 1.720 4274 573 3701 120 0.95 1.908 4741 1145 3596 180 0.65 1.944 4831 1718 3113 360 0.35 2.100 5218 3436 1783 720 0.21 2.508 6232 6871 0 1440 0.12 2.760 6858 13742 0 Detention Calculations Underground Concrete Storage System Detention Volume= 3,800 cf (see mechanical plans for details) Is there adequate storage? Storage Provided = 3,800 cf Req. Storage = 3,701 cf YES EN M. - �"01_ GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 I I I I rf ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20ft. BENCHMARK: STREET MONUMENT AT 2100 SOUTH AND DOUGLAS AVENUE. NAVD88 ELEVATION = 4401.32' Z 0 a U) F-- Of U) w w co U) '' I = w 0 N N N 0 �w J � LLLU zof 00 2 0 oil } zC9 U)o Uj Q U W W U) �Q 0 o C) 0 0 N 0 U Q �1 - ai t :E (D o Z Q Y U U w LL U K U w 0 O All a 06 o Z�RN It �2 \ w ti T ~ Z w � � 0 _ o '� U 5 \ W o / w °O U w /�/ Y 2 1'yr N o E wv U c ZzU)U~-q W V '^ Q = M z z oC) a '0 MU) W J Q C� Z � O W Q = w~ I..I.J O U/ CY) D = U 0LU = O Q U J Q (D r N U) �Z) U) III PROJECT NO. 2409146 ^O91AG y GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN CGD.01 7 OF 11 NORTH \ I I � \ � I � 1 I �II I� � I I I I I I I i i / I I I I I I � I 4 a � o r J ° ° ° ° z ° 2', O , III I GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET) 1 inch — 20ft. SWPPP KEY NOTES REFERENCE PROVIDE, INSTALL AND/OR CONSTRUCT THE FOLLOWING PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN OR REFERENCED AND THE DETAILS NOTED AND AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. JO, DESCRIPTION DETAIL D CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT 1/CEP.02 D INLET PROTECTION WATTLE 2/CEP.02 D MATERIALS STORAGE 3/CEP.02 D PORTABLE TOILETS 4/CEP.02 D SILT FENCE 6/CEP.02 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 7/CEP.02 NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROLS (SILT FENCES, STRAW BALES, ETC) AS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCIES. SAID CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGENCY STANDARDS AND FOLLOWING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ACTUAL PLACEMENT ON SITE. STRAW BALES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUESTED BY AGENCY INSPECTORS SHALL BE REQUIRED. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, TO MINIMIZE ANY DUST NUISANCE AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. z O Uw U U) � _ W U) w U) N N 0 M W J U J LL � Z O = 0 Uil i Z J U z ui in UO Q U ui o w w U) J � O Cn Q z O oFT U Co c� '::I- o U Q LL. m o w N o Z 0 wy. U U U ti W 0 �lpsAL No. 10360773 M. CHRIS J w O Qa 1 w W o� U) (y)� D = U O �LL] = O Q U) J N U) U) PROJECT NO. 2409146 EROSION CONTROL PLAN CEP.01 8OF11 BMP: Concrete Waste Management BMP: Inlet Protection — Wattle I P-W CONSTRUCTION BMP: Materials Storage BMP: Portable Toilets BMP: Spill Clean -Up �(;QN I AINME NI Locate 50' From Nearest EAP.IH UERM ALL AROUND Drainage Area. / \ GW PONDi STORAGE DESCRIPTION: Prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm water from concrete waste by conducting washout off -site, performing on -site washout in a designated area, and training employees and subcontractors. APPLICATIONS: This technique is applicable to all types of sites. INSTALLATION/APPLICATION CRITERIA: • Store dry and wet materials under cover, away from drainage areas. • Avoid mixing excess amounts of fresh concrete or cement on -site. • Perform washout of concrete trucks off -site or in designated areas only. • Do not wash out concrete trucks into storm drains, open ditches, streets, or streams. • Do not allow excess concrete to be dumped on -site, except in designated areas. • When washing concrete to remove fine particles and expose the aggregate, avoid creating runoff by draining the water within a bermed or level area. (See Earth Berm Barrier information sheet.) • Train employees and subcontractors in proper concrete waste management. p p g LIMITATIONS: • Off -site washout of concrete wastes may not always be possible. MAINTENANCE: • Inspect subcontractors to ensure that concrete wastes are being properly managed. • If using a temporary pit, dispose hardened concrete on a regular basis. DESCRIPTION: Sediment barrier erected around storm drain inlet. APPLICATION: Construct at storm drainage inlets located down -gradient of areas to be disturbed by construction. INSTALLATION/APPLICATION CRITERIA: ♦ Provide up -gradient sediment controls, such as silt fence during construction of inlet ♦ When construction of curb and gutter and roadways is complete, install gravel filled wattles around perimeter of inlet LIMITATIONS: ♦ Recommended maximum contributing drainage area of one acre ♦ Requires shallow slopes adjacent to inlet MAINTENANCE: ♦ Inspect inlet protection following storm event and at a minimum of once every 14 days. ♦ Remove accumulated sediment when it reaches 4 inches in depth. ♦ Look for bypassing or undercutting and repair or realign as needed. SECURITY PLASTIC TARP PLASTIC FOR TO COVER WHEN TEMPORARY STORAGE NOT IN USE a1f STORAGE "CONTROLLED STORAGE LOCATION ►BERMED PERIMETER IMPOUNDMENT ►STORAGE OFF GROUND ►COVER WHEN NOT IN USE DESCRIPTION: Controlled storage of on -site materials. APPLICATION: • Storage of hazardous, toxic, and all chemical substances. • Any construction site with outside storage of materials. INSTALLATION/APPLICATION CRITERIA: • Designate a secured area with limited access as the storage location. Ensure no waterways or drainage paths are nearby. • Construct compacted earthen berm (See Earth Berm Barrier Information Sheet), or similar perimeter containment around storage location for impoundment in the case of spills. • Ensure all on -site personnel utilize designated storage area. Do not store excessive amounts of material that will not be utilized on site. • For active use of materials away from the storage area ensure materials are not set directly on the ground and are covered when not in use. Protect storm drainage during use. LIMITATIONS: • Does not prevent contamination due to mishandling of products. • Spill Prevention and Response Plan still required. • Only effective if materials are actively stored in controlled location. MAINTENANCE: • Inspect daily and repair any damage to perimeter impoundment or security fencing. • Check materials are being correctly stored (i.e. standing upright, in labeled containers, tightly capped) and that no materials are being stored away from the designated location. CONTAINMENT EARTHBERM c j CRAvEI PAO FX t' DESCRIPTION: Temporary on -site sanitary facilities for construction personnel. APPLICATION: All sites with no permanent sanitary facilities or where permanent facility is too far from activities. INSTALLATION/APPLICATION CRITERIA: • Locate portable toilets in convenient locations throughout the site. • Prepare level, gravel surface and provide clear access to the toilets for servicing and for on -site personnel. • Construct earth berm perimeter (See Earth Berm Barrier Information Sheet), control for spill/protection leak. LIMITATIONS: No limitations. MAINTENANCE: • Portable toilets should be maintained in good working order by licensed service with daily observation for leak detection. • Regular waste collection should be arranged with licensed service. • All waste should be deposited in sanitary sewer system for treatment with appropriate agency approval. DESCRIPTION: Practices to clean-up leakage/spillage of on -site materials that may be harmful to receiving waters. APPLICATION: All sites GENERAL: • Store controlled materials within a storage area. • Educate personnel on prevention and clean-up techniques. • Designate an Emergency Coordinator responsible for employing preventative practices and for providing spill response. • Maintain a supply of clean-up equipment on -site and post a list of local response agencies with phone numbers. METHODS: • Clean-up spills/leaks immediately and remediate cause. • Use as little water as possible. NEVER HOSE DOWN OR BURY SPILL CONTAMINATED MATERIAL. • Use rags or absorbent material for clean-up. Excavate contaminated soils. Dispose of clean-up material and soil as hazardous waste. • Document all spills with date, location, substance, volume, actions taken and other pertinent data. • Contact local Fire Department and State Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (Phone #536-4100) for any spill of reportable quantity. CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT(::� INLET PROTECTION WATTLEi � MATERIALS STORAGE, � PORTABLE TOILETS SPILL CLEAN UPiscaLNrs �sca�NTs �scare ee Nrs `3i sca�Nrs �sca�Nrs�5�ee EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC NEEDED WITHOUT WIRE MESH SUPPORT STEEL OR ATTACH FILTER FABRIC WOOD POST SECURELY TO UPSTREAM - SIDE OF POST I I d A III I I I j l FLOW •d 'III I I I � <d � �, ` " •" �. III I ,,.--•' ` < . /\� : I " \\\i\\\/\� 10' (3m) AXIMUM SPACING WITH WIRE �. \\\\/ \; /�/////,,// SUPPORT FENCE 6 (1.8m) MAXIMUM SPACING WITHOUT WIRE SUPPORT FENCE STEEL OR WOOD POST 36" (1 m) HIGH MAX. PONDING HEIGHT X E w PONDING HEIGHT L" Q CV FLOW 00 • - C`J0 ; - E j 3/4" (20mm) MIN. DRAIN ROCK FLOW.ro E 00 CD CD �Jl1t�° :8.... (V NV 4"x6" (100 X 150mm) \� TRENCH WITH COMPACTED BACKFILL TRENCH DETAIL NOTES: 1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. INSTALLATION WITHOUT TRENCHING NOT TO SCALE 2. INSPECT AND REPAIR FENCE AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY. 9" (225mm) MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED STORAGE HEIGHT. 3. REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE SEDIMENT OFF -SITE AND CAN BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SILT FENCEo6 scn�NTs SCALE: REF: FROM © 1994JOHN McCULLAH DIVERSION RIDGE REQUIRED WHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2% 2% OR GREATER �� o° / o p000QA °�b3° °a° o a 6 eg g`?� ° ROADWAY °�� '`�Cs�O° FILTER FABRIC SECTION A - A STRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, OR CONTINUOUS BERM OF EQUIVALENT HEIGHT SUPPLY WATER TO WASH WHEELS IF NECESSARY moo} FLOW / DIVERSION RIDGE SPILLWAY NOTE: USES NDBAGS, STRAW BALES OTHER APPROVED METHODS CHANNELIZE RUNOFF TO SIN AS REQUIRED. r � o� FLOW = 50' (15m) MIN. _ PLAN NOTES: 1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAY REQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT BASIN. TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT07SCALE:NTS REF: FROM © 1994JOHN McCULLAH "SWPPP INFORMATION" MUST BE DISPLAYED PROMINENTLY ACROSS THE TOP OF THE SIGN, AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL. SIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF A RIGID MATERIAL, SUCH AS PLYWOOD OR OUTDOOR SIGN BOARD. SIGN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER TO PROTECT DOCUMENTS FROM DAMAGE DUE TO WEATHER (WIND, SUN, MOISTURE, ETC.) NOTES: 1) THE SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN MUST BE LOCATED NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION EXIT OF THE SITE, SUCH THAT IT IS ACCESSIBLE AND VIEWABLE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT NOT OBSTRUCTING VIEWS AS TO CAUSE A SAFETY HAZARD. 2) ALL POSTED DOCUMENTS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEARLY READABLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL THE NOTICE -TO TERMINATION (NOT) IS FILED FOR THE PERMIT. 3) CONTRACTOR SHALL POST OTHER STORM WATER AND/OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RELATED PERMITS ON THE SIGN AS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. 4) SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. 5) CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING STABILITY IF THE SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN. 4' (MINIMUM) _ i --SWPPP INFORMATION COPY OF GENERAL COPY COPY CONTRACTOR OF OF No' PROJECT PROJECT TRANSFER CONSTRUCTION NOI FORM OR SITE CO-PERMITEE NOTICE FORM c C z COPY COPY COPY OF OF OF STATE GENERAL PROJECT SUPPLIED CONTRACTOR PERMIT AUTHORIZATION CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SITE AUTHORIZATION NOTICE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THE SWPPP DOCUMENTATION (BINDER AND SITE MAPS) ON THE SITE. I \/�/x//x�/x/\/ / / z SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN*SCALE:NTS REF: FROM © 1994JOHN McCULLAH Z O H O N F— W � W U) W W W N fV Cl) N 0 �W J J LL_ 2-1 � OOf = EL U Z r CJ'J N Z W 0 Of EY O N U Q w o W U) U � o N Q z � T O a H U) U 11 O M �l o U QCID lai C� o w N m o o Z Y U U L w w o U 1: r r A pNAL No. 10360773 M. CHRIS 14 >r A 06 ZCD�� U Z W��1= Q _ N a L LwLI 00 ,> U WILLI CU L _ ��E UWDI_ CID ZZU)Cn WUpjo Uz mZZMCn W Q �' J Q r>� X U M Z Cs � r i PROJECT NO. 2409146 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CEP.02 9 OF 11 r r (ASPHALT co AGGREGATE BASE COURSE °' ' _III, IIi I I_I III—II1 �" —III I� COMPACTED ASPHALT PAVEMENTO CONCRETE AGGREGATE i BASE COURSE �///�//�"-Lo COMPACTED CONCRETE PAVEMENT B NOTE: 1. FOR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 2. FOR DOWEL DESIGN OF PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS SEE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. PAVEMENT SECTIONSO SCALE:NTS FRAME AND GRATE � C� SEE PLAN SD-12 A BEGIN TOP OF CURB 3'x3' FRAME AND GRA 12" B � 8" #4 REBAR SOTH SIDES SEE NOTE 3 RISER VAULT 3'x3' CATCH BASIN GRADE RING - HEIGHT CODE WEIGHT 4" GR304 I 180# 6" GR306 270# RISER RING & GRATE RC30RG WT. 405# HEIGHT CODE WEIGHT LIFTING I 1' UV441R 1,350# I VAULT INSERTS IN4T I 2' UV442R 2,700# I HEIGHT CODE WEIGHT 3' UV443R 4,050# I 3' CB443 3,225# 4' UV444R 5,400# I 4' CB444 4,575# 5' UV445R 6,750# I 5' CB445 5,925# 6' UV446R 8,100# I 6' CB446 7,275# NOTES: 1. CATCH BASINS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET ASTM C858 WITH AASHTO HS-20 LOADING. 2. OPENINGS MAY BE SIZED AND LOCATED AS REQUIRED. 3. OPTIONAL GRATING OR COVER MATERIAL MAY BE CAST IN AS REQUIRED. 4. CHECK HARDWARE SECTION FOR OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES. 12" DIA, KNOCKOUTS TYP. ALL (4) SIDES 31x3' CATCH BASIN 2 O SCALE:NTS GROUND SURFACE CURB FACE OPENING SEE NOTE 6 A a � • • ° #4 @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY Q 2 Cn CJ B� TYPE A —CURB INLET WITH SINGLE GRATE INVERT OF GUTTER BOTTOM �- OF CURB — #4 REBAR (TYP) SEE NOTE 3 i°. i co . . f f 6� _ 2'-11 %11 6" -- = 3'-11 %" _ SECTION A —A � CONSTRUCTION JOINT (TYP) (2) #4 x 18" (TYP) DIRECTION OF GUTTER FLOW DROP FLOWLINE PER NOTE 6 CONCRETE SEE NOTE 4 y 6" 2 -01' _ . 6" 3'-01' SECTION B—B • a f BACKFILL ALL SIDES a SEE NOTE 2 611 • L SELECT FILL • • a SEE NOTE 1 & 2 ° CURB INLET W/ SINGLE GRATE SCALE:NTS (A) SECTION C—C SEE NOTE 3 1. SELECT FILL: USE UNTREATED BASE COARSE GRADE 1 OR GRADE 3/ PER APWA SECTION 02060. USE OF SEWER ROCK OR RECYCLED AGGREGATE REQUIRES ENGINEER'S WRITTEN APPROVAL. 2. BACKFILL: INSTALL AND COMPACT ALL BACKFILL MATERIAL PER APWA SECTION 02321. 3. REINFORCEMENT: USE ASTM A 615, GRADE 60, DEFORMED STEEL REBAR PER APWA SECTION 03200. 4. CONCRETE: CLASS 4,000 PER APWA SECTION 03304. PLACE PER APWA SECTION 03310. APPLY SEALING/CURING COMPOUND PER APWA SECTION 03390. 5. PIPE LATERALS: THE DRAWING SHOWS ALTERNATE CONNECTIONS TO THE INLET BOX. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR CONNECTION LOCATIONS. 6. CURB FACE OPENING: MAKE OPENING 4 INCHES HIGH. PROVIDE AT LEAST A 2 INCH DROP FROM THE GUTTER FLOWLINE TO THE INVERT OF THE CURB FACE OPENING. z 0 n co W cn w� inNw N W N N p N W J U J � u-uj 00 = 0 Uil i Z J z w0 ofw Uo U Q Lu w o W � Q=) o U) Q z T ~ O CN C V U) U U Q c coI uo u- �E (D o w N m o K O J Z < Y U U w � of w U lz c A. �lpN9L �, No. 10360773 M. CHRIS won V 06 CDZ!�?N / W ti zw�� O 5> � '� U L W Ov > W v 2LuW L Lu O E O W D00 V U " Z z U) w (D 0 o Do¢ pp Z z U) w Q J Q M v ~ r Q w ol PROJECT NO. 2409146 DETAIL SHEET CDT.01 10OF11 Y CLEAR SPACE A / LANDING 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB RgMp SIDEWALK PARALLEL PEDESTRIAN RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 2' NO LIP AT MIN ~ 4' MIN. 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB LINE CURB IF REQUIRED 6" MIN UNTREATED SECTION A -A BASE COURSE FLARE CLEAR SPACE —�� B OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER SIDEWALK B LANDING OPTIONAL AT THE DISCRETION OF ENGINEER PERPENDICULAR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FLARE IS ACCEPTABLE IN LIEU OF FULL HEIGHT CURB SEE LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE NO LIP AT CURB LINE \ C T 2' MIN. 0 SECTION B-B 4' MIN. 0 rZATC► 64 1 "no l 6" MIN UNTREATED BASE COURSE OVERLAY FEATHER EDGE OF OVERLAY TO XII MAX. TRANSITION LIP OF GUTTER DETAIL N 50% TO 65% OF ICD BASE DIAMETER + TRUNCATED DOME TRUNCATED DOMEN'N' SPACING IN SQUARE GRID PATTERN i N 1.6" MIN. 2.4" MAXIL 0000 0000 f 0000 ti DETECTABLE WARNING cf) T "' SURFACE DETAIL A THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD DIRECTION OF TRAVEL OR APPROACH THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD SIDEWALK FLARE CROSS SLOPE Z MIN. Q NO LIP ATIf CURB LINE 1 RAM C w w R 4' MIN. co = LANDING Z f CLEAR SPACE a_ SEE NOTE 4 < Q FLARE 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC CURB O z O PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP DETAIL REFLECTORIZED SIGN PANEL MIN. 1'-0" OF 16 GA. GALV. STL. W/PORCELAIN ENAMEL FIN. WHITE IMAGE ON BLUE FIELD BEADED REFLECTORIZED TEXTURE. COLOR #15090 FED. STANDARD 595a. INTERNATIONAL RESERVED SYMBOL ACCESSIBILITY SIGN W/ DISASABDN WITH IES WITH BILITI LETTERING NO LESS THAN 1" HI. �� VAN ACCESSIBLE U BOLTED TO GALV. STL. TUBE 2" X 2" GALV. STEEL TUBE CONTRACTOR HAS THE —� OPTION TO USE A PRE-SET SLEEVE AND FILL SOLID W/ GROUT FINISH SURFACE DASHED LINE SHOWS CONC. WALKWAY AND CONC. CURB WHERE OCCURS DETECTABLE WARNING 6" WIDE MONOLITHIC SURFACE CURB IF REQUIRED TO I NO LIP AT MIN ~ 4' MIN. CONTAIN LANDSCAPING CURB LINE CT O (D 6" MIN UNTREATED SECTION C-C BASE COURSE 1 W o Q v � 0 INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY THIS DRAWING PRODUCED BY THE U.S. ACCESS BOARD STRIPING SYMBOLS SCALE: N.T.S. STANDARD ACCESS RAMPO SCALE: NTS NOTES: 1. CONFIGURATION OF RAMPS AND LANDINGS MAY BE CHANGED BUT MUST MEET PEDESTRIAN RAMP DIMENSIONS AND SLOPE REQUIREMENTS. SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS WILL VARY. THE USE OF FLARES, CURBWALLS, ETC. ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER. 2. PERPENDICULAR AND PARALLEL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR USE AT MID BLOCK OR CORNER INSTALLATIONS. 3. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE FOR FULL WIDTH OF RAMP, LANDING OR CURB CUT. SEE DETAIL A FOR DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE DIMENSIONS. 4. LOCATE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SO THAT THE EDGE NEAREST THE STREET IS 4 TO 6 INCHES FROM THE TOP BACK OF CURB. 5. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE. COLOR SHALL BE YELLOW. 6. USE CLASS AA (AE) CONCRETE. 7. USE 6" MIN. DEPTH OR UNTREATED BASE COURSE UNDER ALL CONCRETE FLATWORK COMPACTED TO 96% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. CONC. FOOTING 1'-01, ►— 0 w D J 00z (/) z w Q W J U ADA SIGN POST DETAIL TABLE OF DIMENSIONS ELEMENT DIMENSION 00 4 FEET WIDE MINIMUM (D0 4 FEET SQUARE MINIMUM* * WHERE LANDING SPACE IS CONSTRAINED ON 2 SIDES, PROVIDE 5 FEET IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CROSSWALK SLOPE TABLE ITEM RUNNING SLOPE* CROSS SLOPE (D LANDING 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (b) 0 RAMP 8.33% (1 V:12H) (c) 1.5-2% (1 V:48H) (d) O TRANSITION 5% (1V:20H) (a) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) O CLEAR SPACE 5% (1V:20H) (a) 1.5-2% (1V:48H) (d) SIDEWALK -- 1.5-2% (1V:48H) FLARE 10% (1V:10H) -- * RUNNING SLOPE IS IN THE DIRECTION OF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, WHILE CROSS SLOPE IS PERPENDICULAR TO PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. (a) TRANSITION RUNNING SLOPE NEEDS TO BE CONSTANT ACROSS ENTIRE CURB CUT. WARP GUTTER PAN TO MEET REQUIRED TRANSITION SLOPE AT CURB CUT (0.10' MAX. ABOVE FLOWLINE.) EXCEPTION: (b) IF SLOPE REQUIREMENTS CAN'T BE ACHIEVED ON MID -BLOCK RAMPS CONTACT THE ENGINEER. (c) PARALLEL RAMPS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EXCEED 15-FEET IN LENGTH. (d) CROSS SLOPE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY AT PERPENDICULAR RAMP MID -BLOCK CROSSING. z 0 l_ a c/) Lu U)w wU) Lu w w N N N m cn w U J L- UJ Of 0 = 0 Uil } Z � wo U� a� w o wci J =) DO o Q z � T O o ~ C/) -I o U 0-O M L C7 0 N m o w o Z Y U li = w Q r / r 4 �1pN9L �, O �T_ � nrfnnryryn C� LIU. 1VJVV(IJ Cs% M. CHRIS r U) Q Q w a � r 4 PROJECT NO. 2409146 a DETAIL SHEET CDT.02 11 OF 11 Sugar House Hotel Project and Rezone Community Benefits To: Salt Lake City Planning Department, Salt Lake City Council, Members of the Sugar House Community From: John Potter, Project Owner and Manager of Sugar House Hotel Development Date: July 14, 2025 Subject: Community Benefits of Proposed Sugar House Hotel Development Our proposed Hotel development at the former Sizzler site in Sugar House seeks a zone change from MU-3 to the new MU-11 zone. This document outlines the significant community benefits of this project, demonstrating how it aligns with and enhances the goals for the Sugar House neighborhood. Our aim is to ensure that any new construction serves not only the project's needs, but also contributes positively to the broader neighborhood. We have categorized the benefits into two main areas: Project -Driven Benefits (which naturally arise from the hotel's operation and design that are only possible with rezone) and Community Benefits (per SLC Statute under 21A.50.050), which directly address specific important criteria set forth by Salt Lake City. While there is some overlap, this presentation helps illustrate the comprehensive positive impacts of the development. These benefits are specifically tied to the proposed zone change and would not be possible under the existing zoning. Proiect-Driven Benefits of MU-11 Versus Existing MU-3 Zoning The proposed hotel development provides significant benefits to the local community and the city, benefits that simply are not possible with the uses and scale allowed under the existing MU-3 zoning. • Maior Economic Boost for Residents and the City: Our project produces several economic benefits that would not be possible, or nearly as large, under existing zoning o Generates Substantial Tax Revenue: The hotel and its associated restaurants are estimated to generate nearly $25,000,000 in additional sales tax revenue over the first 10 years of operation, alone. This includes a combination of sales tax (8.45%), transient room tax (7.07%), and an additional restaurant food tax (1.0%). Beyond sales tax, the proposed improvements will contribute several hundred thousand dollars in annual property taxes. Creates High -Quality Jobs: This project is set to create over 50 Full -Time Equivalent jobs. These positions will offer an attractive average wage of $25 per hour, with several roles providing salaries exceeding $100,000 annually. All full-time employees will qualify for comprehensive benefits, including health insurance. o Boosts Local Commerce and Foot Traffic: While we hope guests will enjoy our on -site dining, the reality is that our 150+ guests per night will actively frequent and spend money at walkable shops, restaurants, and other local establishments. Many of these businesses are currently facing challenges due to insufficient customer traffic. This hotel use, which necessitates the proposed zoning change, will provide essential economic stimulation that extends well beyond the project site. o Self -Funded Development: No public money has been requested or will be used to facilitate the development of this project. o The development team and management of the hotel are local and long-time residents of to the Salt Lake MSA and returns from the hotel will remain local. • Amenities for Local and Guest Use If approved under the new zoning, this project will introduce several key amenities designed to serve both hotel guests and the broader Sugar House community. o Upscale Hotel Rooms: We will offer high -quality accommodations that provide a much -needed option for residents who have visiting friends and family, as well as for business and vacation travelers to the area. Sugar House currently lacks a hotel of this standard. o Activity Center with Equipment Rentals: Located conveniently in the lobby, this center will provide equipment rentals such as: bikes, sporting gear, frisbees, etc., encouraging active use of the adjacent park and surrounding areas. o Lobby Cafe & Coffee Shop: This inviting public space will serve as a vibrant gathering point for hotel guests and residents alike. It is an ideal spot for casual meet -ups or as a convenient stop while enjoying the park. 0 7th-Floor Rooftop Restaurant: This elevated dining experience will offer an upscale culinary option for the community, complete with breathtaking views of Sugar House Park and the surrounding mountains —a unique feature few venues can offer in the greater Salt Lake City area. o Versatile Meeting & Event Space: The hotel will feature flexible rooms available for a wide array of uses, from business meetings and social functions to government gatherings and community events, serving both hotel patrons and local organizations. • Frontage Activation /Encouraging Pedestrian Use/Park and Neighborhood Connections Our proposed development will serve as a vital link between the Sugar House neighborhood and Sugar House Park, actively encouraging pedestrian use and creating a welcoming gateway for everyone Gateway to the Park: We recognize our property's unique position as an entry point to both Sugar House and the park. We embrace the opportunity and responsibility to foster this connection. We will achieve this in two key ways: ❖ First, our building design, layout, and high -end, locally inspired presentation, including prominent neighborhood -welcoming signage, will offer an inviting entry point for those using 1300 East. This refined aesthetic and improved entry perspective is not feasible under current zoning due to height and cost limitations. ❖ Second, our design ensures pedestrian connections on all sides, with improved sidewalks surrounding the building. This effectively bridges the urban environment on one side with the natural beauty of the park on the other, serving as an unofficial entry point for hotel guests, local pedestrians, and cyclists utilizing the soon -to -be -created bike paths. We have meticulously designed the building to minimize un-activated rear facades, maximizing this connection. Vibrant Street Activation: The increased height allowed by our MU-11 zoning request enables us to create attractive first -floor retail space along the frontage. This will infuse life into the intersection and energize the entire area. Additionally, the height allows us to dedicate most of the remaining first -floor space to a bustling lobby, generating significant "buzz" from hotel activities, publicly access to banquet and meeting spaces, and a ground -floor cafe. Lower height, existing zoning, would produce less active first floor uses our higher density above will enable. The Unique Benefit of a Hotel Use: A hotel offers a unique and distinctly public benefit compared to other uses like apartments or offices. With those, one often needs to be a resident or know a tenant to truly "use" the site as part of their experience. A location as prominent and special as ours deserves a more public -engaging use. The various amenities and activities within our project, such as the coffee shop and restaurant, are open to all members of the community as customers, without requiring them to be hotel guests. • Transportation Benefits The proposed hotel development provides substantial transportation benefits, directly addressing local needs and promoting sustainable travel. • Excess Supply of Underground Parking: Our project includes a fully underground parking garage with over 180 spaces (see more details under community benefit). This capacity significantly exceeds the requirements set by our third -party parking consultant, allowing us to provide ample use for our guests paid parking for the surrounding community. This added capacity will help alleviate existing parking pressures in the area. • Lower Traffic Generation: A hotel operation, which requires the proposed height rezone, inherently generates less vehicular traffic compared to smaller, high -traffic generating retail uses. Hotel guests typically rely less on personal vehicles during their stay and are more inclined to use public transportation or rideshare services than local patrons, thereby reducing perceived development impact on overall traffic congestion. • Optimized Rideshare Area: We have incorporated a well -designed drop-off and pick-up area that is ideal for rideshare services and carpooling, benefitting both hotel guests and park or neighborhood visitors. This publicly accessible space enhances convenience and safety, eliminating the need for vehicles to use the park loop road or other potentially hazardous locations along busy city streets. • Promoting Mass Transit Use: A notable number of our out-of-state guests will likely utilize the S Line, connecting seamlessly from the airport via other TRAX lines. This increased utilization of mass transit uses among our guests, compared to other potential site uses that would attract more local, car -dependent visitors, will significantly reduce overall traffic impact of our project. Furthermore, future proposed (but not yet adopted) S Line expansion plans are highly synergistic, with a potential line extension situated to within a quarter -mile of the site. This strong compatibility with mass transit directly contributes to alleviating local traffic and parking concerns. • Ground Lease Challenges: A Barrier to Future Redevelopment The current ground lease agreement presents a critical challenge to the redevelopment of this site if the requested rezone is denied. With roughly 16 years remaining on the primary term of the underlying ground lease, it is highly probable the property will remain undeveloped for at least that duration without approval of a project. This stems from the fact that the current leaseholder, Maverik, is contractually obligated to continue making rent payments, effectively removing any financial incentive for the landlord to invest in or improve the property. Denying this project would not only halt the current proposal but would also likely deter future development initiatives. The site would then be highly viewed as an unfeasible location for significant capital investment. Consequently, without a rezone that supports an economically viable project from the perspective of private developers, the property will most likely persist in its current neglected state. This persistent visual blight, situated at a key entry point to both the neighborhood and Sugar House Park, would undeniably impede the broader neighborhood redevelopment that recent city zoning changes aim to foster in the surrounding and adjacent area. Ultimately, a failure to rezone will lock the property into its existing condition for an extended period, as the ground lease structure removes any economic incentive for change on behalf of the land owner or perspective tenant. Communitv Benefits (as defined per SLC Statute) Our proposed Hotel Development and requested zoning actively addresses and meets several key criteria articulated within Salt Lake City's Community Benefits statute, Section 21A.50.050. • Housing Needs (section A of SLC criteria) Our proposed development is housing -neutral, as it does not displace any existing long-term residential units. The key housing -related benefit our project delivers is the creation of 145 short-term hotel rooms within the neighborhood. This hotel use is only economically viable with the requested rezone to a taller height. Currently, online platforms like VRBO and Airbnb show several dozens of homes in the area being offered as short-term rentals, directly diminishing the supply of available housing for permanent residents. This trend is only projected to accelerate, particularly during large-scale events such as the Olympics. While we do not suggest our project will completely halt the use of homes for short-term rentals, by offering a dedicated and substantial supply of such short-term accommodations, our hotel will serve as a critical "release valve." This helps to reduce the incentive for residential properties to be diverted into the short-term rental market, which will, in turn, contribute, at least marginally, to improving housing affordability for the community in a way other development types would not. • Commercial Space for Local Benefit (section B of SLC criterial The proposed project incorporates three distinct commercial components designed to yield mutual benefits for both the development and the community, with commitments that can be formally secured through an agreement with Salt Lake City during the entitlement process. • Incentivized Leases for Local Businesses in Retail Spaces We are planning approximately 3,500 square feet of street -front retail space, which can be divided into two units. To foster and benefit local economic growth, we propose several favorable contractual terms for local businesses. As an integrated part of the community, our hotel is eager to connect visitors with local offerings, creating a mutually advantageous scenario. • Local Tenant Requirement: A minimum of one of the two available first floor retail spaces shall be leased to a local tenant at a rate of at least 25% below prevailing market rent. 0% Interest Financing for Local Tenants: For any space leased to a local tenant (up to 100% of its square footage), the hotel ownership will finance 100% of construction costs, tenant improvement budgets, and business property investments at a 0% interest rate. The term for principal repayment will be matched to the initial lease term. To mitigate potential misuse, a cap of $100 per square foot is proposed for this financing (totaling up to $350,000 interest free loan for the full designated space). Defining "Local": We will collaborate with the Sugar House Community Council, or a designated local group, to establish clear criteria for defining "local tenants." It is a requirement that the tenant possess relevant experience in their field and that their business use be compatible with both the hotel operations and other neighborhood uses (e.g., no vape shops). ■ Implementation Details: Further specifics will be defined later in this process, incorporating feedback from the community. • Dedicated Community Meeting Room Our approximately 2,000 square foot second -floor meeting room is ideally suited for business meetings, social gatherings, or community functions. Its generous size and direct stair access to the lobby (facilitating easy access to the adjacent park and neighborhood) enhance its utility and convenience. We commit to entering into an agreement with the city to make this second -floor meeting room, in either of its potential configurations, available free of charge to qualified community groups at least twelve times per year. We propose that the Sugar House Community Council, or groups officially designated by them, manage the scheduling of these community requests. All groups utilizing the space will be required to observe standard hotel rules and policies regarding noise, room usage, and potential damages, as applied to all other events. This provision will allow community organizations to leverage the project's prime location and amenities. • Lobby Cafe: Fostering Local Partnerships We intend to actively engage with the community to either partner with a local operator or a local brand/supplier for our lobby coffee shop. At a minimum, we commit to prioritizing the procurement of local products and flavors for sale within the cafe. During the design phase, all efforts will be made to identify suitable local partners to enable this offering. A locally -infused cafe experience within the hotel lobby will undoubtedly enhance the guest experience and provide locals with an additional compelling reason to visit for coffee, particularly as part of their park experience, creating a clear mutual benefit. Our business model is that our guests value the local experience as part of their stay. 0 Dedication of Public Space (section C of SLC criteria) Given our status as the applicant operating under a ground lease with the landowner, direct land dedication is not feasible. Nevertheless, we propose substantial contributions to public space enhancement as follows: Public Art space and installation: We commit to developing and installing a prominent public art feature at the center of the hotel's plaza area on the park side. This commitment will be formalized via a development agreement, running for the duration of our ground lease. Drawing inspiration from the notable Whale sculpture in the 9th and 9th neighborhood, this large -format art piece will be chosen through a publicly transparent application and selection process, managed by the hotel. The hotel will bear the full cost of the artist's work and provide the necessary space for the installation. Furthermore, the hotel is open to financing periodic replacement projects in the future, ensuring the artistic contribution remains vibrant and responsive to the evolving neighborhood character. • Park Improvements: We have been in conversations with the Sugar House Park Authority to improve the area of Sugar House Park around the hotel site. This improvement includes regrading of land, new sidewalks/bike area, landscape, irrigation, grass, and trees that are compatible with the park's arboretum plan. If we can reach agreement with the park, these improvements, paid at hotel expenses, will permanently improve the appearance of and access to north west side of the park for all users. This is not a dedication of open space but an improvement on existing open space. Our conversations with the Park Authority to this point have been positive and we are optimistic we can reach an agreement. We also plan our site improvements (mandated by city) like widened sidewalks and light, will now be integrated into those park improvements to facilitate the connection from city and city bike/pedestrian access to the park through our property. This improves the walking infrastructure of the intersection and area. • Expanding Public Infrastructure (section F of SLC criterial Our project significantly contributes to expanding public use infrastructure, particularly in the areas of safety and parking. Enhanced Security Presence: Our hotel's 24-hour occupancy and security presence, made possible by the rezone, will provide a continuous, lighted, and monitored space adjacent to Sugar House Park. We understand from city officials that park safety, including concerns about unhoused individuals, is a priority. While we deeply empathize with their situation, we are also aware that police occasionally conduct park sweeps, which can lead individuals to gather near our property. Our round-the-clock operations, coupled with 24-hour camera surveillance, will actively complement existing police security plans in the park, enhancing their efforts for the benefit of both locals and law enforcement. At our other managed hotel properties, we routinely welcome police during their rounds, offering amenities like coffee and a safe parking spot, a practice we intend to continue at this location. Substantial Public Use Parking Garage: During our community engagement, we recognized that parking is a major neighborhood concern. We share this concern, as our guests and visitors also need convenient parking without relying on already -occupied street spaces. Therefore, we designed a large, fully underground garage to accommodate the concern. Despite our third -party parking feasibility study and Salt Lake City code indicating sufficient capacity, community feedback prompted us to continually increase the garage's size. As it is underground, this expansion creates no negative visual impact. This infrastructure provides several key benefits: Our 180+ space garage offers a significant surplus of parking spots available for non - guest paid use. During daytime hours and on most non-event nights, we will have ample parking to serve community members and support future development on adjacent blocks following recent zoning changes. • Even during high -demand periods, our calculations confirm sufficient spots for non -guest parking. This estimated $13 million infrastructure improvement is only feasible with the rezone, which allows us to achieve the necessary surface density. It represents a substantial investment that will greatly benefit the community and the hotel as the area grows and would not be economically possible with lesser density zoning. • Integrated Park Improvements: As detailed in the "Dedication of Public Space" section (SLC Criteria Section C), we are actively collaborating with the Sugar House Park Authority on significant park improvements. These enhancements are also directly applicable under this public infrastructure criterion, further bolstering connectivity and public amenities Conclusion The SHH Development represents a unique opportunity to bring substantial, tangible benefits to the Sugar House community. From significant tax revenues and job creation to a vibrant public art installation, dedicated public spaces, and crucial parking infrastructure, our project is designed to be a positive catalyst for the neighborhood. We appreciate the City's, and most importantly, the Community's time and consideration throughout this engagement process. We are certainly looking to formalize, in a legally binding manner, any point raised in this document. We are committed to being a valuable and integrated part of the Sugar House fabric. Thankyou John Potter Sugar House Hotel LLC and Magnus Hotel Management This page has intentionally been left blank FRANCIS XAVIER LILLY, AICP 916 EAST QUEENSMILL LANE SALT TAKE CITY, UTAH 84106 14 October 2025 Salt Lake City Planning Commission c/o Amanda Roman, Urban Designer RE: General Plan & Zoning Map Amendment for the Sugar House Hotel at Approximately 2111 S 1300 E Dear members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for the work you do for the community. Know that Salt Lake City is a better place for your efforts. I hope to be able to attend your meeting next Wednesday, but I may not be able to, so I am writing you instead to offer public comment regarding the proposed Sugar House Hotel. I am a Sugar House resident, and I'm generally in favor of the changes our neighborhood has experienced in the last decade or so. I understand these changes are fairly dramatic, but I also notice and commend the significant public investment that has taken place there. I am enjoying the new restaurants and retail opportunities on offer. I also acknowledge that growth is an inevitability in an area as wonderful as ours, and that we need to proceed with care about how we grow. I was opposed to the proposed convenience store because it was a bad use for the corner, and it posed intolerable environmental risks to Sugar House Park. You took the brave and risky decision to deny that conditional use permit, and it was the right call. When I heard about the proposed hotel at this location, I was relieved, even when considering the additional height. The additional height will have virtually no impact on surrounding neighbors, as the site is surrounded entirely by commercial uses, or the park itself. I appreciate the concerns of the Sugar House Park Authority and the Sugar House Community Council about the impacts to the park, but I think that a high -end hospitality use with a restaurant would be a good complement to the park (great parks around the world have hotels like this nearby), and would be a good thing for the neighborhood. I would most likely use it, for guests from out of town, or to enjoy the proposed restaurant uses. Economic development is a legitimate planning purpose, and is essential to placemaking. The hotel will provide jobs, ancillary retail amenities, and a use that could actually engage the park. The transient room tax is also an enormous benefit to the community. I know my neighbors mean well - but there's also downside risk in a neighborhood militating against any land use proposal they see, and I am concerned about the future of the site absent a proposal as solid as this one. I understand that the owner of the property is not motivated to sell, and is happy with a land lease. I also know that the City cannot obtain the property using eminent domain, at least for the use of additional open space. While I suppose, in a perfect world, the land would simply become an extension of Sugar House Park, I do not think that is a realistic prospect given the property owner's disposition. I also know that eventually, something will happen there, and we have to be mindful about what's the best (or least bad option). As I Telephone - 804.204.0742 1 Email-francis.lilly@gmail.com see it, the options are a) a gas station or something with a drive -through use, b) multifamily of some sort, or c) hospitality. That's what the market wants. In my professional life, I worked as a planner for South Salt Lake. In that time, I navigated the political complexities of a neighborhood that resisted all sorts of change, including owner -occupied townhomes along the Jordan River. They even fought a tree farm that was located between the road and the river, despite the fact the property was zoned agricultural. Fast forward 15 years, every last one of the neighbors who protested these changes are gone, having been bought out by Salt Lake County, when the state and the County made the decision to locate the Pamela Atkinson Men's Resource Center at that site. This is an extreme case, but I've seen versions of this play out elsewhere, and my sense tells me that the hotel proposal is as close to a win the city will get on this property, unless it were to purchase the property outright and donate it to the Sugar House Park Authority. As a municipal taxpayer, I'm not convinced that acquiring the land is a wise use of our funds. Salt Lake City has social equity needs that demands investment in open space elsewhere, not near Sugar House Park. In other words, by all means spend millions on improving open space in the Ballpark and North Temple neighborhoods. In fact, there's something to be said for promoting economic development in Sugar House, where land values are already high, to fund the city's efforts to build up neighborhoods that don't have the same advantages we do in Sugar House. I appreciate that there are concerns about changing the Sugar House Master Plan. I note that the plan was approved by the Planning Commission nearly 20 years ago. It is a testament to the plan's quality that it remains a meaningful guidance document to inform policy decisions, despite significant growth, technological advancement, and changing development pressures. Plans can and should change to adapt to changing circumstances. Two decades ago, Sizzler was a thriving concern on the corner and one could reasonably assume that a restaurant would continue to thrive at that location, and that a low -intensity mixed use designation was the right answer for the property. Times change, and we as a city should not be afraid to consider a change of designation if and when a reasonable proposal is made. I think the hotel is a reasonable proposal. It is a well -thought out site plan that contributes to the other placemaking goals of the Sugar House Master Plan, including many of the design guidelines listed in the plan's urban design element. I recognize that this property is across the street of what the plan calls the "Business District" — but extending that designation across the street is wise, if it facilitates a project that adds something of value to the community. The proposal of a hotel that is well articulated on all four sides and provides community amenities in the form of a restaurant and ground -level retail opportunities is, to me, worth the trade-off of additional height. My bottom line is that the hotel proposal is light years ahead of the gas station in terms of aesthetic, environmental, and traffic impacts. This adds to the neighborhood, without taking anything significant away. I encourage the Planning Commission to work with the applicant on continuing to refine the design to ensure that the massing and materials are truly excellent, but otherwise I enthusiastically support this change. Sincerely yours, Francis Xavier Lilly, AICP Gmail - LUZ Comment 9/29125, 2:31 PM GmaIl LUZ Comment SHCC LUZ comments su arhousecouncil.org> To: comments@sugarhousecouncil.org SHCC Comment Form List of Proposals Sugar House Hotel First Name Sonya Last Name Droguett Email Judi Short <judi.shorta@i gmail.com> Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:09 PM Your Comments for the Planning Commission As someone born and raised in Sugar House, I have been an adamant opponent to the development of this corner into a commercialized space that would increase traffic in an already congested area, as well as negatively affect the aesthetics and energy of the Sugar House area. That being said, this boutique hotel proposal with mixed use is one of the first proposals I have read that I have not outright disagreed with. If this space is to be developed, this seems like a viable option. My only ask, in addition to what is stated in the zoning proposal, is to PLEASE do not build up to the minimum sidewalk width. The 21 st East and 21 st South project fell short by building right up to the sidewalk and parking area, rather than utilizing the space to create patios, green areas with trees and planters, and a shaded walkway. If you want to create a space where Sugar House residents feel welcome and to truly provide a "connection" to the park and other areas, do not build right up to the minimum sidewalk. Build a patio space for eateries and gatherings. Create sidewalks that are lovely to walk on and through — not just inches away from cars breathing in exhaust. Use the buffer space between the road and the sidewalk to not only plant trees (as pictured) but also make it wider for planter boxes and benches that provide noise buffering and enhance the beauty of the area. This could be a beautiful space. Please do not just do the minimum needed for the city/building code. Consider this a legacy to this area and the people who have lived here and love it here. Then you see the support you need. Your Street Address Approx 2000 East 1300 South Referral https://sugarhousecouncil.org/sugar-house-hotel/ https:/Imail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6f06705cf8&view=pt&search=...msgid=msg-f:1844630332348212578&simpl=msg-f:1844630332348212578 Page 1 of 1 Gmail - LUZ Comment 10/1/25, 5:30 PM Gmail LUZ Comment SHCC LUZ <comments c@sugarhousecouncil.org> Reply -To: To: comments@sugarhousecouncil.org SHCC Comment Form List of Proposals Sugar House Hotel First Name Ryan Last Name Christiansen Email Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 4:26 PM Your Comments for the Planning Commission I live in the neighborhood and use the park serveral times a week. My wife and I walk to the local shops and resteraunts often. The corner as it sits is an eyesore that invites trash and homeless camps. The proposal fits withing the types of buildings surrounding the area and also provides easy to access ammenities for those that are using the park. It will also attract more visitors that will be patrons of shops nearby. I fully support the proposed development. Your Street Address Garfiled Avenue Referral https://sugarhousecouncil.org/sugar-house-hotel/ https://mail.goople.com/mail/u/O/?ik=6fOb705cfB&view=pt&search=a...msgid=msg-f:1844820177627799432&simpl=msg-f:1844820177627799432 Rage 1 of 1 From: Lynne Olson To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposition to Magnus Hotel Zoning Amendment Request Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:30:15 PM Attachments: Lttr re Magnus Petition to rezone FLO 10-7-25.docx Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. October 7, 2025 Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, SLC Planning Division Subject: In Opposition to General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Re nest Petition No. PLNPCM2025-00622 & PLNPCM2025-00624 After reading as much as I can about the proposal by Magnus Hotel Management to change the zoning for 2111 S 1300 E. in order to build a seven -story hotel there, I've concluded that this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. At the City's website describing the new Mixed Use Zoning Districts, I found the following information: ... This proposal seeks to create a desirable mix of commercial and residential uses, as well as neighborhood focused amenities. ...Within this framework, buildings are scaled to be context appropriate and to enhance neighborhood place -making and walkability. ... All new mixed -use (MU) zones will allow both commercial and residential uses and will maintain a building scale similar to what is currently allowed. The subject site is currently (newly) zoned as MU-3 : This zone would allow buildings up to 35' in height The arguments provided for considering this general plan and zoning amendment are issues that do not currently exist - i. e. the need for another hotel, another restaurant or coffee shop, an event venue and more retail space. All of these currently exist in the SH Business District and they don't need any more competition. The need for more public parking in the Business core is clear. However, the proposed hotel use will simply attract more automobiles and increase traffic at an already over -burdened intersection. Improve Sugar House Park? How? By pouring a new sidewalk or creating a new bike path on public land where they're not currently needed? Under "Transportation Benefits" is the claim that the hotel will lower traffic generation. This statement comes after citing the inclusion of an "excess supply" (180 spaces) in an underground garage. Finally, under the heading "Ground Lease Challenges," the developer contends that denying this rezoning request "would undeniably impede the broader neighborhood redevelopment...." What redevelopment ... where? the rest of Sugar House Park? The stable single-family neighborhood north of 2100 South? In short, there are no currently existing conditions or recent changes that require up -zoning the corner only to suit a development of the scale and intensity of the use proposed by Magnus Hotel. The only legitimate complaint regarding this corner is about the unsightly asphalt parking lot on the site, and that can be easily remedied by grading it and planting grass there. Respectfully, Lynne Olson 1878 Lincoln St. (less than a mile from the Draw) From: Vickee Boswell To: Roman. Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Purposed hotel 21st So / 1300 E Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 8:56:21 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. My concerns: building height, overall size, adequate space for parking. Additional traffic issues at an already congested intersection. Loss of sight line, open view. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Too much going on for lot size and location. Question, is there a bus pickup/dropoff located in that area of 13th East? If so what considerations are needed? My wish, while costly, would be for SLC to purchase the lot and incorporate into the park, an opportunity to consider the aesthetic value, expand the beauty and peaceful atmosphere, retain the open view. I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts Vickee Boswell, fifty plus year resident of this area. Gmail - LUZ Comment 9/29125, 7:54 PM *09 Gmail LUZ Comment SHCC LUZ <comments su arhousecouncil.org> Reply -To: To: comments@sugarhousecouncil.org SHCC Comment Form List of Proposals Sugar House Hotel First Name LANCE Last Name VANDERHOOF Email Judi Short <judi.shorta@gmail.com> Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 7:19 PM Your Comments forthe Planning Commission I am against a hotel on the corner of 21 st and 13th. This is a beautiful spot which would be ruined by a hotel. This should be something that all people in sugar house can use. Your Street Address 2533 S Imperial St Referral https://sugarhousecounci1.org/sugar-house-hotel/ https://mail.google.com/mail/a/O/?ik=6fOb7O5cf8&view=pt&search=a...msgid=msg-f:1844649852112641784&simpl=msg-f:1844649852112641784 Page 1 of 1 From: Chris Niebuhr To: Roman. Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Sizzler Hotel Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 5:13:15 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 19, 2025, at 3:00 PM, Chris Niebuhr <csn0838@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Amanda, > I am emailing to express my disapproval of the proposed hotel at the location of the old sizzler restaurant on the north west corner of sugarhouse park. This is already a very busy intersection and cramming in a hotel will make this even worse. There are better places in sugarhouse for a hotel. If a hotel is even necessary, the corner of 2100 s and 1100 east (old Wells Fargo and parking garage) would be more centrally located and give better access to sugarhouse. I would like to know the occupancy numbers from the next closest hotel to determine if this is even a worthy option. Also, a hotel would be an eye sore from the beautiful park. I propose it being given to the park and see SLC prioritize green space. Another option would be a well designed, single level building with a cafe. A park facing patio would be a nice option for the community. > Thanks > Chris Niebuhr - resident of highland park > Sent from my iPhone From: Hunter Stuercke To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) 2111 south 1300 east Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:27:45 AM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Amanda, I am a concerned citizen reaching out regarding the lot at the corner of 1300 east and 2100 south (the former sizzler lot). This lot could have immense community value but if it is turned into a hotel it will 1) block mountain views, 2) lead to a congestion problem, and 3) provide value only to tourists and not the local community. Has the city considered purchasing the lot and renting it to local food truck vendors (and possible beer garden) for a year round food truck park? This would be a better use of the space for the community and has been done in several cities and is highly successful typically. I look forward to hearing back from you and thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Hunter Stuercke Yahoo Mail: Search_ Organize, Conquer From: Norris, Nick To: Roman, Amanda Subject: Fwd: (EXTERNAL) Opposed to the hotel in Sugar House Park Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 4:06:47 PM Nick Norris Planning Director Salt Lake City sent from my cell phone, please excuse typos Begin forwarded message: From: Jan Hemming > Date: October 21, 2025 at 3:45:29 PM MDT To: "Clark, Aubrey" <Aubrey. Clark@slc. gov> Cc: "cc: Judi Short" <judi.short@gmail.com>, Sugar House Community Council & Salt Lake Community Network <minnesotaute76@gmail.com>, "Dugan, Dan" <Dan.Dugan@slc.gov>, "Norris, Nick" <Nick.Norris@slc.gov>, "Young, Sarah" <sarah.young@slc. gov> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Opposed to the hotel in Sugar House Park Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Aubrey: Would you please distribute this letter to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission prior to tomorrow night's Commission meeting. Thank you. October 21, 2025 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Please vote against the request from Magnus Hotel Management to build a 95-foot hotel next to the Sugar House Park — on less than an acre of property at one of the busiest street corners and regional freeway interchanges in Salt Lake. This is more than just a project proposal on the east side of Salt Lake. It is, frankly, an insult to those who believe and understand that precious green spaces like Sugar House Park deserve special protection from this city so their intended purposes can thrive. Parks are a retreat from the very urban encroachment that a yes vote from this Commission would impose on this little bit of heaven on Salt Lake's East side. While we respect Salt Lake City's planning division and the professionals who work there —rejecting their positive recommendation is not a rejection of them. They just got it wrong this time. Hotels aren't permitted in an MU-3 zone. The developers are trying to cram something on a space where it doesn't belong. The developer claimed in a news article this week there is a "gap in the hotel market" and that's why this new hotel is needed. That is blatantly false. In Sugar House, less than a mile from this very location are two motel properties -- Extended Stay America Suites with 107 rooms, and Spring Hill Suites by Marriott on 1300 East with 125 rooms. Along the nearby Foothill Drive corridor there are three more motel properties with another 404 rooms. Together all these motels offer nearly 640 rooms in close proximity of each other. There are 20,000 hotel/motel rooms in Salt Lake Metro Area and another 5,312 AirBNB and Vrbo properties in Salt Lake alone. Yesterday, the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report announced that Salt Lake's motel and hotel occupancy rate for 2025 is 70.3% -- that's a 30% cushion. There is no need for another hotel in Sugar House Park. Not now. Not ever. It's the wrong project in the wrong place. Lastly, have you ever been stalled in traffic along 2100 South as cars enter and exit the parking lot where the Extended Stay America Suites is located -- just yards from this proposed hotel? It's maddening. Please be forewarned: This proposed hotel will cause traffic congestion and will cause traffic problems if it's approved. Anyone on this Commission who thinks that's not true is simply ignoring reality and ignoring the knowledge of people who live, drive and work in this area. Along with thousands of those who have signed a petition against this project, I hope that when you vote, common sense will prevail, not dollar signs, not a 349-page report from the city Planning staff, not pressure from a developer. Respectfully, Jan Hemming Homeowner, SLC resident, past chair, Yalecrest Neighborhood Council From: Jennifer Mallory To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: STOP THE 95 FOOT HOTEL IN SUGARHOUSE PARK Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:46:03 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Good Afternoon Amanda, I was encouraged to contact you since I will not be able to attend the SLC Council meeting on the 22nd. I have been a long-term resident of Salt Lake and used to run from my home on 1158 Ramona Ave to Sugar House Park almost daily. Almost daily, I would be crossing 2100 South or 1300 East to get there. After several near misses with cars not paying attention, I had to either drive to the park or just stop going. It was too dangerous. Now, imagine how much more dangerous putting a hotel with a blind driveway would be for pedestrians. Imagine how dangerous it will be to access that park during construction with large trucks and materials during the construction. Imagine how dangerous that intersection will be with large service trucks going in and out of that driveway. The following link to a petition with over 1,800 signatures on opposition to the hotel is for your review. Please review it. Please see how over 1,800 users of the park don't want to see our gem of a park ruined, and are in opposition to a structure that will cause a dangerous intersection to become even more dangerous. All because those on the planning commission won't believe the actual patrons of users of this intersection and park by are forcing a structure that does not belong there. Please do not allow this hotel to go forward. The petition "STOP THE 95 FOOT HOTEL IN SUGARHOUSE PARK". Our goal is to reach 2,500 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here: https:Hc.org/CqHkv2HCcn Thank you, w ifer Mallon From: Judi Short To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Another comment for the Sugar House Hotel Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:22:50 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. ---------- Forwarded messa e--------- From: K Taylor Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:15 AM Subject: Sugarhouse Hotel To: Judi Short > Dear Judi, I read with great concern comments regarding the building of the hotel. I have written several times as have my neighbors and friends regarding how detrimental this will be to the neighborhood. When I look at the letters and comments, the positive ones are not individuals who live in the vicinity. I am opposed to the construction of the hotel and live on Hannibal Street. Accessibility: The corner location is one of the busiest intersections in the city. During school beginning and ending hours, and morning and evening rush hours, cars are backed up 2100 South and it takes several light changes to access I-80. Many drivers will avoid the area by driving through the neighborhood south of I-80. While the location near a major freeway may be an incentive for the hotel builders, you have failed to account for the traffic to Westminster and the University of Utah. Include the construction and remodel of Highland High School and the difficulty accessing businesses with the changes made along 2100 South in your calculations to the impact on the community. While entering the facility is limited to those coming up the slower 2100 South and off NB 1300 East, exiting will have to be east up 2100 adding to the congestion. Accessing through Sugarhouse Park would deteriorate the quality, safety and purpose of the park. I initially thought the road construction that has been ongoing for several years was to address the aging infrastructure of the plumbing system which has created an abundance of business for rotor and plumbing businesses. Why was it necessary to slow traffic and block off access to businesses in this area - were there auto, bicycle or pedestrian accidents? Was speeding a problem? I have not seen any data to suggest these reasons. It seems to me that you are moving to change the family oriented residential neighborhood to a younger, more mass transit or bicycle oriented individual. The number of expensive apartment complexes and existing hotels add to the limited resources.There is limited parking for Sugarhouse businesses, The changes to the road to slow traffic have indeed accomplished that adding navigational difficulties and confusion to driving. We don't go to the restaurants and businesses there because it is a hassle. Have businesses been consulted about this endeavor? Did anyone think about what impact this would have on those who frequent the park. Were considerations made for Highland High. Ultimately, it comes down to is this an area where someone can raise their family, have children walk to school, play in the park, and run errands utilizing local businesses. I don't feel that you see this as a residential neighborhood anymore. Consequently, my property value is decreasing and my standard of living is lessened by a hotel in this area. Karen Zollinger Taylor From: Kathryn Casull To: Roman. Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Hotel at Sugarhouse Park Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:00:15 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hello. I live in the Sugarhouse/Highland Park neighborhood, and I do not want this hotel to be built on the corner of 1300 E. 2100 s. The hotel is too big for that space and the traffic on 1300 E and 2100 S is too awful for this endeavor. Thanks. Kathryn Casull Sent from my iPhone From: Lindsay Anderson To: aman da.roman (c sic.gov; Roman. Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: Sugar house sizzler location Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:22:23 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lindsay <lins727(& mail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM Subject: Sugar house sizzler location To: <amanda.romannsic, o > I am begging you not to put a hotel here. This area is so poorly laid out and traffic and parking are impossible. This will be a nightmare for anyone traveling north or south on 1300. Stop overdeveloping sugarhouse! These businesses are lifeless and add nothing to the community. Put something in that will complement the beauty and experience of sugar house park! Sent from my iPhone From: lorna anderson To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Park Sizzler Lot Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:49:42 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Amanda, I would like to put my two cents in for what's its worth. Sugarhouse has already become so overbuilt from its humble beginnings, I would hate to have one more oversized project added to the already congested streets and to take away from the scenic view that still exists from that northwest corner of our beautiful park. Please take into consideration those of us who live here, have lived here, improved and taken care of our historic properties . There are a great many new and nice apartments and businesses but pausing on expansion or at the very least being moderate and thoughtful for future plans can also be seen as progress. Thank you Lorna Anderson From: Lynne Olson To: Roman. Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment for Planning Commission Staff Report 10-14-2025 Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:42:01 PM Attachments: imaae.Dna ICaution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Amanda Roman, Urban Designer, SLC Planning Division Dear Ms. Roman, I would like the Planning Commission to consider the consequences of constructing a 90-ft. building and excavating twenty feet of soil from the proposed Magnus Hotel site. The intersection at 2100 So. & 1300 E. is busy and often congested, with pedestrian as well as auto traffic. I am concerned about the disruption that construction activity will cause at that corner, and the likelihood that all kinds of traffic will be severely impacted if the proposed building construction ever takes place. Sugar House is familiar with this kind of construction. In 2008, Developer Craig Mecham persuaded the City to allow him to demolish buildings in the Sugar House Business center from which several small local businesses had been evicted. The lot was cleared and excavated for underground parking. Then the softening of the economy made the developer nervous, and work stopped. However, the preliminary excavation had created a hole in the ground that would have required 300 truckloads of dirt to fill. The City was concerned about a pit that did not drain and worried about what might happen if unseasonably severe rainstorms caused the infamous "Sugar Hole" to become a swimming pool. 0 The vehicles hauling that dirt away could only access the site from Highland Drive and 2100 South, just as dump trucks will have to come onto the Sizzler site from 1300 East and 2100 South and exit the same way. As we know, the Vue at Sugar House Crossing was eventually built in 2012, followed by other high-rise residential developments that permanently changed the character of the historic Business District. The only justification for a change to MU8 zoning at the Sizzler site is the Project -Driven Benefit of allowing construction of an oversized building that might return enough income to satisfy the applicant's obligation to pay off a 16-year ground lease. The cost to residents and commuters will be just as high. Respectfully, Lynne Olson 1878 Lincoln St, SLC Photo credit: Laurie Bray Photography From: Judi Short To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: LUZ Comment Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:42:24 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Another comment Judi Short 801.864.7387 c ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: SHCC LUZ<comments&sugarhousecouncil.org> Date: Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:54 AM Subject: LUZ Comment To:<commentss&sugarhousecouncil.org> SHCC Comment Form List of Proposals Sugar House Hotel First Name Suzanne Last Name Eskenazi Email Your Comments for the Planning Commission I have lived in Sugar House for 12 years, during which time I've seen massive growth and neverending construction. One of the places of solitude in the area is Sugar House Park. I am vehemently opposed to the approval of a hotel at the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East. The building is too large for the space and I am concerned about a lack of parking, more traffic, and the disregard for the environment. What we need is to respect the park and the people and community that utilize it, not to construct a multi -story hotel for which there is no need. Please consider the wishes of the community that use the park. Your Street Address 826 E. Garfield Avenue Referral https:Hsugarhousecouncil.oriz/aveda-vocational -school -855-Barfield/ From: Bobbi Gardner To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Nature Conservancy & Sugar House Park Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:33:11 AM You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Amanda, Thank you for talking with me today about the Sugar House Park meeting today. I am sending the contact information for The Nature Conservancy for your use now or in the future. The Nature Conservancy 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203 nature.org Some years ago I was involved in a real estate transaction whereby they "saved" 2000 acres in Lee Canyon outside of Las Vegas. They acquire land to preserve by trading other land that can be developed by the owner, thus preserving nature. Perhaps the owners of the parcel adjacent to Sugar House Park would like a much larger property to build on rather than less than one acre next to the Park that should be protected rather than developed. Thanks for all your help. Regards, Bobbi Gardner From: Jim Catano To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Re: Comment on 2111 S. 1300 E. hotel proposal Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:45:04 AM You don't often get email from Learn why this is im o� rtant Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. The above email is for Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 B. Zoning Map Amendment: Requesting to rezone the property from MU-3 to MU-8. Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:42 AM Jim Catano wrote: I used to go to Sugarhouse regularly but now try to avoid the area due to too much traffic on 13th East and 2100 South. The commission should reject the proposal to build a hotel on that small plot, and the city instead should purchase the land at fair market value through eminent domain and include the land in Sugarhouse Park. James Catano rity, UT 84103 From: Jim Jenkin To: Planning Public Comments Cc: Norris, Nick; Wharton, Chris; Olivia Erikson Subject: (EXTERNAL) Sugarhouse Hotel re -zone, PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 10:30:25 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is 6 important ICaution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. October 22, 2025 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00622 and Case Number: PLNPCM2025-00624 Please vote against the request from Magnus Hotel Management to build a 95-foot hotel next to the Sugar House Park. Sugarhouse Park represents a unique City amenity, much the same as zoo, or an arboretum, and is beyond the reach the of the general City Planning guidelines that led to a favorable Planning recommendation. If the existing MU-3 Zone is to be changed, it should be to a Special Development district for the Park. The proposed development will: Inappropriately provide a "private entrance" to the public green space for hotel patrons. Negatively impact what is already one of the worst intersections in the city. Discourage Park use near the development by physical shadowing. Discourage Park use by all those sensitive to the socio-economic differences between many Park users and the "privileged class" of Hotel guests. The proposed Public benefit of reduced rent retail space to local vendors is, at best a two edged sword, in that it will suck businesses out of neighborhoods in the quest for tourist dollars. The project sets the wrong precedent for development adjacent to unique public space, which, once established, cannot be undone. Please keep this unique City amenity equally enjoyable to all citizens by retaining the current zone. Respectfully submitted, Jim Jenkin Private Citizen Former Chair, Greater Avenues Community Council Former member, SLC Transportation Advisory Board Current Chair, Land Use Committee, Greater Avenues Community Council From: Laurie Bray To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Sugar House Hotel Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:56:10 AM You don't often get email from Learn why this is importan ICaution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Amanda, I have attached a photo I took from the roof of the building my business is located in when The Vue was being constructed in 2013. The developer did not plan on this water back up and flood. I would like some reassurances that the city will study the water table at the site where the hotel is proposed. How do we know something similar will not happen? In addition the earthen dam, not only a utilitarian piece, but a remarkable piece of public art, could be threatened. As a Sugar House business owner and a frequent user of Sugar House Park, I think it is imperative that a traffic study be done of that corner. It is obvious, from what happened on McClelland south of 2100 2 years ago and the recent redesign, that the traffic division does not always visit the area before they design things. The lack of parking and inconvenience of navigating the area has kept visitors from outside the area away. That has been devastating to local businesses. Apparently the city could buy this property under eminent domain. Is this not a consideration because the city is more interested in tax revenue than what their constituents want? Best Regards Laurie Bray Laurie Bray Photography by Laurie 1066 E 2100 S, STE 23 W lt Lake Ci UT 84106 Testimony I October 22nd, 2025 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Re: General Plan & Zoning Map Amendment for the Sugar House Hotel at Approximately 2111 S 1300 E By: Richard Layman, board member, Sugar House Park (speaking on my own behalf) 1330 East 2100 South (the address used by the former Sizzler restaurant) isn't an ordinary lot. It immediately abuts Sugar House Park, a large regional park in both the city and county park systems. The planning staff's argument appears to ignore this, and treats the parcel no differently than any other commercial lot in the city. It ignores the land use context, that the site abuts and is enveloped by a large 100+ acre park. (See photos on the next page.) My understanding is that the Planning Department didn't seek comments from the Department of Public Lands, half owner of the park, about this matter. Parks like Central Park, even Fairmont Park, are surrounded by tall buildings. But the buildings are across the street, not on the park parcel. This is true of most urban parks in major cities. Dozens of other examples come to mind, just counting NYC, Washington, DC, Boston, and Chicago. When the Sugar House Master Plan update was approved, this lot was not included in the Town Center upzone for a reason. Dozens of other examples of intact park spaces come to mind, just counting NYC, Washington, DC, Boston, and Chicago. Central Park When the Sugar House Master Plan update was approved, this lot was not included in the Town Center upzone for a reason. The lot in question abuts the park, the park and site are the gateway to the low density residential district to the north and east. 1300 East is the dividing line of development intensity, until you get to Foothill Boulevard, and even on Foothill, no building is as tall as is allowed in the Sugar House Town Center. The site was zoned as "neighborhood serving" not regionally serving. That's why the staff report conclusion that the proposal: "aligns with the Sugar House Plan and citywide growth policies, which support higher -density, mixed -use development near transit corridors and key intersections" Is misguided. This isn't a site within the Town Center, it won't add housing, it makes a marginal addition to the stock of mixed use development in the city. The nature of the customer type means they are not likely to use transit to get to the property. They will drive. To riff off the writings of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida about analysis of "text and context," the staff report relies on the analysis of the various planning "texts" guiding the city without adequately considering site context and the cultural landscape of the Park. In my opinion, a hotel would puncture the park landscape in an extremely negative manner. 2. 2100 South / 1300 East isn't what a commercial real estate agent would call a 100% intersection, because it is on the edge of the district, not within it and because so far all four corners are low density. Instead 1100 East/Highland Drive / 2100 South is the "100% intersection" and it would be more appropriate to add this use to the already existing Town Center geography, rather than extend the intensity of the Town Center outward (which likely would put pressure for upzoning properties on the 1200 block of 1300 East and the 1300-1600 blocks of 2100 South). The staff report says that upzoning these parcels is in keeping with city wide planning goals. There are times when city wide and neighborhood planning goals are incongruent. The Sugar House Master Plan clearly indicated a step down of density as parcels approached the residential district. Spot rezoning upward of these parcels is counter to the master plan neighborhood planning process, which did result in one intensified geographically compact zone. 3. Furthermore, with regard to "key intersections," as cited from the staff report, from a traffic engineering standpoint, there is only one way in and one way out of the site, creating further pressures on an already failing intersection. This is what I call "designing conflict in" rather than what I believe one of the goals of planning to be, that of "designing conflict out" — making it easier to use a place, not harder, not pushing negative effects and costs onto other streets and properties. 4. Impacts on the Park. Concerns about the project have been expressed by our Park staff. First, they are concerned about parking overflow into the park because of the parking garage being full, oversized vehicles, and that parking in the park is free. It doesn't seem as if special event planning for the hotel adequately addresses peak parking demand generated by special events beyond average demand generated by normal hotel occupancy.. Second, they expressed concerns about "trespassing." The park closes at 11 pm. Will there be cars parked in the Park overnight because of hotel use? How will those people exit the park when the gates are closed? Also hotel proximity may increase the number of people in the park after hours, and those hours tend to be the most problematic in terms of the potential for vandalism. 5. Regardless of whether or not the rezone is approved, material concessions are required from Sugar House Park, completely independent of any "community benefits" already negotiated by the city. The developer has not been upfront about this, and hasn't offered compensation which would be typical. Instead, it rolled these concessions into a Letter of Understanding, relying on the city's agreed community benefits to suffice, even though the concessions are material. To me, this borders on deceptive, and is another reason to oppose the project. 6. Financial costs imposed on Sugar House Park by the project. The legal complexities involved in this case would require Sugar House Park to hire a highly experienced and expensive land use attorney/firm to represent our interests. We do not have significant excess funds to pay for this. In all likelihood, it would wipe out our fund balance, limiting our ability to respond to infrastructure emergencies as they arise, and would mean that we need to seriously consider an increase in pavilion rental fees to begin to restore that balance. Conclusion. These arguments are reasons to not support the upzone for this particular lot. Thank you. Franklin Park, Washington, DC Union Square, San Francisco Grant Park, Chicago From: To: Roman, Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Sugar House Hotel Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 5:20:35 PM [You don't often get email fron earn why this is important at httDs:/,Iak-a.iiisi'LearnAboiitSeiicleTIdeiitific,itioii ] Caution: This is an e-sternal email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attaclunents. Good evening Amanda. I am unable to attend the city council meeting this evening but have some concerns regarding the planned hotel at 2111 South 1300 East border hig Sugar House Park. My primary concern is how traffic from the hotel would be handled - n the inability to turn left out of the planned hotel onto either 1300E or 2 1 DOS. Likely hotelest guests. give 11 would want to access the freeway from 1300 East. therefore. I foresee illegal or at least dangerous U timas along 2100E or potentially attempting to cut across all lanes of traffic leaving the hotel onto 1300E and increasing the number of cars that along hold up traffic there attempting U turns. Gi-ven the traffic restrictions on that corner. a hotel seems like an odd decision for how to use that land. And as a resident of Sugar House - I live on Gaifeld Ave - my other concerns are more general regarding overall traffic and parUig in Sugar House. I would prefer something more community oriented such as a larger library. a pre-school. etc. Regards. Justine Macneil This page has intentionally been left blank OWN —FULL —NAME OWN _ADDR OWN _CITY VIEW STREET BRE LLC EET BRE LLC 2711 N SEPULVEDA BLVD MANHATT, DODO INVESTMENT GROUP SUGARHOUSE LLC ARHOUSE LLC 3690 FORT UNION BLVD #204 COTTONW SAMANTHA J DIAMANTI; JOSEPH HERRERA (JT) ERRERA (JT) 2025 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE JEFFREY JOHNSTON EY JOHNSTON 2027 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE SALT LAKE RAPE CRISIS CENTER INC CENTER INC 2035 S 1300 E SALT LAKE ORCAS INVESTMENT COMPANY ENT COMPANY 4372 POINT WHITE DR NE BAINBRIDC WAYNE LEASING LLC LEASING LLC PO BOX 1610 COCKEYSV HARMAN MANAGEMENT CORP GEMENT CORP 5544 S GREEN ST MURRAY MECHAM PARKVIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC CIATES, LLC PO BOX 521448 SALT LAKE SKM PETERSON LLC ETERSON LLC 3574 N 150 W PROVO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE RIVERPARK SUGARHOUSE, LLC RHOUSE, LLC 10701 S RIVER FRONT PKWY SOUTH JOf ROMNEY FARR PROPERTIES INC PERTIES INC 1052 S OAK HILLS WY SALT LAKE SUGAR HOUSE PARK AUTHORITY INC 6332 S AIRPORT RD WEST JORf Current Occupant 1327 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1355 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2036 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2037 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2071 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1251 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1255 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1269 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2045 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1228 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2150 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2110 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2118 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2120 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2138 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1240 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1316 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2111 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2139 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2155 S 1300 E SALT LAKE Current Occupant 2155 E 2100 S SALT LAKE Current Occupant 1500 E 2100 S SALT LAKE OWN STA-OWN ZIP CA 90266 UT 84121 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 WA 98110 MID 21030 UT 84123 UT 84152 UT 84604 UT 84114 UT 84095 UT 84108 UT 84084 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84105 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84106 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 UT 84105 This page has intentionally been left blank Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study �AViOT IlA M � y1I1 Salt Lake City, Utah April 18, 2025 UT24-2936 1220 North 500 West, Ste. 202 Lehi, UT 84043 p 801.766.4343 www.halesengineering.com Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The development is located on the southeast corner of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to analyze traffic operations at key intersections for existing (2025) and future (2030) conditions with and without the proposed project and to recommend mitigation measures as needed. The morning and evening peak hour level of service (LOS) results are shown in Table ES-1. A site plan of the project is provided in Appendix A. Table ES-1: Peak Hour Level of Service Results Background Plus Project AM PM AM PM 1300 East / 2100 South C a C ❑ Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East A C A B West Access / 1300 East - - d f North Access / 2100 South - - a a SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Background Plus Project AM PM AM PM C ❑ C ❑ A B A B - - c f - - b a • The development will consist of a hotel, retail space, and fine dining restaurant. • The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,493 weekday daily trips, including 78 trips in the morning peak hour, and 132 trips in the evening peak hour Assumptions • None • Acceptable LOS Findings • Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour • 1300 East / 2100 South: Mitigations o Adjust signal timing o City could consider dual NB LT lanes • Signal timing optimized • Poor LOS at the West Access / 1300 East intersection due to NB queuing on 1300 East • None Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Signal timing optimized • Acceptable LOS Findings • Excessive NB queuing on 1300 East during the evening peak hour Mitigations • None Traffic Impact Study Signal timing optimized • Poor LOS at the West Access / 1300 East intersection due to NB queuing on 1300 East o Project traffic may reroute to the North Access during peak times to avoid excessive delays • None Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................i SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. iii LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................................ iv LISTOF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 A. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................1 B. Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Analysis Methodology...........................................................................................................................2 D. Level of Service Standards...................................................................................................................2 II. EXISTING (2025) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS...............................................................................4 A. Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 4 B. Roadway System..................................................................................................................................4 C. Crash Data Summary............................................................................................................................4 D. Traffic Volumes.....................................................................................................................................5 E. Level of Service Analysis...................................................................................................................... 5 F. Queuing Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 6 G. Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................................. 6 III. PROJECT CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................9 A. Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 9 B. Project Description................................................................................................................................ 9 C. Trip Generation.....................................................................................................................................9 D. Trip Distribution and Assignment........................................................................................................10 E. Access.................................................................................................................................................11 IV. EXISTING (2025) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS...........................................................................14 A. Purpose...............................................................................................................................................14 B. Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................................................14 C. Level of Service Analysis....................................................................................................................14 D. Queuing Analysis................................................................................................................................17 E. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................17 V. FUTURE (2030) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS...............................................................................18 A. Purpose...............................................................................................................................................18 B. Roadway Network...............................................................................................................................18 C. Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................................................18 D. Level of Service Analysis....................................................................................................................18 E. Queuing Analysis................................................................................................................................18 F. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................21 VI. FUTURE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS..............................................................................22 A. Purpose............................................................................................................................................... 22 B. Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................................................22 C. Level of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................... 22 D. Queuing Analysis................................................................................................................................22 E. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................22 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Appendix A: Project Site Plan Appendix B: Turning Movement Counts Appendix C: LOS Results Appendix D: Queuing Results Appendix E: Crash Data Reports LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Level of Service Description....................................................................................................3 Table 2: Crash Severity by Intersection.................................................................................................4 Table 3: Crash Type by Intersection......................................................................................................5 Table 4: Existing (2025) Background Peak Hour LOS ..........................................................................6 Table5: Project Land Uses....................................................................................................................9 Table6: Trip Generation......................................................................................................................10 Table 7: New Trip Distribution..............................................................................................................10 Table 8: Existing (2025) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS ........................................................................14 Table 9: Future (2030) Background Peak Hour LOS..........................................................................21 Table 10: Future (2030) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS ........................................................................25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity map showing the project location in Salt Lake City, Utah.........................................1 Figure 2: Existing (2025) background peak hour traffic volumes..........................................................7 Figure 3: Trip assignment for the peak hours......................................................................................12 Figure 4: Existing (2025) plus project peak hour traffic volumes........................................................15 Figure 5: Future (2030) background peak hour traffic volumes..........................................................19 Figure 6: Future (2030) plus project peak hour traffic volumes...........................................................23 iv I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of 1300 East and 2100 South. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the proposed development. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to analyze traffic operations at key intersections for existing (2025) and future (2030) conditions with and without the proposed project and to recommend mitigation measures as needed. Ar Ar r � 00m I' w Sugarhouse r Figure 1: Vicinity map showing the project location in Salt Lake City, Utah 1 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study B. Scope The study area was defined based on conversations with the development team. This study was scoped to evaluate the traffic operational performance impacts of the project on the following intersections: • 1300 East / 2100 South • Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East • West Access / 1300 East • North Access / 2100 South C. Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is a term that describes the operating performance of an intersection or roadway. LOS is measured quantitatively and reported on a scale from A to F, with A representing the best performance and F the worst. Table 1 provides a brief description of each LOS letter designation and an accompanying average delay per vehicle for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition, 2022 methodology was used in this study to remain consistent with "state -of -the -practice" professional standards. This methodology has different quantitative evaluations for signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized, roundabout, and all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersections, the LOS is provided for the overall intersection (weighted average of all approach delays). For all other unsignalized intersections, LOS is reported based on the worst movement. Using Synchro/SimTraffic software, which follow the HCM methodology, the peak hour LOS was computed for each study intersection. Multiple runs of SimTraffic were used to provide a statistical evaluation of the interaction between the intersections. The detailed LOS reports are provided in Appendix C. Hales Engineering also calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for the study intersections using SimTraffic. The detailed queue length reports are provided in Appendix D. Many of the figures in this report are printouts of the Synchro model. These figures are not meant to be a design exhibit for exact lane striping and design, due to the limitations of the Synchro software. Instead, the purpose of these figures is to show assumed peak hour turning movement volumes and the conceptual travel lane configuration of the study roadway network. D. Level of Service Standards For the purposes of this study, a minimum acceptable intersection performance for each of the study intersections was set at LOS D. If levels of service E or F conditions exist, an explanation and/or mitigation measures will be presented. A LOS D threshold is consistent with "state -of -the - practice" traffic engineering principles for urbanized areas. K Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Table 1: Level of Service Description Free Flow / < 10 < 10 Insignificant Delay _ Stable Operations ( > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15 Minimum Delays Stable Operations / > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 Acceptable Delays Approaching Unstable Flows ( > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 Tolerable Delays Unstable Operations > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 r► ■� / Significant Delays Forced Flows / Unpredictable Flows > 80 > 50 / Excessive Delays 11 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study II. EXISTING (2025) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the background analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day with background traffic and geometric conditions. Through this analysis, background traffic operational deficiencies can be identified, and potential mitigation measures recommended. This analysis provides a baseline condition that may be compared to the build conditions to identify the impacts of the development. B. Roadway System The primary roadways that will provide access to the project site are described below: 1300 East — is a city -maintained minor arterial roadway. The roadway has three travel lanes in each direction narrowing to two in each direction north of 2100 South. The posted speed limit is 35 mph in the study area. 2100 South — is a city -maintained minor arterial roadway. The roadway has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a center raised median except there are three travel lanes eastbound east of 1300 East. The posted speed limit is 30 mph in the study area. C. Crash Data Summary Hales Engineering obtained crash data within 250 feet of the study intersections. Five years of crash data were collected between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, and the data is summarized by crash severity in Table 2 and by crash type in Table 3. As shown, there were a total of 74 crashes within the study area. The detailed crash data reports are provided in Appendix E. Due to the use of crash data, this report may be protected by 23 USC 407. There were no suspected serious injury or fatal crashes reported in the study area. Table 2: Crash Severity by Intersection Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 0 0 8 8 21 37 1 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Table 3: Crash Type by Intersection Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East 10 4 18 3 2 37 1 Based on the identified trends in the crash data, no mitigations are recommended. D. Traffic Volumes Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak period traffic counts were performed at the following intersections: • 1300 East / 2100 South • Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East The counts were performed on Thursday, January 29, 2025. The morning peak hour was determined to be between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., and the evening peak hour was determined to be between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The evening peak hour volumes were approximately 22% higher than the morning peak hour volumes. Both the morning and evening peak hour volumes were used in the analysis. Detailed count data are included in Appendix B. Hales Engineering made seasonal adjustments to the observed traffic volumes. Monthly traffic volume data were obtained from a nearby UDOT automatic traffic recorder (ATR) on SR-71 (ATR #333). In recent years, traffic volumes in January have been equal to approximately 94.7% of average traffic volumes. The observed traffic volumes were adjusted accordingly to determine average turning movement counts at the study intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing morning and evening peak hour volumes as well as intersection geometry at the study intersections. E. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours, as shown in Table 4. These results serve as a baseline condition for the impact analysis of the proposed development during existing (2025) conditions. 5 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study F. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 951h percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 951h percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: • 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 900 feet (PM) G. Mitigation Measures The City could consider installing dual northbound left -turn lanes at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. These may be feasible by converting one of the southbound receiving lanes into the second northbound left -turn lane north of the pedestrian undercrossing. It is anticipated that this improvement would reduce the northbound queuing from 900 feet to 400 feet during the evening peak hour at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. Otherwise, it is recommended that the City consider adjusting the signal timing at the intersection to reduce northbound queueing. Table 4: Existing (2025) Background Peak Hour LOS Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East It SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Existing (2025) Background _ �ww co .A Oo RPP *iftmml� lot $I Wilmington Avenue 31 f 55Z { CA r N Hales Engineering 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 :. F 1 _ f M 1 Y A 26 a 13 193 �2 r 585 ti t r' Oc-'I 000 N CO t-n N N CIIn A Morning Peak Hour Fiqure 2a r-m 801.766.4343 02/28/2025 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Existinq (2025) Background �..�a . Mr ti _ w moo 39J 282 172 Wilmington Avenue" 410816- } 285' Hales Engineering 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 `1 T f. 0" Mr-m Ln mom� o 'h rn Ol Evening Peak Hour Fiqure 2b r t ' r I&A 801.766.4343 02/28/2025 III. PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study The project conditions discussion explains the type and intensity of development. This provides the basis for trip generation, distribution, and assignment of project trips to the surrounding study intersections defined in Chapter I. B. Project Description The proposed Sugarhouse Hotel development is located on the southeast corner of 1300 East / 2100 South. The development will consist of a hotel, retail space, and a fine dining restaurant. A concept plan for the proposed development is provided in Appendix A. The proposed land use for the development has been identified in Table 5. Table 5: Project Land Uses 145 Rooms 3,500 sq. ft. 6,700 sq. ft. C. Trip Generation Trip generation for the development was calculated using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 11'" Edition, 2021. Due to the nature of the hotel land use and the rooftop restaurant space, a 75% internal capture reduction was applied to the restaurant to account for most of the patrons being hotel guests. Trip generation for the proposed project is included in Table 6. The total trip generation for the development is as follows: • Daily Trips: • Morning Peak Hour Trips: • Evening Peak Hour Trips: 1,493 78 132 I Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study Table 6: Trip Generation Total I % In I % Out I In I Out I Internal In I Out I Total Hotel (310) Strip Retail Plaza, <40k (822) Fine Dining Restaurant (931) TOTAL AM Peak Hour 145 3.5 6.7 Rooms KSF KSF 1,160 192 564 1,916 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 580 96 282 958 580 96 282 958 0% 0% 75% 580 96 71 747 580 96 71 747 1160 1 192 141 1,493 Hotel (310) 145 Rooms 66 56% 44% 37 29 0% 37 29 66 Strip Retail Plaza, <40k (822) 3.5 1 KSF 10 600%, 40% 6 4 0% 6 4 10 Fine Dining Restaurant (931) 6.7 KSF 6 50% 50% 3 3 75% 1 1 2 TOTAL 82 46 36 44 34 78 PM Peak Hour Hotel (310) 145 Rooms 80 51 % 49% 41 39 0% 41 39 80 Strip Retail Plaza, <40k (822) 3.5 KSF 38 50% 50% 19 19 0% 19 19 38 Fine Dining Restaurant (931) 6.7 KSF 54 67% 33% 36 18 75% 9 5 14 • 172 96 76 69 63 132 1 The unit count has been updated from the original analysis. The analyses presented in this study still reflect the previous land uses. The previous trip generation included 141 hotel rooms and 3,200 sq. ft. of retail space which had resulted in four fewer trips in both peak hours. However, it is not anticipated that these four trips will have a significant impact on the outcomes of this study. D. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution percentages for new trips were based on the type of trip and the proximity of project access points to major streets, high population densities, and regional trip attractions. Existing travel patterns observed during data collection were also used to establish these distribution percentages, especially near the site. The assumed distribution of new trips during the morning and evening peak hour is shown in Table 7. Due to the limited access of the project, separate distribution percentages were used for vehicles entering and exiting the project. Table 7: New Trip Distribution 10 Salt Lake City — Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study These trip distribution assumptions were used to assign the morning and evening peak hour trip generation at the study intersections to create trip assignment for the proposed development. Trip assignment for the development is shown in Figure 3. E. Access The proposed access for the site will be gained at the following locations: 1300 East: • The west project access will be located approximately 220 feet south of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. It will access the project on the east side of 1300 East. It is anticipated that the access will be stop -controlled and restricted to a right -in, right -out access due to the existing raised median. 2100 South: The north project access will be located approximately 135 feet east of the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection. It will access the project on the south side of 2100 South. It is anticipated that the access will be stop -controlled and restricted to a right -in, right - out access due to the existing raised median. 11 2100 South 0 6 0 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Trip Assignment Figure 3a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 2100 South 0 10 0 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Trip Assignment Figure 3b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 14 IV. EXISTING (2025) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the existing (2025) plus project analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for existing background traffic and geometric conditions plus the net trips generated by the proposed development. This scenario provides valuable insight into the potential impacts of the proposed project on background traffic conditions. B. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering added the project trips discussed in Chapter III to the existing (2025) background traffic volumes to predict turning movement volumes for existing (2025) plus project conditions. Minor signal split time adjustments were assumed at the 1300 East / 2100 South intersection based on the recommended mitigation for the existing (2025) background scenario. Existing (2025) plus project morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 4. C. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours with project traffic added, as shown in Table 8. Table 8: Existing (2025) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (26.1) D (47.7) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (5.2) B (14.8) West Access / 1300 East WB Stop d (31.9) / WBR f (>50.0) / WBR East Access / 2100 South NB Stop a (8.3) / WBT a (7.2) / NBR 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 2100 South 11 166 112 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Existing (2025) Plus Project Figure 4a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 2100 South 39 292 172 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Existing (2025) Plus Project Figure 4b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 17 D. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 900 feet (PM) E. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. It is anticipated that project traffic may reroute to the north access during peak times to avoid excessive delays turning onto 1300 East. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 18 V. FUTURE (2030) BACKGROUND CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the future (2030) background analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for future background traffic and geometric conditions. Through this analysis, future background traffic operational deficiencies can be identified, and potential mitigation measures recommended. B. Roadway Network According to the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Regional Transportation Plan, there are no projects planned before 2030 in the study area. Therefore, no changes were made to the roadway network for the future (2030) analysis. It was assumed that the signal timing at the 1300 East / 2100 South and Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East intersections was adjusted to better accommodate future volumes. C. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering obtained future (2030) forecasted volumes from the WFRC / Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) travel demand model. Peak period turning movement counts were estimated using National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 255 methodologies which utilize existing peak period turn volumes and future average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) volumes to project the future turn volumes at the major intersections. Future (2030) morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 5. D. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all study intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours in future (2030) background conditions, as shown in Table 9. These results serve as a baseline condition for the impact analysis of the proposed development for future (2030) conditions. E. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 775 feet o Southbound: 650 feet 15 165 115 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Morning Peak Hour Future (2030) Background Figure 5a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 40 285 175 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Future (2030) Background Figure 5b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 21 Table 9: Future (2030) Background Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (29.9) D (49.5) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (9.0) B (17.2) 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 F. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 22 VI. FUTURE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS A. Purpose The purpose of the future (2030) plus project analysis is to study the intersections and roadways during the peak travel periods of the day for future background traffic and geometric conditions plus the net trips generated by the proposed development. This scenario provides valuable insight into the potential impacts of the proposed project on future background traffic conditions. B. Traffic Volumes Hales Engineering added the project trips discussed in Chapter III to the future (2030) background traffic volumes to predict turning movement volumes for future (2030) plus project conditions. Signal timing was also assume to be optimized in plus project conditions. Future (2030) plus project morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 6. C. Level of Service Analysis Hales Engineering determined that all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours in future (2030) plus project conditions, as shown in Table 10. D. Queuing Analysis Hales Engineering calculated the 95th percentile queue lengths for each of the study intersections. Significant 95th percentile queue lengths during the morning and evening peak hour are summarized as follows: · 1300 East / 2100 South: o Northbound: 650 feet o Southbound: 650 feet E. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended. 2100 South 15 165 115 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel Morning Peak Hour Future (2030) Plus Project Figure 6a Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 TIS 2100 South 40 295 175 SLC Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Evening Peak Hour Future (2030) Plus Project Figure 6b Hales Engineering 801.766.4343 1220 North 500 West Ste 202, Lehi, UT, 84043 02/28/2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study 25 Table 10: Future (2030) Plus Project Peak Hour LOS Intersection LOS (Sec. Delay / Veh.) / Movement1 Description Control Morning Peak Evening Peak 1300 East / 2100 South Signal C (31.5) D (48.4) Wilmington Avenue / 1300 East Signal A (5.7) B (14.7) West project access / 1300 East WB Stop c (23.7) / WBR f (>50.0) / WBR East Project Access / 2100 South NB Stop b (11.6) / WBT a (6.1) / NBR 1. Movement indicated for unsignalized intersections where delay and LOS represents worst movement. SBL = Southbound left movement, etc. 2. Uppercase LOS used for signalized, roundabout, and AWSC intersections. Lowercase LOS used for all other unsignalized intersections. Source: Hales Engineering, April 2025 Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX A Site Plan DN DN UP UP UP UP UP UP GM OFFICE 188 VESTIBULE 109 CAFE 104 VALET STAIR 190 RECEIVING MAIN ENTRANCE SALES 92 7.52% VESTIBULE 101 STAIR 1.1 107 ACTIVITY 098 7.52% PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E HR OFFICE 95 GRAB N' GO ELEV. E1 ELEV. E2 ELEV. E3 RESTAURANT LOBBY 100A 2.08% CMU STORAGE 141 OFFICE 142 SALES 130 OPEN OFFICE 143 IDF/MDF 144 OFFICE 148 RETAIL B 137 STAGING 150 ELEC. 151 TRASH 191 BREAK ROOM 192 LOBBY 140 7.00% 13.44% 13.44% 2.05% EA S E M E N T 4' - 0 " X 5 ' - 0 " CENTER STAIR 139 2.03% 2. 0 8 % 3.53%10.16% 9.50% 6.50% 4.96% 3.99% 2. 0 8 % 2. 0 8 % 3.90% 2.13% 2.05% 2.08% 7.53% 2" 1 " 0 " 654321 654321 E D C B A REFERENCE NOTES DATE REVISION ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om ww w.ffk r.c om 05/ 16/2 016 J WS PROJECT NUMBER 4/ 8 / 2 0 2 5 4 : 1 0 : 2 0 P M AP101 PRESENTATION FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L 13 0 0 E . 2 1 0 0 S . S A L T L A K E C I T Y , U T 8 4 1 0 6 SC H E M A T I C D E S I G N - 1 1 . 1 9 . 2 4 SU G A R H O U S E H O T E L , L L C 24096 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN Bell desk reception option a Cars and dashed lanes Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX B Turning Movement Counts Intersection Turning Movement Summary Intersection:1300 East / 2100 South Date:1-29-25, Wed North/South Road:1300 East Day of Week Adjustment:100.0% East/West Road:2100 South Month of Year Adjustment:94.7% Jurisdiction:Salt Lake City Adjustment Station #:333 Project Title:Salt Lake City Sugarhouse Hotel TIS & PS Growth Rate:0.0% Project No:UT25-2936 Number of Years:0 Weather:Clear AM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:8:00 AM-9:00 AM AM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:8:45 AM-9:00 AM 1751 13 0 0 E a s t AM PHF:0.91 1620 MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PERIOD:- MIDDAY PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:- MIDDAY PHF:831 920 PM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:5:00 PM-6:00 PM 790 830 PM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:5:15 PM-5:30 PM PM PHF:0.95 21 780 30 7 18 734 38 5 6 12 2100 South Total Entering Vehicles 26 50 746 415 3458 193 372 804 953 1239 698 39 11 585 531 1586 2018 493 283 282 160 4214 782 1065 172 112 2100 South 4 27 8 204 793 584 14 Legend 13 0 0 E a s t 353 831 753 AM 1431 1581 Midday PM 1483 1937 3012 3420 COUNT SUMMARY 1300 East 1300 East 2100 South 2100 South TOTALNorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds AM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 7:00 -7:15 19 128 51 0 4 95 1 2 5 10 22 2 83 17 2 3 437 7:15 -7:30 33 175 58 0 1 149 3 1 8 14 23 2 84 8 3 2 559 7:30 -7:45 42 191 115 2 2 137 3 0 7 21 25 2 106 20 4 3 673 7:45 -8:00 49 222 138 3 6 187 2 0 8 19 20 2 169 49 4 2 873 8:00 -8:15 52 183 125 0 4 187 5 5 2 20 24 4 157 39 8 4 806 8:15 -8:30 40 207 147 4 5 191 5 2 3 39 23 1 118 33 3 1 814 8:30 -8:45 43 180 169 0 21 154 3 2 1 70 40 0 148 52 7 0 888 8:45 -9:00 69 223 143 0 8 202 5 3 5 31 25 3 162 69 8 0 950 MIDDAY PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 9:00 -9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 -9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 -9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 -10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 -10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 -10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 -10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 -11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 -11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 -11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 -11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 -12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 -12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 -12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 -12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 -13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 -13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 -13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 -13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 -14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 -14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 -14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 -14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 -15:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 -15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 -15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 -15:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 -16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 16:00 -16:15 58 178 193 3 12 203 3 0 26 62 61 6 143 75 7 1 1021 16:15 -16:30 76 177 150 1 8 169 11 3 20 42 63 0 135 87 10 2 948 16:30 -16:45 94 181 155 1 10 164 13 1 18 50 69 4 124 92 14 1 984 16:45 -17:00 77 195 156 2 5 182 12 12 18 43 42 4 159 74 6 3 969 17:00 -17:15 86 204 180 3 8 197 10 5 13 70 51 4 117 125 15 0 1076 17:15 -17:30 95 242 205 3 4 195 2 0 7 70 45 10 153 83 4 3 1105 17:30 -17:45 86 180 192 6 12 195 5 2 5 93 40 8 113 74 12 0 1007 17:45 -18:00 86 205 176 2 6 193 4 0 14 49 36 5 148 90 19 3 1026 Traffic Count Solutions LLC 801.505.9052 N Intersection Turning Movement Summary Intersection:1300 East / Wilmington Avenue Date:1-29-25, Wed North/South Road:1300 East Day of Week Adjustment:100.0% East/West Road:Wilmington Avenue Month of Year Adjustment:94.7% Jurisdiction:Salt Lake City Adjustment Station #:333 Project Title:Salt Lake City Sugarhouse Hotel TIS & PS Growth Rate:0.0% Project No:UT25-2936 Number of Years:0 Weather:Clear AM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:8:00 AM-9:00 AM AM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:8:45 AM-9:00 AM 3596 13 0 0 E a s t AM PHF:0.89 3021 MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PERIOD:- MIDDAY PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:- MIDDAY PHF:1765 1831 PM PEAK HOUR PERIOD:5:00 PM-6:00 PM 1406 1615 PM PEAK 15 MINUTE PERIOD:5:30 PM-5:45 PM PM PHF:0.95 100 1665 0 8 46 1360 0 0 0 14 Wilmington Avenue Total Entering Vehicles 0 0 293 270 3300 0 0 0 0 686 356 108 31 0 0 0 0 393 86 0 0 4074 0 0 285 55 Wilmington Avenue 0 17 9 224 1584 0 0 Legend 13 0 0 E a s t 193 1723 0 AM 1415 1808 Midday PM 1950 1916 3223 3866 COUNT SUMMARY 1300 East 1300 East Wilmington Avenue Wilmington Avenue TOTALNorthboundSouthboundEastboundWestbound Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds AM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 7:00 -7:15 22 215 0 0 0 189 6 2 11 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 450 7:15 -7:30 33 273 0 0 0 257 5 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 576 7:30 -7:45 60 381 0 0 0 286 5 3 5 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 748 7:45 -8:00 40 391 0 0 0 394 13 0 7 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 856 8:00 -8:15 53 334 0 0 0 351 7 2 5 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 758 8:15 -8:30 46 422 0 0 0 280 5 8 8 0 23 4 0 0 0 0 784 8:30 -8:45 43 418 0 0 0 326 14 1 12 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 829 8:45 -9:00 82 410 0 0 0 403 20 3 6 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 929 MIDDAY PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 9:00 -9:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:15 -9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:30 -9:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 -10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 -10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 -10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 -10:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 -11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 -11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 -11:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 -11:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 -12:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 -12:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 -12:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 -12:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 -13:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 -13:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 -13:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 -13:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 -14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 -14:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 -14:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 -14:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 -15:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 -15:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 -15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 -15:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 -16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM PERIOD COUNTS Period A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P TOTAL 16:00 -16:15 40 354 0 0 0 365 23 1 19 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 889 16:15 -16:30 46 358 0 0 0 404 24 2 24 0 74 4 0 0 0 0 930 16:30 -16:45 54 357 0 0 0 412 13 0 24 0 56 3 0 0 0 0 916 16:45 -17:00 40 375 0 0 0 403 29 3 25 0 64 5 0 0 0 0 936 17:00 -17:15 46 428 0 0 0 382 21 0 20 0 73 6 0 0 0 0 970 17:15 -17:30 53 396 0 0 0 434 36 3 38 0 80 2 0 0 0 0 1037 17:30 -17:45 42 457 0 0 0 453 17 3 31 0 71 4 0 0 0 0 1071 17:45 -18:00 52 442 0 0 0 396 26 2 19 0 61 5 0 0 0 0 996 Traffic Count Solutions LLC 801.505.9052 N Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX C LOS Results SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 204 206 101 44.5 D T 828 828 100 19.0 B R 584 588 101 7.1 A Subtotal 1,616 1,622 100 17.9 B L 38 39 102 47.0 D T 734 740 101 33.7 C R 18 17 96 24.0 C Subtotal 790 796 101 34.1 C L 11 11 98 58.8 E T 160 159 99 48.3 D R 112 117 105 7.2 A Subtotal 283 287 101 31.9 C L 585 587 100 46.6 D T 193 194 100 26.2 C R 26 27 104 16.2 B Subtotal 804 808 100 40.7 D Total 3,494 3,513 101 28.0 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 224 225 100 26.1 C T 1,584 1,593 101 5.2 A Subtotal 1,808 1,818 101 7.8 A T 1,386 1,394 101 7.2 A R 46 50 109 5.8 A Subtotal 1,432 1,444 101 7.2 A L 31 34 110 53.1 D R 55 58 106 9.7 A Subtotal 86 92 107 25.7 C Total 3,326 3,354 101 8.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 326 92 199.9 F T 831 828 100 29.7 C R 753 751 100 16.3 B Subtotal 1,937 1,905 98 53.5 D L 30 28 94 54.4 D T 780 779 100 44.0 D R 21 22 104 32.1 C Subtotal 831 829 100 44.0 D L 39 35 90 61.4 E T 282 283 100 44.9 D R 172 169 98 8.9 A Subtotal 493 487 99 33.6 C L 531 529 100 57.9 E T 372 378 102 31.7 C R 50 46 92 25.7 C Subtotal 953 953 100 46.0 D Total 4,214 4,174 99 48.4 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 186 96 68.4 E T 1,829 1,815 99 30.6 C Subtotal 2,022 2,001 99 34.1 C T 1,665 1,661 100 14.3 B R 100 96 96 12.5 B Subtotal 1,765 1,757 100 14.2 B L 108 105 97 43.4 D R 285 289 101 20.5 C Subtotal 393 394 100 26.6 C Total 4,180 4,152 99 25.1 C Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Mitigated Existing (2025) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 366 104 67.5 E T 831 830 100 34.1 C R 753 739 98 16.0 B Subtotal 1,937 1,935 100 33.5 C L 30 30 101 86.2 F T 780 794 102 56.6 E R 21 18 85 44.8 D Subtotal 831 842 101 57.4 E L 39 35 90 57.5 E T 282 290 103 42.8 D R 172 175 102 17.4 B Subtotal 493 500 101 34.9 C L 531 546 103 49.3 D T 372 374 101 27.1 C R 50 50 100 21.0 C Subtotal 953 970 102 39.3 D Total 4,214 4,247 101 39.8 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 189 98 42.4 D T 1,829 1,832 100 9.2 A Subtotal 2,022 2,021 100 12.3 B T 1,665 1,682 101 17.3 B R 100 103 103 16.1 B Subtotal 1,765 1,785 101 17.2 B L 108 102 94 49.4 D R 285 299 105 31.8 C Subtotal 393 401 102 36.3 D Total 4,180 4,207 101 16.6 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 204 206 101 41.3 D T 856 863 101 21.0 C R 584 582 100 3.7 A Subtotal 1,644 1,651 100 17.4 B L 53 55 104 50.8 D T 734 744 101 35.8 D R 18 16 90 30.2 C Subtotal 805 815 101 36.7 D L 11 11 98 57.0 E T 166 167 100 47.9 D R 112 108 97 9.8 A Subtotal 289 286 99 33.9 C L 585 590 101 38.1 D T 193 199 103 24.6 C R 26 29 112 18.8 B Subtotal 804 818 102 34.1 C Total 3,543 3,570 101 30.2 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 224 216 96 23.2 C T 1,610 1,617 100 3.0 A Subtotal 1,834 1,833 100 5.4 A T 1,361 1,368 101 4.3 A R 46 48 105 3.2 A Subtotal 1,407 1,416 101 4.3 A L 31 30 97 49.3 D R 55 58 106 9.3 A Subtotal 86 88 102 22.9 C Total 3,326 3,337 100 5.4 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,615 1,625 101 2.5 A R 26 26 100 1.0 A Subtotal 1,641 1,651 101 2.5 A T 1,431 1,442 101 1.5 A Subtotal 1,431 1,442 101 1.5 A R 29 31 107 21.4 C Subtotal 29 31 107 21.4 C Total 3,102 3,124 101 2.2 A Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 3 2 67 3.7 A Subtotal 3 2 67 3.7 A T 783 781 100 0.6 A R 21 24 116 0.7 A Subtotal 804 805 100 0.6 A T 804 815 101 9.3 A Subtotal 804 815 101 9.3 A Total 1,610 1,622 101 5.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 353 330 93 86.4 F T 886 874 99 21.6 C R 753 743 99 9.7 A Subtotal 1,992 1,947 98 28.0 C L 46 44 96 61.4 E T 780 771 99 42.8 D R 21 20 94 36.6 D Subtotal 847 835 99 43.6 D L 39 38 98 60.0 E T 292 304 104 44.6 D R 172 172 100 12.4 B Subtotal 503 514 102 35.0 C L 531 529 100 48.7 D T 372 358 96 28.0 C R 50 50 100 23.0 C Subtotal 953 937 98 39.4 D Total 4,296 4,233 99 47.7 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 193 192 99 35.9 D T 1,870 1,848 99 11.3 B Subtotal 2,063 2,040 99 13.6 B T 1,665 1,659 100 13.7 B R 100 103 103 11.3 B Subtotal 1,765 1,762 100 13.6 B L 108 106 98 45.9 D R 285 284 100 19.8 B Subtotal 393 390 99 26.9 C Total 4,221 4,192 99 14.8 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,937 1,904 98 26.6 D R 41 38 93 4.4 A Subtotal 1,978 1,942 98 26.2 D T 1,484 1,472 99 1.9 A Subtotal 1,484 1,472 99 1.9 A R 55 48 87 95.4 F Subtotal 55 48 87 95.4 F Total 3,517 3,462 98 16.9 C Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 6 6 100 7.2 A Subtotal 6 6 100 7.2 A T 1,065 1,067 100 0.8 A R 26 24 91 0.9 A Subtotal 1,091 1,091 100 0.8 A T 953 939 99 4.5 A Subtotal 953 939 99 4.5 A Total 2,050 2,036 99 2.5 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Background Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 205 197 96 60.8 E T 851 863 101 24.6 C R 620 627 101 8.5 A Subtotal 1,676 1,687 101 22.8 C L 40 38 94 52.5 D T 755 754 100 38.5 D R 20 19 96 25.0 C Subtotal 815 811 100 38.8 D L 15 16 105 110.0 F T 165 160 97 40.4 D R 115 109 95 7.2 A Subtotal 295 285 97 31.6 C L 620 620 100 40.2 D T 195 198 101 20.9 C R 30 29 97 13.2 B Subtotal 845 847 100 34.8 C Total 3,632 3,630 100 29.9 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 225 232 103 24.0 C T 1,645 1,664 101 5.6 A Subtotal 1,870 1,896 101 7.9 A T 1,440 1,424 99 9.8 A R 50 49 98 9.8 A Subtotal 1,490 1,473 99 9.8 A L 30 32 107 34.9 C R 55 54 99 9.8 A Subtotal 85 86 101 19.1 B Total 3,445 3,455 100 9.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Background Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 355 336 95 136.1 F T 861 867 101 28.0 C R 800 791 99 14.2 B Subtotal 2,016 1,994 99 40.7 D L 35 34 98 93.1 F T 805 816 101 81.6 F R 25 27 107 66.7 E Subtotal 865 877 101 81.6 F L 40 35 88 82.8 F T 285 287 101 46.7 D R 175 175 100 9.2 A Subtotal 500 497 99 36.0 D L 560 561 100 53.7 D T 380 369 97 32.3 C R 55 59 107 25.6 C Subtotal 995 989 99 44.0 D Total 4,375 4,357 100 49.5 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 195 198 101 42.1 D T 1,905 1,882 99 14.2 B Subtotal 2,100 2,080 99 16.9 B T 1,725 1,727 100 16.4 B R 100 98 98 14.4 B Subtotal 1,825 1,825 100 16.3 B L 110 113 103 31.9 C R 290 291 100 19.6 B Subtotal 400 404 101 23.0 C Total 4,326 4,309 100 17.2 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 205 199 97 37.0 D T 879 894 102 21.0 C R 620 634 102 3.9 A Subtotal 1,704 1,727 101 16.6 B L 40 39 97 57.4 E T 755 758 100 38.2 D R 20 19 96 26.1 C Subtotal 815 816 100 38.8 D L 15 16 105 69.4 E T 165 173 105 50.7 D R 115 119 104 9.3 A Subtotal 295 308 104 35.7 D L 620 605 98 40.6 D T 196 195 100 25.8 C R 30 30 100 17.7 B Subtotal 846 830 98 36.3 D Total 3,660 3,681 101 31.5 C Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 225 219 97 22.4 C T 1,671 1,692 101 3.4 A Subtotal 1,896 1,911 101 5.6 A T 1,440 1,441 100 4.9 A R 50 50 101 3.4 A Subtotal 1,490 1,491 100 4.8 A L 30 32 107 43.4 D R 55 54 99 11.0 B Subtotal 85 86 101 23.1 C Total 3,471 3,488 100 5.7 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Morning Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 1,675 1,697 101 2.6 A R 26 27 104 1.4 A Subtotal 1,701 1,724 101 2.6 A T 1,490 1,486 100 1.6 A Subtotal 1,490 1,486 100 1.6 A R 29 28 97 23.7 C Subtotal 29 28 97 23.7 C Total 3,220 3,238 101 2.3 A Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 3 2 67 7.6 A Subtotal 3 2 67 7.6 A T 806 824 102 0.6 A R 21 22 106 0.6 A Subtotal 827 846 102 0.6 A T 845 838 99 11.6 B Subtotal 845 838 99 11.6 B Total 1,674 1,686 101 6.1 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & 2100 South Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 355 344 97 73.1 E T 915 935 102 22.6 C R 800 797 100 8.8 A Subtotal 2,070 2,076 100 25.7 C L 51 52 102 94.7 F T 805 799 99 76.9 E R 25 26 103 58.6 E Subtotal 881 877 100 77.4 E L 40 39 98 88.5 F T 295 302 102 47.7 D R 175 175 100 12.2 B Subtotal 510 516 101 38.7 D L 560 562 100 46.1 D T 380 386 101 29.2 C R 55 59 107 25.0 C Subtotal 995 1,007 101 38.4 D Total 4,457 4,476 100 48.4 D Intersection:1300 East & Wilmington Avenue Type:Signalized Avg %Avg LOS L 195 194 99 38.3 D T 1,946 1,941 100 11.2 B Subtotal 2,141 2,135 100 13.7 B T 1,725 1,721 100 14.3 B R 100 102 102 12.6 B Subtotal 1,825 1,823 100 14.2 B L 110 114 104 34.0 C R 290 283 98 18.8 B Subtotal 400 397 99 23.2 C Total 4,366 4,355 100 14.7 B Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SB EB SB EB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB SimTraffic LOS Report Project:Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis Period:Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period:Evening Peak Hour Project #:UT25-2936 Intersection:1300 East & West Project Access Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS T 2,016 2,017 100 15.0 B R 41 40 98 5.3 A Subtotal 2,057 2,057 100 14.8 B T 1,540 1,545 100 2.0 A Subtotal 1,540 1,545 100 2.0 A R 55 54 98 75.8 F Subtotal 55 54 98 75.8 F Total 3,652 3,656 100 10.3 B Intersection:North Project Access & 2100 South Type:Unsignalized Avg %Avg LOS R 6 5 83 6.1 A Subtotal 6 5 83 6.1 A T 1,120 1,127 101 0.8 A R 26 25 95 0.7 A Subtotal 1,146 1,152 101 0.8 A T 995 1,016 102 5.5 A Subtotal 995 1,016 102 5.5 A Total 2,148 2,173 101 3.0 A Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB EB WB SB WB Approach Movement Demand Volume Approach Movement Demand Volume Volume Served Delay/Veh (sec) NB Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX D 95th Percentile Queue Length Reports SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 225 175 275 150 375 325 50 --150 75 325 275 150 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 175 --225 --200 200 75 75 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 600 425 900 150 400 375 75 --200 100 325 325 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 275 --825 --300 325 125 200 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Mitigated Existing (2025) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 400 325 150 525 475 100 --225 125 300 300 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --300 --350 375 175 275 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 225 150 250 --175 375 350 50 --150 100 200 --100 125 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 175 --200 ----175 175 75 75 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----50 ------------------75 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------225 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Existing (2025) Plus Project Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 300 300 275 --175 400 375 100 --200 150 225 --150 200 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --350 ----325 325 150 200 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----525 225 ----------------125 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------125 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Background Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 225 300 150 375 350 50 --150 75 300 175 100 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --250 --225 225 75 75 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Background Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T L T TR L R T TR L T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 575 375 775 150 650 600 100 --200 100 325 325 225 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 225 --450 --325 325 125 200 ---------- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period: Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 200 175 275 --150 400 350 50 --175 100 200 --100 125 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 150 --200 ----175 200 75 75 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----75 ------------------75 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------225 -- NB SB EB WB SimTraffic Queueing Report Project: Salt Lake City - Sugarhouse Hotel TIS Analysis: Future (2030) Plus Project Time Period: Evening Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Length (feet) - Rounded Up to Nearest Multiple of 25 ft Project #: UT25-2936 Intersection L R T TR L T TR L R T TR L R T TR 01: 1300 East & 2100 South 275 275 275 --175 650 600 125 --225 150 225 --175 200 02: 1300 East & Wilmington Avenue 200 --325 ----325 325 125 200 ------------ 03: 1300 East & West Project Access ----375 200 ----------------125 ---- 04: North Project Access & 2100 South --------------------------150 -- NB SB EB WB Salt Lake City – Sugarhouse Hotel Traffic Impact Study APPENDIX E Crash Data Reports CRASH SUMMARY REPORT 2100 South & 1300 East Created on February 28, 2025 Created by Jordi Berrett Data extents: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 Applied Filters Total Crashes 37 Fatal Crashes 0 UDOT Crash Summary Crashes 37 100.00% 32 86.49% 5 13.51% Shape: Circle 250 ft K A B C O Total Crashes Intersection Related CMV Involved © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap © Maxar 5 13.51% 3 8.11% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% Crash Verified Crashes 37 100.00% Crash Severity Crashes 20 54.05% 13 35.14% 4 10.81% 0 0% Injury Level People 85 79.44% 17 15.89% 5 4.67% 0 0% Manner of Collision Crashes 15 40.54% 13 35.14% 4 10.81% 4 10.81% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Date Time (Year)Crashes 3 8.11% 13 35.14% 6 16.22% 8 21.62% 7 18.92% 0 0% Distracted Driving Roadway Depar ture Speed Related DUI Motorcycle Involved + 5 more True False 0 0.00% No injury/PDO Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 2 more No injury Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 3 more Angle Front to Rear Not Applicable/Single Vehicle Sideswipe Same Direction Sideswipe Opposite Direction + 7 more 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 + 11 more V1 & V2 Movement & Direction (Crash Level Only)Crashes 4 10.81% 3 8.11% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 17 45.90% Roadway Surface Condition Crashes 33 89.19% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 0 0% Weather Condition Crashes 29 78.38% 5 13.51% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Most Harmful Event Vehicle 73 94.81% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 0 0% Light Condition Crashes 25 67.57% 12 32.43% 0 0% Countermeasures Crashes 7 18.92% Turning Left (Nor thbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Eastbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) Straight Ahead (Eastbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Nor thbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Westbound) Changing Lanes (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Changing Lanes (Westbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Westbound) Leaving Traffic Lane (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) + 992 more Dry Wet Ice/Frost + 12 more Clear Cloudy Rain Sleet, Hail + 8 more Collision With Other Motor Vehicle in Transport Other Fixed Object* Pedestrian Tree/Shrubbery Utility Pole/Light Support + 51 more Daylight Dark - Lighted + 7 more Countermeasure: Left Turn Lane 6 16.22% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 0 0% Countermeasure: Left Turn Phase Change Countermeasure: Roundabout or Signal Countermeasure: Active Transportation Improvement Countermeasure: Clear Zone Improvements Countermeasure: Right Turn Lane + 9 more CRASH SUMMARY REPORT Wilmington Ave & 1300 East Created on February 28, 2025 Created by Jordi Berrett Data extents: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023 Applied Filters Total Crashes 37 Fatal Crashes 0 UDOT Crash Summary Crashes 37 100.00% 34 91.89% 3 8.11% Shape: Circle 250 ft K A B C O Total Crashes Intersection Related Pedestrian Involved © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap © Maxar 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Verified Crashes 37 100.00% Crash Severity Crashes 21 56.76% 8 21.62% 8 21.62% 0 0% Injury Level People 80 75.47% 17 16.04% 9 8.49% 0 0% Manner of Collision Crashes 18 48.65% 10 27.03% 4 10.81% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Crash Date Time (Year)Crashes 3 8.11% 6 16.22% 15 40.54% 4 10.81% 9 24.32% 0 0% CMV Involved Distracted Driving Motorcycle Involved Pedalcycle Involved + 6 more True False 0 0.00% No injury/PDO Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 2 more No injury Possible injury Suspected Minor Injury + 3 more Angle Front to Rear Not Applicable/Single Vehicle Head On (front-to-front) Sideswipe Same Direction Sideswipe Opposite Direction + 6 more 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 + 11 more V1 & V2 Movement & Direction (Crash Level Only)Crashes 10 27.03% 5 13.51% 5 13.51% 2 5.41% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 1 2.70% 5 13.50% Roadway Surface Condition Crashes 34 91.89% 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Weather Condition Crashes 33 89.19% 3 8.11% 1 2.70% 0 0% Most Harmful Event Vehicle 72 93.51% 3 3.90% 1 1.30% 1 1.30% 0 0% Light Condition Crashes 27 72.97% 10 27.03% 0 0% Countermeasures Crashes 15 40.54% 14 37.84% 4 10.81% Turning Left (Nor thbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Southbound) Turning Left (Westbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Straight Ahead (Northbound) & Stopped in Traffic Lane (Northbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Making U-turn (Northbound) & Straight Ahead (Southbound) Star ting to Move in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) & Slowing in Traffic Lane (Eastbound) Straight Ahead (Southbound) & Making U-turn (Nor thbound) + 992 more Dry Wet Slush + 12 more Clear Cloudy Rain + 9 more Collision With Other Motor Vehicle in Transport Pedestrian Over turn/Rollover Pedacycle + 52 more Daylight Dark - Lighted + 7 more Countermeasure: Left Turn Lane Countermeasure: Left Turn Phase Change Countermeasure: Active Transportation Improvement 2 5.41% 1 2.70% 0 0% Countermeasure: Right Turn Lane Countermeasure: Roundabout or Signal + 10 more This page has intentionally been left blank NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2025-00622 (General Plan Amendment) and PLNPCM2025-00624 (Zoning Map Amendment) John Potter with Magnus Commercial Properties, representing the property owner, is requesting amendments that would facilitate the redevelopment of the property at approximately 2111 South 1300 East. The property is approximately .80 acres in size. If approved, the developer intends to build a hotel on the currently vacant site. The applicant is requesting to amend the Sugar House Community Master Plan's future land use map from Mixed Use-Low Intensity to Business District Mixed-Use – Town Center Scale. The second request is for a zoning map amendment that would change the zoning of the property from MU-3 to MU-8. The subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Sarah Young. 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 as the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person 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@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 contact Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or by e-mail at amanda.roman@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slc.gov, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2025-00622 and PLNPCM2025-00624. 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. 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:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:April 7, 2026 RE: 2191 South 2000 East Partial Street Vacation PLNPCM2025-00990 ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 775 square foot triangular-shaped portion of City right-or-way adjacent to the applicant’s property at 2191 South 2000 East in Council District Seven as shown in the image below. The subject property is between the applicant’s property and the sidewalk on the Wilmington Avenue side of this corner lot and has been fenced and used as part of the applicant’s property for decades. Although the request is for a partial street vacation, granting the request would not affect pedestrian or vehicular travel since the subject property is between the sidewalk and applicant’s property. The existing sidewalk, park strip, curb, and gutter would not be affected. When the application was accepted by the Planning Division, City ordinance required vacated street property to be sold to applicants at market value or an agreement for public improvements in lieu of payment. An updated ordinance was recently adopted by the City Council which no longer requires payment for vacated street property when adjacent to low density residential properties. The Council has the option to not charge the applicant for the vacated property. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its January 14, 2026 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke in support. Planning staff recommended and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed partial street vacation and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Aerial image showing the subject property’s approximate location outlined in red. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. POLICY QUESTION 1. If supportive of the proposed partial street vacation, the Council may wish to discuss whether to apply the newly updated street vacation ordinance and not charge the applicants for the vacated property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The property in question was fenced and assumed to be part of the applicant’s property before they purchased their home in 1990. In 2003, the City approved construction of the current fence. The applicants submitted a fence permit application in summer 2025 to replace the existing fence and that is when it was discovered the subject property belongs to the City. In addition to the Planning Commission public hearing commenter, Planning staff received four emailed comments, including one from the Sugar House Community Council, supportive of the proposed partial street vacation. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-5 of the Planning Commission staff report. The considerations are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Page | 3 Consideration 1 – Policy Considerations Planning staff reviewed the proposed street closure complies with Utah State Code and the City Council street closure policies. The area has not been used for vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Planning staff reviewed how the proposal aligns with the 2001 Sugar House Plan and 1990 Salt Lake City Design Element. The Sugar House Plan doesn’t specifically address partial street or right-of-way vacations. They noted that redevelopment of the area is unlikely due to its single-family residential zoning. The Salt Lake City Design Element recommends declining to vacate streets, alleys, and other public rights- of-way unless it results in a public benefit. Planning staff found it isn’t necessary for continued City ownership of the property. City Transportation and Public Utilities did not object to the proposed street vacation. City Engineering objected to the proposed street vacation noting that a future public benefit the property may provide is uncertain. They recommended a revocable encroachment agreement instead of vacating the property. Planning staff said, “While staff appreciated Engineering’s comments, it is challenging to recommend denial for an unknown future benefit on a irregularly shaped portion of the right-of-way.” They further stated, “Two departments that would potentially utilize the right-0f-way between property lines and sidewalks, Transportation and Public Utilities, both submitted comments stating that they have no objection and would recommend approval of the vacation request.” No other responding department or division objected to the proposed partial street vacation. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • October 3, 2025 – Petition for partial street vacation received by Planning Division. • October 7, 2025 – Petition assigned to Ben Buckley, Principal Planner • October 14, 2025 – Notice of the petition sent to those within 300 feet of subject property and the Sugar House Community Council. • October 17, 2025 – Petition posted to the Planning Division’s online open house webpage. Public comment period ended December 1, 2025. • November 17, 2025 – Planning staff presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council. • December 31, 2025 – Planning Commission agenda posted to the website, State public notice website, and emailed to the Planning Division listserv. • January 14, 2026 – The Planning Commission briefed on the proposal and held a public hearing for the request. The commission voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed partial street closure. • January 22, 2026 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. • March 12, 2026 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • March 16, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office. Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning City Council –April 7, 2026 PLNPCM2025-00990 –2191 S 2000 E PARTIAL STREET VACATION AT 2191 S 2000 E Salt Lake City //Planning Division Partial Street Vacation •~775sqft between property line and sidewalk •Area has been fenced in as part of the subject property for some time now PROJECT REQUEST 20 0 0 E a s t Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning HISTORY •Platted in 1934 in Rosslyn Heights Subdivision •Applicants bought the property & moved into the home in the 1990s •ROW was enclosed into the property at this time according to photographs provided •Replaced chain link fence with existing vinyl fence 20+ years ago Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning •As discussed in the staff report, the request complies or complies with conditions with all five policies •Condition being that the applicant makes a cash payment at fair market value or comes to an agreement with the City on public improvements in lieu of payment CITY COUNCIL POLICIES Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning Ben Buckley // Principal Planner benjamin.buckley@slc.gov 801-535-7142 Survey.pdf SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 03/31/2026 Date Sent to Council: 03/31/2026 From: Department * Sustainability Employee Name: O'Malley, Monica E-mail monica.omalley@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 03/31/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 03/31/2026 Subject: Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance New transmittal or Revision New transmittal Revision Revision Updates: Adding the proposed ordinance for consideration (Attachment D). All other information is the same. Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Glade Sowards, Sr. Energy and Climate Program Manager, Glade.Sowards@slc.gov Sophia Nicholas, Deputy Director, Sophia.Nicholas@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt the participation ordinance for the Community Clean Energy Program no later than June 2, 2026. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing Neither the Act nor the Rules require a public hearing for adoption of this ordinance. The Department is supportive of scheduling this item for public comment as timing permits and adopting the ordinance according to the City Council’s established protocol. Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance Background/Discussion Summary of Key Points • With the adoption of Salt Lake City’s net-100% renewable electricity goal in 2016 1, we began working with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) and other communities to pass legislation in 2019 to facilitate that goal. The passage of HB 411 permitted communities to negotiate a proposed clean energy program with RMP to develop renewable energy resources to serve customers within the communities’ boundaries. • Salt Lake City has been involved in a joint cooperative effort with 18 other communities, informally called the Utah Renewable Communities (URC), to develop a Community Clean Energy Program (Program) pursuant to the 2019 legislation. • The Program was submitted to the Public Service Commission of Utah (PSC) and was approved, with minor modifications, on March 4, 2026. Following the recent PSC approval, all 19 communities involved have to determine whether to enact the Program within our respective boundaries by adopting the program ordinance. • The ordinance adoption process runs 90 days from the PSC order, meaning the ordinance must be adopted no later than June 2, 2026, for Salt Lake City to participate. • The Community Clean Energy Program, should Salt Lake City choose to enact it, will provide a new opportunity for nearly all homes and businesses within Salt Lake City to choose clean energy through their RMP bill. A new line item will be added to customer RMP bills to support the investment in clean energy, with the option for customers to exit at any time. • The Program is still several months from kicking off. We expect customers to see notices by the end of 2026 and the new URC clean energy line item on their bill in early 2027 (at the earliest). • The initial residential rate set by the PSC is $4 per month. • Income-eligible customers can receive a bill credit, enabling them to participate for free. • The Program directly supports the addition of new, utility-scale clean energy to the PacifiCorp grid, and is distinct from other clean energy offerings. • The Community Clean Energy Program ordinance is forthcoming for the Salt Lake City Council to discuss and consider adopting. o If Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance, it will officially bring the Community Clean Energy Program to our community and Salt Lake City will continue to be part of the URC Agency, collaborating with RMP to launch and operate the program. o If Salt Lake City does not adopt the ordinance, the Community Clean Energy Program will not be an option for our community and we will no longer be part of the URC Agency. 1 Joint Resolution 33 of 2016. 2 Legislative Background During the 2019 General Session, the Utah State Legislature passed and the Governor signed HB 411, the Community Renewable Energy Act (Act)2, Utah Code Ann. §§ 54-17-901 to 909 3. The Act created a pathway for communities to work together to establish a community clean energy program in partnership with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a subsidiary of PacifiCorp, for residents and businesses in participating communities. The Rules Governing the Community Renewable Energy Program (Rules), Utah Administrative Code R746-314 4, were also adopted in 2019 by the Utah Public Service Commission (PSC) to implement the Act. The Act and associated Rules outline a process whereby interested communities could work with RMP to develop a Program Application that the utility could file with the PSC on behalf of those communities. This effort and program is more frequently called the Utah Renewable Communities (URC). State Code was amended in 2024 5, changing the name to “Community Clean Energy Act”, among other changes. During the 2026 session, additional amendments to this section of code were adopted by the State legislature under HB 238 6, which is pending the Governor’s signature. HB 238 adds specific noticing and opt-out features. These changes are not anticipated to have significant impact on the Program. Communities’ Involvement To pursue this opportunity, and as contemplated by the Act, 23 Utah communities established clean energy goals, taking the first step towards participating in the effort to jointly design a proposed program in partnership with RMP. Eighteen of the original 23 interested communities continued participating by entering into the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Public Entities Regarding the Community Renewable Energy Program (ILA), creating a cooperative of communities called the Community Renewable Energy Agency (Agency, known informally as URC), to jointly make decisions and negotiate with RMP to create the proposed program. Midvale City joined the Agency in 2024, bringing the total number of eligible communities to 19, following a change to the enabling legislation which removed the requirement that a community adopt a clean energy goal before December 31, 2019, in order to be eligible to participate. Each community appoints a primary and alternate board member to the Agency, one of whom should be an elected official. Council Member Dan Dugan represents Salt Lake City on the Agency board and serves as the chair. Three subcommittees were formed by the URC in 2021 to advance program development: the Program Design, Low-Income Plan, and Communications subcommittees. Board members and support staff from URC communities have worked diligently and thoughtfully since 2021 to design the proposed program for submission to the PSC, working closely with the Agency’s legal and technical consultants to negotiate 2 [1] See https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0411.html 3 State Code §54-17-901 to §54-17-901: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title54/Chapter17/54-17-S901.html?v=C54-17- S901_2024050120240501 4 Utah Administrative Code R746-314: https://adminrules.utah.gov/public/rule/R746-314/Current%20Rules 5 See https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0241.html 6 See https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/HB0238.html 3 with RMP. Salt Lake City staff have played key roles on all three subcommittees, including leading the Program Design work over the years. What is the Goal of the Program? The goal of the Program is to drive the development of clean, renewable energy resources like solar and wind energy on our grid that would not have been developed otherwise, while keeping the Program affordable and accessible to customers. Ultimately, the target is to develop enough renewable resources to match the amount of electricity used annually by Program participants. While a community is no longer required by state law to have a net-100% renewable electricity goal to have joined the Agency, the Board still aims to push for making net-100% renewable electricity available to homes and businesses in participating communities by 2030; however, this target may be adjusted over time. PacifiCorp is RMP's parent company whose grid serves six states7, including Utah. The clean energy counting towards the Program is proposed to come from both existing clean energy on the grid plus new clean energy projects the Program brings to the grid. These resources are and will be part of the PacifiCorp grid. The Program has been developed and will be implemented in collaboration with RMP, and all URC participants will remain RMP customers. RMP will continue to be required to provide reliable power to all customers, regardless of a customer’s URC participation status. Program Approval by the Utah Public Service Commission As described by step 5 in Attachment A, the Act and Rules required that the proposed program be filed by RMP with the PSC. Following years of careful work and negotiations between the URC and RMP, on January 24, 2025, and June 4, 2025, RMP submitted parts I and II, respectively, of a two-part Application to Implement Community Clean Energy Program Authorized by the Community Clean Energy Act (Docket 25-035-06 8). As required by the Act, the Program Application included, among other items, information about the customers within the boundaries of the participating communities, projected rates under the proposed program, a Utility Agreement between each participating community and RMP, low-income plans for each community, a draft ordinance that establishes an eligible community’s participation in the proposed program, and more. Rounds of direct, rebuttal, and surrebuttal testimony followed. The process concluded with a technical hearing and public witness hearing in front of the Utah Public Service Commission on December 16 and 17, 2025. The Parties to the docket are: RMP, URC, the Division of Public Utilities (DPU), the Office of Consumer Services (OCS), Western Resource Advocates, and the Sierra Club. Each party participated in the rounds of testimony and the hearing. 7 In February 2025, PacifiCorp announced their plans to exit Washington, which will reduce the number of states they operate in to five in the coming years: https://www.pacificorp.com/about/newsroom/news- releases/pacificorp-to-sell-washington-service-area-to-pge.html 8 Docket No: 25-034-06 on the PSC website: https://psc.utah.gov/2025/01/25/docket-no-25-035-06/ 4 On March 4, 2026, a significant milestone was achieved when the Utah Public Service Commission issued an Order9 in Docket 25-035-06 (“Order”) approving the proposed program with modifications. The PSC ruling was generally favorable toward the proposed program and the URC communities’ interests and provides clarity on how the Program will work, the initial cost to participate, and more. However, the PSC did not resolve every dispute URC and RMP raised in the docket. For unresolved items, the Order provided guidance and clear action items for the communities and RMP to move forward. The main issues that still need to be addressed are the resource valuation methodology that considers the financial benefit the new resources bring to non-URC customers, as well as the first resource(s) contract which is called a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). These are discussed in more detail below, in the section “Additional URC Agency Processes.” Ordinance Timeline The PSC approval of the Program on March 4, 2026, set off the 90-day ordinance adoption window, as required by the Act. Each URC community has until June 2, 2026, to pass the required ordinance to formally adopt the Program. Given the Salt Lake City Council’s schedule of public hearings and current workload, we recommend targeting the May 19 formal meeting to adopt the ordinance. In October 2022, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council seeking feedback on the draft model ordinance. The version submitted as part of the Program Application was shared with the Council in October 2025. The ordinance has changed moderately from the last version shared. After the Order, the Agency’s legal counsel updated parts of the ordinance to fully comply with the Order and these redlines were shared with the communities’ legal counsels. It is important that the ordinance remain largely unchanged; particularly the “therefore” clauses and Exhibit A. This is because the ordinance draft submitted to the PSC as part of the Program Application was meant to be indicative of the ordinances to be adopted, pursuant to the Act. Furthermore, the ordinances should remain consistent between the participating communities. The Sustainability Department has updated key “whereas” sections to reflect Salt Lake City’s climate and sustainability goals. Program Details Customer participation and opt-out The Program was established under the Act as an “opt-out” program, meaning that every eligible RMP customer in a community participating in the Program will be automatically enrolled with the option to exit at any time. Customers in these communities will see a new Community Clean Energy Program line item (“Schedule 100”) on their RMP bills as early as the first quarter of 2027 (See Attachment C). The new line item will only appear after certain additional processes by the Agency and RMP are completed and approved by the PSC. This means that if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance, nearly all RMP customers in our community will be automatically enrolled when the Program commences, likely not until early 2027, with the choice to 9 March 4, 2026 Order: https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/25docs/2503506/3441662503506oapwm3-4-2026.pdf 5 opt out. Customers will be able to exit the Program at any time. There will be an initial “cancellation period” whereby customers exiting the Program can do so without incurring a termination fee. After the “cancellation period,” customers can still exit at any time but will be subject to a termination fee. The termination fees are outlined in Attachment B. Initial Program rates One of the most significant outcomes of the Order is the establishment of the initial Program rate. The Order established an initial residential flat rate totaling $4 per month ($3.88 per month plus a $0.12 low-income program surcharge). This amount is in line with the Agency’s targeted dollar amount to keep the Program affordable and accessible to customers. The low-income proposal from the Agency was also approved by the PSC. Income-qualified residents who are on Schedule 3 (RMP’s Home Electric Lifeline Program, or HELP) will see a monthly rate of $3.88 which would be matched by a $3.88 credit on their bill, making the Program free for these customers. For all other (non-residential) customer classes, the PSC approved a volumetric rate of $0.00609 per kWh and a low-income surcharge of $0.12 per month. Bill impacts for these commercial customers will depend on how much electricity they use each month. Program rates over time Rates will be adjusted periodically (not more than annually) to account for actual customer participation, annual administrative cost true-ups, and the Program valuation and resource costs. Regular rate adjustments happen with all other utility ratemaking and are not unique to the Program. It is not expected that future URC rates will increase significantly from the initial Program rate. Importantly, the PSC in its Order recognized that future rates may even decline as the required administrative and resource reserve funds are established. Page 24 of the PSC order states: While future Program rates may diverge from those under RMP’s proposal contingent on later determinations regarding Resource Valuation and changes to other underlying variables, no evidence in the record suggests that Program rates are likely to meaningfully increase from the initial rates approved in this order. Instead, under RMP’s proposal, they would decrease rather significantly after the first two years. At the Program’s inception, customers will be deciding whether to opt-out with reference to rates that are likely to be higher than rates charged later, after the reserve balances are sufficiently established. While this is not guaranteed and will be influenced by multiple factors including additional future resource procurements, the PSC found it within the public interest to allow the Program to begin with an initial fixed rate of $4 per month. Customer Noticing and Estimated Timelines There are two distinct but important milestones when customers will hear about the Program, defined in the order and State law: 6 • “Program Implementation” happens when the first customer notices are mailed by RMP. • “Program Commencement” is when RMP initiates collection of Program rates. The following is the anticipated timeline for Program milestones: June 2, 2026 Deadline for Communities to Adopt the ordinance (Hard) June - Nov/Dec 2026 RMP upgrades customer service and billing systems (estimated) Nov/Dec 2026 “Program Implementation” – First customer notices (estimated) Nov/Dec 2026 Second customer notices – 15 days after first notices (estimated) Jan/Feb 2027 “Program Commencement” – Program revenue collection begins (estimated) May/June 2027 Free cancellation period ends, termination fees apply (estimated) 2028-2030 Resources begin to come online. Exact timing will depend on resource selection and the terms of its PPA (estimated) Once the ordinance deadline of June 2 passes and RMP concludes its customer service upgrades (i.e. the “Startup Activities”) which are estimated to take approximately five months, RMP customers in a participating community will receive their first official notices about the Program. The first noticing date is defined as the beginning of “Program Implementation.” All RMP customers in communities that adopt the ordinance will receive two notices that are separate from their bills. This includes at least one mailed notice. The second notice will be mailed or digital, depending on customer communication preferences (i.e. if the customer has signed up for online billing.) Large commercial customers on Schedules 8 or 9 that have an electric load of one megawatt or greater will instead receive a noticing meeting, which may be conducted in-person or via video conference. The Agency expects the first customer notices will be mailed in late 2026. As required in the Act and the Utility Agreement, any community that enacts the Program (by passing the ordinance) is responsible for reimbursing RMP for the cost of providing the two required notices to all RMP customers within the community’s boundaries. The Sustainability Department has budgeted accordingly for this expected expense of $156,000. After the first notices go out, there will be two billing cycles, or approximately 60 days, until the first URC clean energy line item appears on RMP customer bills. This period of initial program rate collection is defined as “Program Commencement.” The Agency is estimating that Program Commencement will occur in early 2027. Utah HB 238 from 2026 passed and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. This bill adds additional requirements for the customer notices that are not expected to add additional burden to the already planned noticing process. Customers Wishing to Opt Out of the Program Once the Program begins, all customers can always exit it at any time. However, there may be termination fees after a certain time period for certain customers. 7 After “Program Implementation” when the first notices are sent out, customers will have a six-month period during which they can exit the Program for free (this is known as the “Cancellation Period.”) After six months, there will be a $30 termination fee for residential customers. There will be approximately four months during the Cancellation Period when customers will be paying the regular Program rates, but will not incur a termination fee if they choose to exit the Program. Income-qualified customers enrolled in HELP are never subject to a termination fee. Commercial customers will pay a termination fee specific to their particular rate schedule after the Cancellation Period ends. Termination fees are outlined in Attachment B. In addition to the Cancellation Period, the Program includes other circumstances during which the termination fee will not apply, including customers moving out of a participating community, ceasing to be a customer of RMP, or seeking protection through bankruptcy proceedings. New customers moving into a participating community, or annexed into it, will receive their own notice and no-fee cancellation period of 60 days from their first notice about the Program. Additional URC Agency Processes and Resource Solicitation While communities consider adopting the Program ordinance, the URC Agency will be working on several related processes that need to conclude before the Program launches. These include helping RMP upgrade their billing system and set up new customer service support for the Program (these are described in the order as “Startup Activities”.) The funding to backstop these required Startup Activities is the subject of an item in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2026 and is further discussed below. The Agency is also in the middle of a resource solicitation process to determine the first new clean energy resource(s) that will serve the Program. This process has played out separately and ahead of the Program Application. On November 19, 2024, RMP filed an Application for Approval of Solicitation Process 10 with the PSC describing the proposed process to solicit bids from clean energy developers (Docket 24-035-5511). The PSC granted the application12, clearing the way for URC to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) on May 22, 2025 13. Fifteen bids were initially received by the July 10, 2025, RFP deadline, one of which was later withdrawn 14. These bids were evaluated and scored by URC technical consultants, and an “initial short list” of six projects was selected by URC for further evaluation by RMP. URC received the results of this analysis in December 2025 and used this information to create a “final 10 See https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/24docs/2403555/336616Application11-19-2024.pdf 11 Docket No. 24-035-55 on the PSC website: https://psc.utah.gov/2024/11/19/docket-no-24-035-55/ 12 See https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/24docs/2403555/3397642403555ogrmpaam5-13-2025.pdf 13 URC RFP website: https://www.urc2024rfp.com/ 14 URC blog post regarding responses to the RFP: https://www.utahrenewablecommunities.org/post/urc-closes- the-call-for-clean-energy-resources-the-response-was-outstanding 8 short list”. In February 2026, the URC board approved Resolution 2026-0215 selecting all four final short list projects for power purchase agreement (PPA) negotiations. PPA negotiations are currently underway and the process to execute an agreement with one or more projects will eventually coincide with the valuation process, described below, and preparations towards implementing the URC Program. Finally, the Agency is also working with RMP and state agencies to determine how those resources will be valued. A program resource valuation methodology was not determined by the PSC in the Order and will be considered in a future regulatory proceeding. This will be based, in part, upon determinations that RMP and the PSC will make in the utility’s long-range planning effort across its multi-state service territory. This process is called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP lays out the utility’s forecast load growth over a 20-year timeline and what resources it plans to utilize to serve electricity demand. The IRP process– which culminates in plans that are released every two years and less robust “updates” that are released in intervening, off-cycle years— influences how the utility values new renewable energy brought to the grid. Once the latest version of the IRP is finalized, it will allow the URC and RMP to settle on a valuation methodology for URC clean energy resources going forward, pending PSC approval. What this means for individual customers is not likely to be noticeable, but will mean that the rates will change to a small degree in the future (as do all rates). Program Ordinance Ordinance details There are more details included in the ordinance than may be typical of many Salt Lake City ordinances, including many one-time deadlines and dates that will quickly stale in the code. While a bit awkward, it was decided deliberately by the URC communities to spell out the full details of the Program in the ordinance to offer transparency and clarity in one central location, without requiring community members to track down additional information in the Act, Rules, and Order. While atypical, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office did not identify any issues with this approach. The ordinance must do two key things: ● Enact the approved program by the eligible community adopting the ordinance; and, ● Make it clear that the PSC has the final say on how the program will work. There are three sections in the ordinance that cover the following: • Preamble: describes the history and context for development of the Program. • Program adoption: while short in length, this is the “action” of the ordinance - that the community’s governing body votes to adopt the Community Clean Energy Program. • Exhibit A describes key elements of the Program that will occur if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance. This includes: • Establishing Salt Lake City’s participation in the approved Community Clean Energy Program. 15 URC Resolution 2026-02 Resolution of the Board Selecting Projects for Contract Negotiation: https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1387795.pdf 9 • Enabling all retail electricity customers in current and future boundaries of Salt Lake City to participate in the Program. This does not include rooftop solar customers on Schedule 135, the older net metering schedule, in accordance with the Act.16 Rooftop solar customers on Schedules 136 and 137 are eligible to participate. • Defining the Program’s “Implementation Date” as the date when RMP sends out its first notices to customers of their forthcoming enrollment in the Program and describing RMP’s noticing requirements. • Explaining that eligible customers will be enrolled in the Program if they decline to opt-out by the date used in the RMP notices. • Describing that any customer in a participating community who is not enrolled in the Program may opt-in at any time. • Imposing termination fees for customers who opt out after the cancellation period as well as situations when termination fees will not occur. • Describing the process and approvals needed for clean energy resource acquisition under the Program. • Acknowledging that the PSC determines the Program rate and can approve adjustments to the rates periodically. • Acknowledging that RMP is responsible for billing customers and notifying them of changes to the Program rate. Section 7 of Exhibit A sets forth Salt Lake City’s role and responsibilities. This includes: • Salt Lake City will continue to participate in future decisions regarding clean energy resource solicitation, acquisition, and other issues. • Salt Lake City’s obligation to enter into an agreement with RMP to effectuate the Program. This “Utility Agreement” was negotiated between RMP and the communities between 2022-23, with the core participation of Salt Lake City staff and attorneys. It was shared with the City Council in October 2023. It was signed by Council Member Dugan, serving as the URC Agency Board Chair, on August 22, 2024, and by Mayor Mendenhall for Salt Lake City on November 26, 2024. The Utility Agreement is consistent for all communities and RMP, as required by the Act. • Per the Utility Agreement, Salt Lake City will reimburse RMP for their costs to provide the two required notices to all eligible customers within our boundary. Funds were first appropriated for this in the Department’s FY24 budget, which has been carried forward as a base budget item each year into the Department’s proposed FY27 base budget. • Salt Lake City has already appropriated and paid additional funds (when we joined the Agency) which, in part, were used to reimburse the OCS and DPU for their costs of contracting third-party expertise to evaluate the Program. Why Create a New Clean Energy Option? Participating Communities, as defined under the Act, are served by RMP – i.e., they do not have their own municipal utilities – and their options for procuring clean energy resources are, therefore, limited. 16 54-17-905(5) states that "a residential customer that is participating in the net metering program under Title 54, Chapter 15, Net Metering of Electricity, may not be a participating customer under this part." 10 The Program offers homes and businesses in our community a new option for supporting clean energy. Furthermore, the Program creates a unique opportunity to drive investment in new clean energy at scale, since, collectively, URC represents about 25% of RMP's electricity sales in Utah 17, which in turn represents 80% of total electricity sales in the State. Benefits of the URC Program Utah is facing a worrisome energy shortage, as our energy supply is projected to decrease while demand continues to rise, according to Governor Cox’s Operation Gigawatt18. Thankfully, URC is part of the solution: the Program will add hundreds of megawatts of new clean energy to the grid in the 2020s, with the aim of adding even more in the next decade to support our communities’ clean energy goals and growing energy needs. By adding new clean energy to our electricity mix, URC is part of the solution by creating a more reliable energy supply for Utah. Health and Environment The electricity used to power our homes and businesses comes from a collection of power plants connected to our grid. This includes electricity generated by natural gas, coal, wind, solar, hydropower, and more. Throughout the day, power plants are dispatched to generate enough electricity to meet demand. Wind and solar power plants have no fuel costs, so they are often dispatched before coal and gas plants which do have fuel costs. When coal and natural gas plants generate electricity, greenhouse gases and air pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere as byproducts. Renewable electricity generation does not come with harmful fossil fuel emissions. By adding more renewable energy to the grid, the URC program may reduce how often fossil fuel plants need to run. This reduces pollution, improving our air quality, water quality, and climate on a local and regional scale. In particular, there are several natural gas plants along the Wasatch Front, owned by RMP or other entities. Due to our state’s increasing electricity demands, these pollution-emitting gas plants will likely need to run more often, which is a particular concern for the Gadsby power plant, given its age and location in the Fairpark neighborhood of Salt Lake City, as well as others that impact our airshed. Adding new, clean energy to the grid helps alleviate overall electricity demand which can result in less air pollution from local fossil fuel power plants. This benefits the neighborhoods immediately next to power plants and those living throughout our inversion-prone valley. Similarly, the Hunter and Huntington coal plants in central Utah are large fossil fuel plants that contribute to air pollution in other parts of the state and reduce visibility in our national parks. The URC program aims to bring more clean energy to reduce pollution throughout the state. The Program ultimately aims to bring online about 500 MW of clean energy over the coming years, based on current participating customer projections. This amount of clean energy, which would occur 17 This estimate is based on the 19 currently participating communities. It is possible that not all 19 communities enact the final program by passing the ordinance 18 Information on Operation Gigawatt: https://energy.utah.gov/homepage/about-us/operation-gigawatt/ 11 over several different resource procurements, would result in an estimated reduction of 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually, and 1,000 pounds of criteria pollution annually.19 Economic Growth The Program supports economic growth by bringing new energy development to areas of the state that are hotspots for solar, wind, or other clean energy development. (Note that Salt Lake County is not a prime location for utility-scale solar and wind.) New projects create construction and operational jobs; provide resources to public schools via the Trust Lands Administration if projects are sited on certain state land; support private landowners if sited privately; and add to local counties’ tax base. These benefits were captured in a recent study by The Western Way20. Supporting a healthy environment is also core to many economic drivers in Utah– whether that’s the local ski and snow sports industry, national park visitation in gateway communities, or the upcoming 2034 Olympic & Paralympic Games. In fact, the Program is a cornerstone of the sustainability goals of Utah’s bid to the International Olympic Committee.21 Program comparison Homes and businesses have a few different ways to access clean energy. The Program is distinct from existing clean energy offerings: • The Blue Sky program has been available for nearly 26 years and allows participants to voluntarily contribute at $1.95 per 100 kWh “block” or 1.95 cents per kWh. Blue Sky is an important program that supports grants to help organizations offset the cost of rooftop solar (Salt Lake City has benefitted from a Blue Sky grant which helped cover the cost of solar on the Sorenson Center). Blue Sky participants also fund the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) nationwide which, while helpful to the industry, do not significantly catalyze the growth of new utility-scale renewable energy. Blue Sky is also more expensive on a per kilowatt-hour basis than the initial residential Program rate of $4 per month per residential customer approved by the PSC (0.609 cents per kWh for the average residential consumption of 637 kWh per month, plus a 12 cent per month surcharge charged to participants to assist low-income customers). This is, in part, due to key differences between the programs, including Blue Sky’s ability to claim RECs, while URC is aiming to use its rate revenue to develop new clean energy to match participant demand. • The Subscriber Solar Program is also one that Salt Lake City Corporation participates in. It offers RMP customers shares in an existing 20 MW solar farm in Southern Utah. While allowing customers to directly purchase a share of clean energy is an important benefit compared with Blue Sky, Subscriber Solar has a capped participation opportunity and RMP has not indicated they plan to build more projects to make available to additional subscribers. 19 Source: EPA’s AVERT model. https://www.epa.gov/avert 20 The Economic Benefits of Utah’s Rural Renewable Energy Industry: https://www.thewesternway.org/ut-eco-devo 21 "SALT LAKE CITY—UTAH COMMITTEE FOR THE GAMES Future Host Questionnaire Response" https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Olympic-Games/Future-Host/SLC-UT-2034-Future-Host- Questionnaire-Response.pdf : Pages 24, 46, 57 12 • Customers can individually install rooftop solar on their homes or businesses. This is an important option to support renewable energy growth and energy security. However, it is expensive and only available to some types of customers with the funding and property types that allow for it. For these reasons, Salt Lake City and the other participating communities that are part of URC have worked diligently to develop the Community Clean Energy Program with RMP over the last several years. The Program offers participating communities the opportunity to drive renewable energy development at utility scale and offers their residents and businesses the choice to participate. If the ordinance is not adopted, that choice is removed for them. History of Salt Lake City’s support Salt Lake City joint resolution Number 33 of 2016, adopted November 1, 2016 (“2016 Resolution”) established two renewable energy goals – one for Salt Lake City’s government operations and another for the wider Salt Lake City community. For government operations, the 2016 resolution established a goal to achieve at least 50% municipal renewable energy by 2020. It also established 2032 as the year to achieve 100% renewable energy for both government operations and the community. The community goal was advanced to 2030 in Joint Resolution 23 of 2019, which established “a community goal of achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric energy supply for participating customers from renewable energy resources by 2030.” By adopting this latter resolution, Salt Lake City qualified under the Act to join the URC and develop the Program in partnership with RMP. Subsequently, Salt Lake City made financial contributions totaling $385,966.47 in Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023 to the Agency’s budget, which were proportional to our community’s population and electricity load. The Rules require participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. On August 3, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution 22 of 2023 endorsing the City’s ongoing participation in the development of the Program, and following that, Mayor Mendenhall signed the Utility Agreement along with the other participating communities. RMP is expected to sign the Utility Agreement soon now that the PSC has issued the Order. Transmittals shared with Council In addition to actions taken above, we are sharing the most recent transmittals on this program over the last few years, as reference: • In October 2022, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council seeking feedback on the draft model ordinance and approaches to low-income assistance. • In October 2023, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council providing a copy of the Utility Agreement. • In December 2024, the Department submitted an informational transmittal giving an update on Program milestones. • In October 2025, the Department provided a transmittal updating the City Council on the Program Application and Solicitation processes and expected next steps, should the PSC approve the Program. 13 Budgetary Updates The Agency will begin to receive Program rate revenue after RMP begins revenue collection, anticipated in early 2027 according to the timeline above and in Attachment C. To date, Program costs have been paid for from member communities contributions. URC has also been successful in receiving one grant and a financial donation to support its efforts over the last year. Because the Agency unexpectedly had to run its own resource solicitation process, it charged bid fees from developer applicants to pay for consultants to run the solicitation and other legal and technical costs. The Agency has remaining budget to fund expected activities through 2026, and URC support staff continues to seek philanthropic opportunities to continue funding URC work to bridge any gaps until revenue collection begins. If additional funds are requested of member communities, which the Sustainability Department cannot cover with existing budget for Salt Lake City’s share, the Sustainability Department will prepare a budget amendment. As noted in the transmittal sent to the City Council in December 2024 and in the section below, there is a separate outstanding issue of unexpected administrative “Startup Costs.” Sustainability has included a funding request in FY26 Budget Amendment 5 to backstop the cost of these activities. Once revenue collection begins, all other costs associated with administering the program and for program resources will be covered by participating RMP customers and there is no further community obligation. Startup Costs There are certain customer service activities, with associated costs, that need to occur in order for RMP to send out bills with the Program line item, thus allowing the Program to commence. These activities can be paid for by ratepayer revenues, but those cannot be collected before such activities occur. Accordingly, these activities are called “Startup Activities” and their associated costs, “Startup Costs”. The most significant Startup Cost is an upgrade to RMP’s information systems to automate statutory aspects of the Program, namely, to: • allow Program-eligible customers to opt-out one or more of their electric accounts; • generate ongoing opt-out notices for new Program-eligible customers; and • assess any applicable termination fees. Other costs include setting up a 1-800 number for customer support, customer service training, and other miscellaneous costs. The total Startup Cost estimate provided to the PSC as part of the Program approval docket was $820,169. Unfortunately, RMP did not initially identify these Startup Costs as an expense that the URC would need to cover. For that reason, the URC’s initial $700,000 budget—fully funded through contributions by its 19 member communities—was not designed to cover it. Additionally, the Rules adopted by the PSC say that costs related to operation of the Program should be recovered through the Program rate paid by participating customers – not the participating communities. Further, neither the Act nor Rules allow Program-related costs like this to be shifted to non-participating customers. If these Program-related costs are included in the established rate, RMP has expressed 14 concern that the liability for the Startup Costs could be shifted to all customers if a majority of URC customers opt out of the Program. This is an extremely low likelihood event, but RMP has required that URC’s member communities sign an agreement, in advance, to cover the Startup Costs if those costs have not been recovered through Program rates after an agreed timeframe. The nature and estimated amounts of the Startup Costs were discussed in the Program Approval docket, with cost estimates and challenges made before the PSC. Ultimately, the PSC, in approving the program, acknowledged that the Startup Costs could be paid for up-front by RMP, but would need to be reimbursed, either by ratepayer revenues, or a URC community, so as not to shift costs to other RMP customers. Recognizing that Salt Lake City is the community with the largest population and electricity load of all 19 URC communities and could thus most benefit from the Program’s impact, the Sustainability Department agreed to request budget allocation that could be obligated, allowing Salt Lake City to sign such a contract with Rocky Mountain Power. As confirmed in recent conversations with RMP staff, the Startup Costs will remain approximately the same whether solely Salt Lake City participates in the program, or all 19 communities. The Startup Cost estimate we are using for Budget Amendment 5 is the one RMP provided to the PSC of $820,169, plus an additional 10% contingency. While this number is an estimate and actual costs would vary, we believe it is on the higher end of what would be required, allowing us to move forward contractually. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Salt Lake City would end up needing to pay this money to RMP. Rather, it is being identified and held as a backstop in order to sign the Startup Cost agreement. That is because it is estimated the Program could generate around $18 million in revenues each year at the PSC-approved initial rate of $4 per month for residential customers and $0.00609 per kWh for non- residential customers. At these rates, it is likely that the Startup Cost estimate of $820,169 will be more than recovered from a single month of Program revenue. Given RMP’s requirement that a contract be in place and the high likelihood that the full cost will be recovered through one month of Program revenues, it is very likely that this Startup Cost budget can be de-obligated shortly after Program revenue collection begins. These details have been worked into the contractual language that is currently being negotiated with RMP. Salt Lake City is separately talking with other communities that are part of the Agency on their potential contributions to reimburse the City, in the case that the Startup Costs are collected. Conclusion After nearly a decade of thoughtful, intentional, and complex work to plan, design, negotiate, and apply for approval, the Community Clean Energy Program has been approved by the PSC. This milestone starts a 90-day clock for each of the 19 communities involved in URC to consider enacting the approved Program by adopting the program ordinance by June 2, 2026. If adopted, the first customer notices are 15 expected to go out in late 2026, and the new clean energy line item will appear in early 2027 on customers’ RMP bills. This page has intentionally been left blank ATTACHMENT A This page has intentionally been left blank ATTACHMENT B Information on termination fees included in the Program Application This page has intentionally been left blank Estimated 2026-27 URC Timeline PROGRAM: v PSC program approval: (March 4, 2026) 1 v Ordinance adoption (within 90 days of PSC approval: ends June 2,2026) 2 v RMP preps billing system (5 months following adoption window) 3 Noticing period (60 days following implementation) 4 No fee opt-out period (~ 4 months following commencement) 5 Fee-Free Cancellation Period of 6 months "Implementation Date" Noticing begins (~November 2, 2026) "Commencement Date" Revenue collection begins (~January 1, 2027) “Implementation” = when customer noticing begins. Currently estimated in late 2026 “Commencement” = when rate collection begins. Currently estimated in early 2027 This page has intentionally been left blank 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ____ of 2026 (Enacting Title 9, Chapter 50 to the Salt Lake City Code, Community Clean Energy Program) WHEREAS, in 2019, the Utah State Legislature enacted House Bill 411, codified at Utah Code Ann. §§ 54-17-901 to -909 (“Act”), titled the “Community Renewable Energy Act”; and WHEREAS, in 2024, the Utah State Legislature enacted House Bill 241 and Senate Bill 214 which, collectively, renamed the Act the “Community Clean Energy Act” and amended certain provisions of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the Utah Public Service Commission (“Commission”) to approve a program (“Program”) negotiated by towns, municipalities, and counties with qualified utilities to provide electric energy from clean energy resources for participating customers; and WHEREAS, the Act further authorizes the Commission to adopt administrative rules to implement the Act and the Commission has adopted such rules as set forth in Utah Administrative Code R746-314-101 through -402 (“Rules”); and WHEREAS, the Rules require that, in addition to the requirements of the Act, the Community which may be served by the Program also adopts an agreement (“Governance Agreement”) with other eligible Communities to establish a cooperative decision-making process for Program design, resource solicitation, resource acquisition, and other Program issues and provides a means of ensuring that eligible Communities and those that become participating Communities will be able to reach a single joint decision on any necessary Program issues; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the Rules, Salt Lake City entered into an agreement with other eligible Communities entitled the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Public Entities Regarding the Community Renewable Energy Program (“Governance Agreement”), thereby becoming a member of the Community Renewable Energy Agency (“Agency”), which endeavors to make certain joint decisions about the proposed Program on behalf of all Communities; and WHEREAS, the Act and Rules further specifies a requirement that the Community must enter into an agreement with a qualified utility (“Utility Agreement”) whereby the Community stipulates to pay certain costs associated with establishing the Program, determines the obligation of payment for termination charges that are not paid through participating customers, and identifies any initially proposed replaced assets; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the Act, Salt Lake City executed a Utility Agreement with Rocky Mountain Power, a qualified utility under the Act, on November 26, 2024, which addresses the issues required by the Act; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the Act, on January 24, 2025, and June 4, 2 2025, Rocky Mountain Power filed an application with the Commission seeking approval of the Program and the Commission opened Docket No. 25-035-06 to consider the application; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the Act, on March 4, 2026, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 25-035-06 (“Commission Order”) approving the Program; and WHEREAS, the Act further provides that a Community must, within ninety (90) days after the date of the Commission’s order approving the Program, adopt a local ordinance (“Program Ordinance”) that establishes the Community’s participation in the Program and is consistent with the Utility Agreement, if the Community desires that the Program be available to customers of the qualified utility residing or operating within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, following the approval of the Commission Order on March 4, 2026, Salt Lake City must adopt a Program Ordinance no later than June 2, 2026, if it desires to adopt the Program for electric customers within Salt Lake City boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to take actions which it has determined promotes the health, safety and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that energy sources utilized by and within Salt Lake City can impact public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that adoption of this ordinance will help address public health and welfare concerns related to poor air quality and other environmental concerns arising in part from the use of fossil fuels; and WHEREAS, recent advances in energy technology have made certain clean energy resources more economically viable than in the past and, in some cases, more cost-effective than traditional energy sources; and WHEREAS, proximity to outdoor recreation, which is critical to public welfare and is a key economic contributor to Salt Lake City, relies on preservation of the environment and protection of natural resources; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that adoption of this ordinance will enhance the economic well-being of Salt Lake City and its residents through prudent management of Salt Lake City’s financial resources; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City and its residents have shown an interest in environmental stewardship through various initiatives and activities surrounding growth and development; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Joint Resolution No. 33 of 2016, adopted November 1, 2016, established two renewable energy goals: (1) to achieve at least 50% municipal renewable energy by 2020, and (2) to achieve 100% renewable energy for both municipal operations and the community by 2032; and 3 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Joint Resolution No. 23 of 2019, adopted August 27, 2019, advanced the previously established community energy goal, striving to achieve an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric energy supply for participating customers from renewable energy resources by 2030, thereby qualifying Salt Lake City under the Act to participate in the Program; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Resolution No. 22 of 2023, adopted July 18, 2023, endorsed the City’s ongoing participation in the development of the Program; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council believes that determining and undertaking further actions designed to reduce fossil fuel dependence while appropriately balancing financial stewardship and promoting economic growth is an important component of safeguarding public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council met in regular session on ______________, 2026, to, among other things, consider adopting the Program on behalf of Salt Lake City’s electric customers; and WHEREAS, as contemplated in the Act, the Salt Lake City Council desires to adopt the attached Program Ordinance that satisfies the requirements of the Act and adopts the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Salt Lake City Code, Title 9, Chapter 50, Community Clean Energy Program, which is published as a code in book form, is adopted in accordance with Exhibit A herein, copies of which have been filed for use and examination in the Office of the City Recorder (the “Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance”). Section 2. Savings Clause. In the event one or more of the provisions of this Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held to be unenforceable or invalid in any respect under applicable laws, such unenforceability or invalidity shall not affect any other provision; and in such an event, this Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance shall be construed as if such unenforceable or invalid provision had never been contained herein. Section 3. Effective Date. This Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _____ day of ______________, 2026. ATTEST: _________________________ __________________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder CHAIRPERSON Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder Bill No. _______ of 2026. Published: __________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 5 EXHIBIT A TITLE 9 CHAPTER 50 COMMUNITY CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM 9.50.010: SALT LAKE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM: A. Salt Lake City hereby establishes its participation in the Community Clean Energy Program (“Program”) as approved by the Public Service Commission of Utah (“Commission”). B. The Commission has adopted such rules as set forth in Utah Administrative Code R746-314-101 through -402 (“Rules”). On March 4, 2026, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 25-035-06 (“Commission Order”) approving the Program. The Commission Order is on file with the Commission. The Program’s rates and requirements are governed by the Commission Order, and may be modified from time to time by subsequent Rules and orders adopted by the Commission. To the extent that the Commission Order or any subsequent Rule or order adopted by the Commission contradicts any portion of this Title, the Commission order or Rule or order adopted by the Commission shall govern. C. ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 54-17-905(5), residential customers participating in the net metering program under Utah Code Title 54, Chapter 15, Net Metering of Electricity, Rocky Mountain Power Schedule 135, are not eligible to participate in the Program. All other retail electric customers of Rocky Mountain Power (“RMP”) within the current and future boundaries of Salt Lake City, including all residential, commercial, and industrial customers, are eligible to participate in the Program (“Eligible Customer”). Eligible Customers include rooftop solar customers on Rocky Mountain Power Schedules 136 and 137, which are compensated through an export credit rather than a net metering schedule. D. IMPLEMENTATION DATE. The Program shall be implemented on the date that RMP sends out the first Notices identified in section 9.50.020 (“Program Implementation Date”). Eligible Customers shall be enrolled in the Program if they receive the Notices and decline to opt out of participation in the Program by the date set forth in the Notices. Consistent with the Act and the Rules, the Notices shall be sent to each Eligible Customer before the commencement date that applies to each such customer (“Customer Commencement Date”), as set forth in the Rules. 9.50.020: CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM: A. Each Eligible Customer shall be automatically enrolled in the Program unless the customer opts out of the Program prior to the Customer Commencement Date. B. NOTICES. As set forth in the Act and the Rules before any Eligible Customer becomes a participant in the Program, RMP first shall deliver to each Eligible Customer certain 6 notices (collectively, the “Notices”) containing content and in the form, manner, and delivery method as required by the Act and Rules and other orders and Rules. C. OPT-OUT. Each Eligible Customer may elect not to participate in the Program and instead to pay applicable existing electric rates by giving notice to RMP in the manner and within the time period set forth in the Notices. 1. FIRST OPT-OUT NOTICE. RMP shall provide a First Opt-Out Notice, separate from standard monthly bills, to each Eligible Customer within Salt Lake City, no earlier than sixty (60) days and no later than thirty (30) days before the Customer Commencement Date applicable to each customer. The First Opt-Out Notice shall, in all material respects, use the form and content of the First Opt-Out Notice as approved by the Commission. 2. SECOND OPT-OUT NOTICE. RMP shall provide a Second Opt-Out Notice, separate from standard monthly bills, to each Eligible Customer within Salt Lake City, at least fifteen (15) days after the First Opt-Out Notice was provided and at least seven (7) days before the Customer Commencement Date applicable to such customer. The Second Opt-Out Notice shall, in all material respects, use the form and content of the Second Opt-Out Notice as approved by the Commission. 3. Each Eligible Customer that receives the First Opt-Out Notice and the Second Opt-Out Notice as described herein and declines to opt out of the Program by the customer’s Customer Commencement Date will be enrolled in the Program. D. CUSTOMER OPTION TO OPT IN TO PROGRAM. An Eligible Customer located within Salt Lake City that is not enrolled in the Program may at any time elect to participate in the Program by providing notice to RMP in the form and content approved by the Commission. Following such notice to opt in to the Program, the customer will be enrolled in the Program starting with the billing period following the notice in which it is reasonably practicable for RMP to enroll such customer. The reasonably practicable billing period shall be based on when the notice was received from the customer and the customer’s billing cycle. Following enrollment in the Program, the customer shall be subject to all Program requirements E. CUSTOMER OPTION TO EXIT PROGRAM. Customers enrolled in the Program may exit the Program by giving notice to RMP. 9.50.030: TERMINATION FEES: A. If a customer declines to opt out of the Program prior to the applicable Customer Commencement Date, but subsequently exits the Program, the exiting customer may be required to pay a termination fee, as set forth in this section and further specified by the Rules and the Commission Order. B. When applicable, the amount of the termination fee shall be based on the rate schedule of the exiting customer as approved by the Commission and may be modified from time to time by subsequent orders of the Commission. 7 C. CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TERMINATION FEE SHALL NOT APPLY: A termination fee shall not apply in the following circumstances: 1. any customer that opts out of the Program within the “Cancellation Period” applicable to that customer, as defined in the Rules. 2. any customer that ceases to be an electric customer of RMP; 3. any customer that moves to a new location that is not within the boundaries of a community that participates in the Program; 4. any customer that seeks protection through bankruptcy proceedings; or 5. any customer enrolled in Rocky Mountain Schedule 3 bill assistance (“Low- Income Lifeline Program”). 9.50.040: ACQUISITION OF CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES: A. For purposes of this section, “clean energy resource” shall have the definition set forth in the Act. B. RMP may adopt or procure one or more clean energy resources to serve the needs and goals of the Program. The acquisition of any such clean energy resource must follow solicitation application and evaluation criteria approved by the Commission. C. Any clean energy resource adopted or procured by RMP to serve the needs and goals of the Program must be approved by the Commission based on a finding the same is reasonable and in the public interest. D. The Commission shall determine the method of cost recovery for any clean energy resource acquired to meet Program needs and goals, and the Commission’s determination regarding cost recovery may affect Program rates. 9.50.050: PROGRAM RATES AND RATE ADJUSTMENT FILINGS: A. Program rates will be determined by the Commission. B. The initial Program rates were determined by the Commission in the Commission Order. C. Program rates may be adjusted by the Commission from time to time, consistent with the procedures approved by the Commission for adjusting Program rates. 9.50.060: UTILITY BILLING FOR PARTICIPATING CUSTOMERS: A. RMP shall bill each Participating Customer on a monthly basis and shall: 1. include information in its monthly bills to participating customers 8 identifying the Program cost; and 2. provide notice to participating customers of any change in rates for participation in the Program. 9.50.070: SALT LAKE CITY PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM: A. Through its membership in the Community Renewable Energy Agency, Salt Lake City participated in the design and approval of the Program and shall participate in future decisions regarding clean energy resource solicitation, clean energy resource acquisition, and certain other Program issues. B. Consistent with Utah Code Ann. § 54-17-903(2)(a), Salt Lake City entered into an agreement with RMP regarding the facilitation of the Program (“Utility Agreement”). Pursuant to the Utility Agreement: 1. Salt Lake City shall pay for the costs of third-party expertise contracted for in connection with the Program’s development and initial approval by the Commission; 2. Salt Lake City shall pay its proportional costs associated with RMP providing the Notices to the Salt Lake City customers as discussed in section 9.50.020; 3. termination fees not paid by a participating customer shall be included in participating customer rates and shall not be paid by Salt Lake City; 4. there shall be no initially proposed “Replaced Asset” as that term is defined by Utah Code Ann. § 54-17-902(15). C. Salt Lake City has already approved the appropriation of funds and has already paid those funds to the Agency for the Agency to make payments for the costs of third-party expertise contracted for in connection with the Program’s development and initial approval by the Commission pursuant to the Governance Agreement. D. Salt Lake City has approved the appropriation of funds to pay its proportional costs associated with RMP providing the Notices to Salt Lake City customers as discussed in section 9.50.020. E. Salt Lake City shall not be obligated to pay any costs of the Program other than those costs set forth herein and any costs that Salt Lake City may bear as a utility customer that participates in the Program, if applicable. This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 03/27/2026 Date Sent to Council: 03/27/2026 From: Department * Sustainability Employee Name: O'Malley, Monica E-mail monica.omalley@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 03/27/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 03/27/2026 Subject: Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Glade Sowards, Sr. Energy and Climate Program Manager, Glade.Sowards@slc.gov Sophia Nicholas, Deputy Director, Sophia.Nicholas@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt the participation ordinance for the Community Clean Energy Program no later than June 2, 2026. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing Neither the Act nor the Rules require a public hearing for adoption of this ordinance. The Department is supportive of scheduling this item for public comment as timing permits and adopting the ordinance according to the City Council’s established protocol. Public Process This page has intentionally been left blank 1 Community Clean Energy Program Ordinance Background/Discussion Summary of Key Points • With the adoption of Salt Lake City’s net-100% renewable electricity goal in 2016 1, we began working with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) and other communities to pass legislation in 2019 to facilitate that goal. The passage of HB 411 permitted communities to negotiate a proposed clean energy program with RMP to develop renewable energy resources to serve customers within the communities’ boundaries. • Salt Lake City has been involved in a joint cooperative effort with 18 other communities, informally called the Utah Renewable Communities (URC), to develop a Community Clean Energy Program (Program) pursuant to the 2019 legislation. • The Program was submitted to the Public Service Commission of Utah (PSC) and was approved, with minor modifications, on March 4, 2026. Following the recent PSC approval, all 19 communities involved have to determine whether to enact the Program within our respective boundaries by adopting the program ordinance. • The ordinance adoption process runs 90 days from the PSC order, meaning the ordinance must be adopted no later than June 2, 2026, for Salt Lake City to participate. • The Community Clean Energy Program, should Salt Lake City choose to enact it, will provide a new opportunity for nearly all homes and businesses within Salt Lake City to choose clean energy through their RMP bill. A new line item will be added to customer RMP bills to support the investment in clean energy, with the option for customers to exit at any time. • The Program is still several months from kicking off. We expect customers to see notices by the end of 2026 and the new URC clean energy line item on their bill in early 2027 (at the earliest). • The initial residential rate set by the PSC is $4 per month. • Income-eligible customers can receive a bill credit, enabling them to participate for free. • The Program directly supports the addition of new, utility-scale clean energy to the PacifiCorp grid, and is distinct from other clean energy offerings. • The Community Clean Energy Program ordinance is forthcoming for the Salt Lake City Council to discuss and consider adopting. o If Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance, it will officially bring the Community Clean Energy Program to our community and Salt Lake City will continue to be part of the URC Agency, collaborating with RMP to launch and operate the program. o If Salt Lake City does not adopt the ordinance, the Community Clean Energy Program will not be an option for our community and we will no longer be part of the URC Agency. 1 Joint Resolution 33 of 2016. 2 Legislative Background During the 2019 General Session, the Utah State Legislature passed and the Governor signed HB 411, the Community Renewable Energy Act (Act)2, Utah Code Ann. §§ 54-17-901 to 909 3. The Act created a pathway for communities to work together to establish a community clean energy program in partnership with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP), a subsidiary of PacifiCorp, for residents and businesses in participating communities. The Rules Governing the Community Renewable Energy Program (Rules), Utah Administrative Code R746-314 4, were also adopted in 2019 by the Utah Public Service Commission (PSC) to implement the Act. The Act and associated Rules outline a process whereby interested communities could work with RMP to develop a Program Application that the utility could file with the PSC on behalf of those communities. This effort and program is more frequently called the Utah Renewable Communities (URC). State Code was amended in 2024 5, changing the name to “Community Clean Energy Act”, among other changes. During the 2026 session, additional amendments to this section of code were adopted by the State legislature under HB 238 6, which is pending the Governor’s signature. HB 238 adds specific noticing and opt-out features. These changes are not anticipated to have significant impact on the Program. Communities’ Involvement To pursue this opportunity, and as contemplated by the Act, 23 Utah communities established clean energy goals, taking the first step towards participating in the effort to jointly design a proposed program in partnership with RMP. Eighteen of the original 23 interested communities continued participating by entering into the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Among Public Entities Regarding the Community Renewable Energy Program (ILA), creating a cooperative of communities called the Community Renewable Energy Agency (Agency, known informally as URC), to jointly make decisions and negotiate with RMP to create the proposed program. Midvale City joined the Agency in 2024, bringing the total number of eligible communities to 19, following a change to the enabling legislation which removed the requirement that a community adopt a clean energy goal before December 31, 2019, in order to be eligible to participate. Each community appoints a primary and alternate board member to the Agency, one of whom should be an elected official. Council Member Dan Dugan represents Salt Lake City on the Agency board and serves as the chair. Three subcommittees were formed by the URC in 2021 to advance program development: the Program Design, Low-Income Plan, and Communications subcommittees. Board members and support staff from URC communities have worked diligently and thoughtfully since 2021 to design the proposed program for submission to the PSC, working closely with the Agency’s legal and technical consultants to negotiate 2 [1] See https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0411.html 3 State Code §54-17-901 to §54-17-901: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title54/Chapter17/54-17-S901.html?v=C54-17- S901_2024050120240501 4 Utah Administrative Code R746-314: https://adminrules.utah.gov/public/rule/R746-314/Current%20Rules 5 See https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0241.html 6 See https://le.utah.gov/~2026/bills/static/HB0238.html 3 with RMP. Salt Lake City staff have played key roles on all three subcommittees, including leading the Program Design work over the years. What is the Goal of the Program? The goal of the Program is to drive the development of clean, renewable energy resources like solar and wind energy on our grid that would not have been developed otherwise, while keeping the Program affordable and accessible to customers. Ultimately, the target is to develop enough renewable resources to match the amount of electricity used annually by Program participants. While a community is no longer required by state law to have a net-100% renewable electricity goal to have joined the Agency, the Board still aims to push for making net-100% renewable electricity available to homes and businesses in participating communities by 2030; however, this target may be adjusted over time. PacifiCorp is RMP's parent company whose grid serves six states7, including Utah. The clean energy counting towards the Program is proposed to come from both existing clean energy on the grid plus new clean energy projects the Program brings to the grid. These resources are and will be part of the PacifiCorp grid. The Program has been developed and will be implemented in collaboration with RMP, and all URC participants will remain RMP customers. RMP will continue to be required to provide reliable power to all customers, regardless of a customer’s URC participation status. Program Approval by the Utah Public Service Commission As described by step 5 in Attachment A, the Act and Rules required that the proposed program be filed by RMP with the PSC. Following years of careful work and negotiations between the URC and RMP, on January 24, 2025, and June 4, 2025, RMP submitted parts I and II, respectively, of a two-part Application to Implement Community Clean Energy Program Authorized by the Community Clean Energy Act (Docket 25-035-06 8). As required by the Act, the Program Application included, among other items, information about the customers within the boundaries of the participating communities, projected rates under the proposed program, a Utility Agreement between each participating community and RMP, low-income plans for each community, a draft ordinance that establishes an eligible community’s participation in the proposed program, and more. Rounds of direct, rebuttal, and surrebuttal testimony followed. The process concluded with a technical hearing and public witness hearing in front of the Utah Public Service Commission on December 16 and 17, 2025. The Parties to the docket are: RMP, URC, the Division of Public Utilities (DPU), the Office of Consumer Services (OCS), Western Resource Advocates, and the Sierra Club. Each party participated in the rounds of testimony and the hearing. 7 In February 2025, PacifiCorp announced their plans to exit Washington, which will reduce the number of states they operate in to five in the coming years: https://www.pacificorp.com/about/newsroom/news- releases/pacificorp-to-sell-washington-service-area-to-pge.html 8 Docket No: 25-034-06 on the PSC website: https://psc.utah.gov/2025/01/25/docket-no-25-035-06/ 4 On March 4, 2026, a significant milestone was achieved when the Utah Public Service Commission issued an Order9 in Docket 25-035-06 (“Order”) approving the proposed program with modifications. The PSC ruling was generally favorable toward the proposed program and the URC communities’ interests and provides clarity on how the Program will work, the initial cost to participate, and more. However, the PSC did not resolve every dispute URC and RMP raised in the docket. For unresolved items, the Order provided guidance and clear action items for the communities and RMP to move forward. The main issues that still need to be addressed are the resource valuation methodology that considers the financial benefit the new resources bring to non-URC customers, as well as the first resource(s) contract which is called a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). These are discussed in more detail below, in the section “Additional URC Agency Processes.” Ordinance Timeline The PSC approval of the Program on March 4, 2026, set off the 90-day ordinance adoption window, as required by the Act. Each URC community has until June 2, 2026, to pass the required ordinance to formally adopt the Program. Given the Salt Lake City Council’s schedule of public hearings and current workload, we recommend targeting the May 19 formal meeting to adopt the ordinance. In October 2022, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council seeking feedback on the draft model ordinance. The version submitted as part of the Program Application was shared with the Council in October 2025. The ordinance has changed moderately from the last version shared. After the Order, the Agency’s legal counsel updated parts of the ordinance to fully comply with the Order and these redlines were shared with the communities’ legal counsels. It is important that the ordinance remain largely unchanged; particularly the “therefore” clauses and Exhibit A. This is because the ordinance draft submitted to the PSC as part of the Program Application was meant to be indicative of the ordinances to be adopted, pursuant to the Act. Furthermore, the ordinances should remain consistent between the participating communities. The Sustainability Department has updated key “whereas” sections to reflect Salt Lake City’s climate and sustainability goals. Program Details Customer participation and opt-out The Program was established under the Act as an “opt-out” program, meaning that every eligible RMP customer in a community participating in the Program will be automatically enrolled with the option to exit at any time. Customers in these communities will see a new Community Clean Energy Program line item (“Schedule 100”) on their RMP bills as early as the first quarter of 2027 (See Attachment C). The new line item will only appear after certain additional processes by the Agency and RMP are completed and approved by the PSC. This means that if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance, nearly all RMP customers in our community will be automatically enrolled when the Program commences, likely not until early 2027, with the choice to 9 March 4, 2026 Order: https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/25docs/2503506/3441662503506oapwm3-4-2026.pdf 5 opt out. Customers will be able to exit the Program at any time. There will be an initial “cancellation period” whereby customers exiting the Program can do so without incurring a termination fee. After the “cancellation period,” customers can still exit at any time but will be subject to a termination fee. The termination fees are outlined in Attachment B. Initial Program rates One of the most significant outcomes of the Order is the establishment of the initial Program rate. The Order established an initial residential flat rate totaling $4 per month ($3.88 per month plus a $0.12 low-income program surcharge). This amount is in line with the Agency’s targeted dollar amount to keep the Program affordable and accessible to customers. The low-income proposal from the Agency was also approved by the PSC. Income-qualified residents who are on Schedule 3 (RMP’s Home Electric Lifeline Program, or HELP) will see a monthly rate of $3.88 which would be matched by a $3.88 credit on their bill, making the Program free for these customers. For all other (non-residential) customer classes, the PSC approved a volumetric rate of $0.00609 per kWh and a low-income surcharge of $0.12 per month. Bill impacts for these commercial customers will depend on how much electricity they use each month. Program rates over time Rates will be adjusted periodically (not more than annually) to account for actual customer participation, annual administrative cost true-ups, and the Program valuation and resource costs. Regular rate adjustments happen with all other utility ratemaking and are not unique to the Program. It is not expected that future URC rates will increase significantly from the initial Program rate. Importantly, the PSC in its Order recognized that future rates may even decline as the required administrative and resource reserve funds are established. Page 24 of the PSC order states: While future Program rates may diverge from those under RMP’s proposal contingent on later determinations regarding Resource Valuation and changes to other underlying variables, no evidence in the record suggests that Program rates are likely to meaningfully increase from the initial rates approved in this order. Instead, under RMP’s proposal, they would decrease rather significantly after the first two years. At the Program’s inception, customers will be deciding whether to opt-out with reference to rates that are likely to be higher than rates charged later, after the reserve balances are sufficiently established. While this is not guaranteed and will be influenced by multiple factors including additional future resource procurements, the PSC found it within the public interest to allow the Program to begin with an initial fixed rate of $4 per month. Customer Noticing and Estimated Timelines There are two distinct but important milestones when customers will hear about the Program, defined in the order and State law: 6 • “Program Implementation” happens when the first customer notices are mailed by RMP. • “Program Commencement” is when RMP initiates collection of Program rates. The following is the anticipated timeline for Program milestones: June 2, 2026 Deadline for Communities to Adopt the ordinance (Hard) June - Nov/Dec 2026 RMP upgrades customer service and billing systems (estimated) Nov/Dec 2026 “Program Implementation” – First customer notices (estimated) Nov/Dec 2026 Second customer notices – 15 days after first notices (estimated) Jan/Feb 2027 “Program Commencement” – Program revenue collection begins (estimated) May/June 2027 Free cancellation period ends, termination fees apply (estimated) 2028-2030 Resources begin to come online. Exact timing will depend on resource selection and the terms of its PPA (estimated) Once the ordinance deadline of June 2 passes and RMP concludes its customer service upgrades (i.e. the “Startup Activities”) which are estimated to take approximately five months, RMP customers in a participating community will receive their first official notices about the Program. The first noticing date is defined as the beginning of “Program Implementation.” All RMP customers in communities that adopt the ordinance will receive two notices that are separate from their bills. This includes at least one mailed notice. The second notice will be mailed or digital, depending on customer communication preferences (i.e. if the customer has signed up for online billing.) Large commercial customers on Schedules 8 or 9 that have an electric load of one megawatt or greater will instead receive a noticing meeting, which may be conducted in-person or via video conference. The Agency expects the first customer notices will be mailed in late 2026. As required in the Act and the Utility Agreement, any community that enacts the Program (by passing the ordinance) is responsible for reimbursing RMP for the cost of providing the two required notices to all RMP customers within the community’s boundaries. The Sustainability Department has budgeted accordingly for this expected expense of $156,000. After the first notices go out, there will be two billing cycles, or approximately 60 days, until the first URC clean energy line item appears on RMP customer bills. This period of initial program rate collection is defined as “Program Commencement.” The Agency is estimating that Program Commencement will occur in early 2027. Utah HB 238 from 2026 passed and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. This bill adds additional requirements for the customer notices that are not expected to add additional burden to the already planned noticing process. Customers Wishing to Opt Out of the Program Once the Program begins, all customers can always exit it at any time. However, there may be termination fees after a certain time period for certain customers. 7 After “Program Implementation” when the first notices are sent out, customers will have a six-month period during which they can exit the Program for free (this is known as the “Cancellation Period.”) After six months, there will be a $30 termination fee for residential customers. There will be approximately four months during the Cancellation Period when customers will be paying the regular Program rates, but will not incur a termination fee if they choose to exit the Program. Income-qualified customers enrolled in HELP are never subject to a termination fee. Commercial customers will pay a termination fee specific to their particular rate schedule after the Cancellation Period ends. Termination fees are outlined in Attachment B. In addition to the Cancellation Period, the Program includes other circumstances during which the termination fee will not apply, including customers moving out of a participating community, ceasing to be a customer of RMP, or seeking protection through bankruptcy proceedings. New customers moving into a participating community, or annexed into it, will receive their own notice and no-fee cancellation period of 60 days from their first notice about the Program. Additional URC Agency Processes and Resource Solicitation While communities consider adopting the Program ordinance, the URC Agency will be working on several related processes that need to conclude before the Program launches. These include helping RMP upgrade their billing system and set up new customer service support for the Program (these are described in the order as “Startup Activities”.) The funding to backstop these required Startup Activities is the subject of an item in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2026 and is further discussed below. The Agency is also in the middle of a resource solicitation process to determine the first new clean energy resource(s) that will serve the Program. This process has played out separately and ahead of the Program Application. On November 19, 2024, RMP filed an Application for Approval of Solicitation Process 10 with the PSC describing the proposed process to solicit bids from clean energy developers (Docket 24-035-5511). The PSC granted the application12, clearing the way for URC to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) on May 22, 2025 13. Fifteen bids were initially received by the July 10, 2025, RFP deadline, one of which was later withdrawn 14. These bids were evaluated and scored by URC technical consultants, and an “initial short list” of six projects was selected by URC for further evaluation by RMP. URC received the results of this analysis in December 2025 and used this information to create a “final 10 See https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/24docs/2403555/336616Application11-19-2024.pdf 11 Docket No. 24-035-55 on the PSC website: https://psc.utah.gov/2024/11/19/docket-no-24-035-55/ 12 See https://pscdocs.utah.gov/electric/24docs/2403555/3397642403555ogrmpaam5-13-2025.pdf 13 URC RFP website: https://www.urc2024rfp.com/ 14 URC blog post regarding responses to the RFP: https://www.utahrenewablecommunities.org/post/urc-closes- the-call-for-clean-energy-resources-the-response-was-outstanding 8 short list”. In February 2026, the URC board approved Resolution 2026-0215 selecting all four final short list projects for power purchase agreement (PPA) negotiations. PPA negotiations are currently underway and the process to execute an agreement with one or more projects will eventually coincide with the valuation process, described below, and preparations towards implementing the URC Program. Finally, the Agency is also working with RMP and state agencies to determine how those resources will be valued. A program resource valuation methodology was not determined by the PSC in the Order and will be considered in a future regulatory proceeding. This will be based, in part, upon determinations that RMP and the PSC will make in the utility’s long-range planning effort across its multi-state service territory. This process is called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP lays out the utility’s forecast load growth over a 20-year timeline and what resources it plans to utilize to serve electricity demand. The IRP process– which culminates in plans that are released every two years and less robust “updates” that are released in intervening, off-cycle years— influences how the utility values new renewable energy brought to the grid. Once the latest version of the IRP is finalized, it will allow the URC and RMP to settle on a valuation methodology for URC clean energy resources going forward, pending PSC approval. What this means for individual customers is not likely to be noticeable, but will mean that the rates will change to a small degree in the future (as do all rates). Program Ordinance Ordinance details There are more details included in the ordinance than may be typical of many Salt Lake City ordinances, including many one-time deadlines and dates that will quickly stale in the code. While a bit awkward, it was decided deliberately by the URC communities to spell out the full details of the Program in the ordinance to offer transparency and clarity in one central location, without requiring community members to track down additional information in the Act, Rules, and Order. While atypical, the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office did not identify any issues with this approach. The ordinance must do two key things: ● Enact the approved program by the eligible community adopting the ordinance; and, ● Make it clear that the PSC has the final say on how the program will work. There are three sections in the ordinance that cover the following: • Preamble: describes the history and context for development of the Program. • Program adoption: while short in length, this is the “action” of the ordinance - that the community’s governing body votes to adopt the Community Clean Energy Program. • Exhibit A describes key elements of the Program that will occur if Salt Lake City adopts the ordinance. This includes: • Establishing Salt Lake City’s participation in the approved Community Clean Energy Program. 15 URC Resolution 2026-02 Resolution of the Board Selecting Projects for Contract Negotiation: https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/1387795.pdf 9 • Enabling all retail electricity customers in current and future boundaries of Salt Lake City to participate in the Program. This does not include rooftop solar customers on Schedule 135, the older net metering schedule, in accordance with the Act.16 Rooftop solar customers on Schedules 136 and 137 are eligible to participate. • Defining the Program’s “Implementation Date” as the date when RMP sends out its first notices to customers of their forthcoming enrollment in the Program and describing RMP’s noticing requirements. • Explaining that eligible customers will be enrolled in the Program if they decline to opt-out by the date used in the RMP notices. • Describing that any customer in a participating community who is not enrolled in the Program may opt-in at any time. • Imposing termination fees for customers who opt out after the cancellation period as well as situations when termination fees will not occur. • Describing the process and approvals needed for clean energy resource acquisition under the Program. • Acknowledging that the PSC determines the Program rate and can approve adjustments to the rates periodically. • Acknowledging that RMP is responsible for billing customers and notifying them of changes to the Program rate. Section 7 of Exhibit A sets forth Salt Lake City’s role and responsibilities. This includes: • Salt Lake City will continue to participate in future decisions regarding clean energy resource solicitation, acquisition, and other issues. • Salt Lake City’s obligation to enter into an agreement with RMP to effectuate the Program. This “Utility Agreement” was negotiated between RMP and the communities between 2022-23, with the core participation of Salt Lake City staff and attorneys. It was shared with the City Council in October 2023. It was signed by Council Member Dugan, serving as the URC Agency Board Chair, on August 22, 2024, and by Mayor Mendenhall for Salt Lake City on November 26, 2024. The Utility Agreement is consistent for all communities and RMP, as required by the Act. • Per the Utility Agreement, Salt Lake City will reimburse RMP for their costs to provide the two required notices to all eligible customers within our boundary. Funds were first appropriated for this in the Department’s FY24 budget, which has been carried forward as a base budget item each year into the Department’s proposed FY27 base budget. • Salt Lake City has already appropriated and paid additional funds (when we joined the Agency) which, in part, were used to reimburse the OCS and DPU for their costs of contracting third-party expertise to evaluate the Program. Why Create a New Clean Energy Option? Participating Communities, as defined under the Act, are served by RMP – i.e., they do not have their own municipal utilities – and their options for procuring clean energy resources are, therefore, limited. 16 54-17-905(5) states that "a residential customer that is participating in the net metering program under Title 54, Chapter 15, Net Metering of Electricity, may not be a participating customer under this part." 10 The Program offers homes and businesses in our community a new option for supporting clean energy. Furthermore, the Program creates a unique opportunity to drive investment in new clean energy at scale, since, collectively, URC represents about 25% of RMP's electricity sales in Utah 17, which in turn represents 80% of total electricity sales in the State. Benefits of the URC Program Utah is facing a worrisome energy shortage, as our energy supply is projected to decrease while demand continues to rise, according to Governor Cox’s Operation Gigawatt18. Thankfully, URC is part of the solution: the Program will add hundreds of megawatts of new clean energy to the grid in the 2020s, with the aim of adding even more in the next decade to support our communities’ clean energy goals and growing energy needs. By adding new clean energy to our electricity mix, URC is part of the solution by creating a more reliable energy supply for Utah. Health and Environment The electricity used to power our homes and businesses comes from a collection of power plants connected to our grid. This includes electricity generated by natural gas, coal, wind, solar, hydropower, and more. Throughout the day, power plants are dispatched to generate enough electricity to meet demand. Wind and solar power plants have no fuel costs, so they are often dispatched before coal and gas plants which do have fuel costs. When coal and natural gas plants generate electricity, greenhouse gases and air pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere as byproducts. Renewable electricity generation does not come with harmful fossil fuel emissions. By adding more renewable energy to the grid, the URC program may reduce how often fossil fuel plants need to run. This reduces pollution, improving our air quality, water quality, and climate on a local and regional scale. In particular, there are several natural gas plants along the Wasatch Front, owned by RMP or other entities. Due to our state’s increasing electricity demands, these pollution-emitting gas plants will likely need to run more often, which is a particular concern for the Gadsby power plant, given its age and location in the Fairpark neighborhood of Salt Lake City, as well as others that impact our airshed. Adding new, clean energy to the grid helps alleviate overall electricity demand which can result in less air pollution from local fossil fuel power plants. This benefits the neighborhoods immediately next to power plants and those living throughout our inversion-prone valley. Similarly, the Hunter and Huntington coal plants in central Utah are large fossil fuel plants that contribute to air pollution in other parts of the state and reduce visibility in our national parks. The URC program aims to bring more clean energy to reduce pollution throughout the state. The Program ultimately aims to bring online about 500 MW of clean energy over the coming years, based on current participating customer projections. This amount of clean energy, which would occur 17 This estimate is based on the 19 currently participating communities. It is possible that not all 19 communities enact the final program by passing the ordinance 18 Information on Operation Gigawatt: https://energy.utah.gov/homepage/about-us/operation-gigawatt/ 11 over several different resource procurements, would result in an estimated reduction of 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually, and 1,000 pounds of criteria pollution annually.19 Economic Growth The Program supports economic growth by bringing new energy development to areas of the state that are hotspots for solar, wind, or other clean energy development. (Note that Salt Lake County is not a prime location for utility-scale solar and wind.) New projects create construction and operational jobs; provide resources to public schools via the Trust Lands Administration if projects are sited on certain state land; support private landowners if sited privately; and add to local counties’ tax base. These benefits were captured in a recent study by The Western Way20. Supporting a healthy environment is also core to many economic drivers in Utah– whether that’s the local ski and snow sports industry, national park visitation in gateway communities, or the upcoming 2034 Olympic & Paralympic Games. In fact, the Program is a cornerstone of the sustainability goals of Utah’s bid to the International Olympic Committee.21 Program comparison Homes and businesses have a few different ways to access clean energy. The Program is distinct from existing clean energy offerings: • The Blue Sky program has been available for nearly 26 years and allows participants to voluntarily contribute at $1.95 per 100 kWh “block” or 1.95 cents per kWh. Blue Sky is an important program that supports grants to help organizations offset the cost of rooftop solar (Salt Lake City has benefitted from a Blue Sky grant which helped cover the cost of solar on the Sorenson Center). Blue Sky participants also fund the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) nationwide which, while helpful to the industry, do not significantly catalyze the growth of new utility-scale renewable energy. Blue Sky is also more expensive on a per kilowatt-hour basis than the initial residential Program rate of $4 per month per residential customer approved by the PSC (0.609 cents per kWh for the average residential consumption of 637 kWh per month, plus a 12 cent per month surcharge charged to participants to assist low-income customers). This is, in part, due to key differences between the programs, including Blue Sky’s ability to claim RECs, while URC is aiming to use its rate revenue to develop new clean energy to match participant demand. • The Subscriber Solar Program is also one that Salt Lake City Corporation participates in. It offers RMP customers shares in an existing 20 MW solar farm in Southern Utah. While allowing customers to directly purchase a share of clean energy is an important benefit compared with Blue Sky, Subscriber Solar has a capped participation opportunity and RMP has not indicated they plan to build more projects to make available to additional subscribers. 19 Source: EPA’s AVERT model. https://www.epa.gov/avert 20 The Economic Benefits of Utah’s Rural Renewable Energy Industry: https://www.thewesternway.org/ut-eco-devo 21 "SALT LAKE CITY—UTAH COMMITTEE FOR THE GAMES Future Host Questionnaire Response" https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Olympic-Games/Future-Host/SLC-UT-2034-Future-Host- Questionnaire-Response.pdf : Pages 24, 46, 57 12 • Customers can individually install rooftop solar on their homes or businesses. This is an important option to support renewable energy growth and energy security. However, it is expensive and only available to some types of customers with the funding and property types that allow for it. For these reasons, Salt Lake City and the other participating communities that are part of URC have worked diligently to develop the Community Clean Energy Program with RMP over the last several years. The Program offers participating communities the opportunity to drive renewable energy development at utility scale and offers their residents and businesses the choice to participate. If the ordinance is not adopted, that choice is removed for them. History of Salt Lake City’s support Salt Lake City joint resolution Number 33 of 2016, adopted November 1, 2016 (“2016 Resolution”) established two renewable energy goals – one for Salt Lake City’s government operations and another for the wider Salt Lake City community. For government operations, the 2016 resolution established a goal to achieve at least 50% municipal renewable energy by 2020. It also established 2032 as the year to achieve 100% renewable energy for both government operations and the community. The community goal was advanced to 2030 in Joint Resolution 23 of 2019, which established “a community goal of achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric energy supply for participating customers from renewable energy resources by 2030.” By adopting this latter resolution, Salt Lake City qualified under the Act to join the URC and develop the Program in partnership with RMP. Subsequently, Salt Lake City made financial contributions totaling $385,966.47 in Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023 to the Agency’s budget, which were proportional to our community’s population and electricity load. The Rules require participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. On August 3, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution 22 of 2023 endorsing the City’s ongoing participation in the development of the Program, and following that, Mayor Mendenhall signed the Utility Agreement along with the other participating communities. RMP is expected to sign the Utility Agreement soon now that the PSC has issued the Order. Transmittals shared with Council In addition to actions taken above, we are sharing the most recent transmittals on this program over the last few years, as reference: • In October 2022, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council seeking feedback on the draft model ordinance and approaches to low-income assistance. • In October 2023, the Department submitted an informational transmittal to City Council providing a copy of the Utility Agreement. • In December 2024, the Department submitted an informational transmittal giving an update on Program milestones. • In October 2025, the Department provided a transmittal updating the City Council on the Program Application and Solicitation processes and expected next steps, should the PSC approve the Program. 13 Budgetary Updates The Agency will begin to receive Program rate revenue after RMP begins revenue collection, anticipated in early 2027 according to the timeline above and in Attachment C. To date, Program costs have been paid for from member communities contributions. URC has also been successful in receiving one grant and a financial donation to support its efforts over the last year. Because the Agency unexpectedly had to run its own resource solicitation process, it charged bid fees from developer applicants to pay for consultants to run the solicitation and other legal and technical costs. The Agency has remaining budget to fund expected activities through 2026, and URC support staff continues to seek philanthropic opportunities to continue funding URC work to bridge any gaps until revenue collection begins. If additional funds are requested of member communities, which the Sustainability Department cannot cover with existing budget for Salt Lake City’s share, the Sustainability Department will prepare a budget amendment. As noted in the transmittal sent to the City Council in December 2024 and in the section below, there is a separate outstanding issue of unexpected administrative “Startup Costs.” Sustainability has included a funding request in FY26 Budget Amendment 5 to backstop the cost of these activities. Once revenue collection begins, all other costs associated with administering the program and for program resources will be covered by participating RMP customers and there is no further community obligation. Startup Costs There are certain customer service activities, with associated costs, that need to occur in order for RMP to send out bills with the Program line item, thus allowing the Program to commence. These activities can be paid for by ratepayer revenues, but those cannot be collected before such activities occur. Accordingly, these activities are called “Startup Activities” and their associated costs, “Startup Costs”. The most significant Startup Cost is an upgrade to RMP’s information systems to automate statutory aspects of the Program, namely, to: • allow Program-eligible customers to opt-out one or more of their electric accounts; • generate ongoing opt-out notices for new Program-eligible customers; and • assess any applicable termination fees. Other costs include setting up a 1-800 number for customer support, customer service training, and other miscellaneous costs. The total Startup Cost estimate provided to the PSC as part of the Program approval docket was $820,169. Unfortunately, RMP did not initially identify these Startup Costs as an expense that the URC would need to cover. For that reason, the URC’s initial $700,000 budget—fully funded through contributions by its 19 member communities—was not designed to cover it. Additionally, the Rules adopted by the PSC say that costs related to operation of the Program should be recovered through the Program rate paid by participating customers – not the participating communities. Further, neither the Act nor Rules allow Program-related costs like this to be shifted to non-participating customers. If these Program-related costs are included in the established rate, RMP has expressed 14 concern that the liability for the Startup Costs could be shifted to all customers if a majority of URC customers opt out of the Program. This is an extremely low likelihood event, but RMP has required that URC’s member communities sign an agreement, in advance, to cover the Startup Costs if those costs have not been recovered through Program rates after an agreed timeframe. The nature and estimated amounts of the Startup Costs were discussed in the Program Approval docket, with cost estimates and challenges made before the PSC. Ultimately, the PSC, in approving the program, acknowledged that the Startup Costs could be paid for up-front by RMP, but would need to be reimbursed, either by ratepayer revenues, or a URC community, so as not to shift costs to other RMP customers. Recognizing that Salt Lake City is the community with the largest population and electricity load of all 19 URC communities and could thus most benefit from the Program’s impact, the Sustainability Department agreed to request budget allocation that could be obligated, allowing Salt Lake City to sign such a contract with Rocky Mountain Power. As confirmed in recent conversations with RMP staff, the Startup Costs will remain approximately the same whether solely Salt Lake City participates in the program, or all 19 communities. The Startup Cost estimate we are using for Budget Amendment 5 is the one RMP provided to the PSC of $820,169, plus an additional 10% contingency. While this number is an estimate and actual costs would vary, we believe it is on the higher end of what would be required, allowing us to move forward contractually. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Salt Lake City would end up needing to pay this money to RMP. Rather, it is being identified and held as a backstop in order to sign the Startup Cost agreement. That is because it is estimated the Program could generate around $18 million in revenues each year at the PSC-approved initial rate of $4 per month for residential customers and $0.00609 per kWh for non- residential customers. At these rates, it is likely that the Startup Cost estimate of $820,169 will be more than recovered from a single month of Program revenue. Given RMP’s requirement that a contract be in place and the high likelihood that the full cost will be recovered through one month of Program revenues, it is very likely that this Startup Cost budget can be de-obligated shortly after Program revenue collection begins. These details have been worked into the contractual language that is currently being negotiated with RMP. Salt Lake City is separately talking with other communities that are part of the Agency on their potential contributions to reimburse the City, in the case that the Startup Costs are collected. Conclusion After nearly a decade of thoughtful, intentional, and complex work to plan, design, negotiate, and apply for approval, the Community Clean Energy Program has been approved by the PSC. This milestone starts a 90-day clock for each of the 19 communities involved in URC to consider enacting the approved Program by adopting the program ordinance by June 2, 2026. If adopted, the first customer notices are 15 expected to go out in late 2026, and the new clean energy line item will appear in early 2027 on customers’ RMP bills. This page has intentionally been left blank ATTACHMENT A This page has intentionally been left blank ATTACHMENT B Information on termination fees included in the Program Application This page has intentionally been left blank Estimated 2026-27 URC Timeline PROGRAM: v PSC program approval: (March 4, 2026) 1 v Ordinance adoption (within 90 days of PSC approval: ends June 2,2026) 2 v RMP preps billing system (5 months following adoption window) 3 Noticing period (60 days following implementation) 4 No fee opt-out period (~ 4 months following commencement) 5 Fee-Free Cancellation Period of 6 months "Implementation Date" Noticing begins (~November 2, 2026) "Commencement Date" Revenue collection begins (~January 1, 2027) “Implementation” = when customer noticing begins. Currently estimated in late 2026 “Commencement” = when rate collection begins. Currently estimated in early 2027 This page has intentionally been left blank 7200 West Closure Public Services Department PUBLIC SERVICES Proposed Indefinite closure •An indefinite closure does not mean vacating the public right of way •There are no changes to the use of this road •Closure has been effective in reducing the illegal dumping •Initially closed in March 2024 •Future plans to connect I-80 to 201 •Adjacent property owners in support •Letters of support attached Proposed extent of closure PUBLIC SERVICES Most recent clean-up adjacent to the gate PUBLIC SERVICES Illegal dumping still present THANK YOU 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:April 7, 2026 RE: Indefinite Closure of 200 South at Montgomery Street The Council will be briefed about a proposal to indefinitely close to public use a portion of 200 South between Montgomery Street (1595 West) and approximately 1640 West as shown in the image below. This proposed closure is part of an ongoing effort to create railroad quiet zones in the city. Other quiet zone crossings are located at 100 South Navajo Street, 1600 West 200 South, and 300 North Orange Street. Under the proposal, the City would retain ownership of the street property because the street would merely be closed, and ownership would not be relinquished as it would be with a street vacation. Utah State Code 72-5-105 (7) requires the City to hold a public hearing after mailing a notice to UDOT. Additionally, abutting property owners must be notified of the public hearing at least four weeks before the hearing date. It is worth noting that the Planning Commission is not required to forward a recommendation to the City Council. As such, the Commission did not review this proposal. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed street closure, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Aerial image showing location of proposed 200 South closure between Montgomery Street and approximately 1640 West. Location of new curb and gutter location at 200 South Montgomery Street is also shown. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Engineering ADDITIONAL INFORMATION City staff is working with the Federal Railroad Authority to design needed safety improvements for a railroad quiet zone. The crossing at 200 South is complex due to track elevation, crossing angle relative to the street, and limited visibility. It was determined that closing the street would be significantly less costly than required safety improvements at the railroad crossing for a quiet zone if the street was to remain open to public use. This section of 200 South has very low traffic volume and few properties are located along road. All abutting property owners, Rocky Mountain Power, Union Pacific Railroad, and Patriot Rail (Salt Lake Garfield & Western), have been notified of the proposed street closure and sent letters expressing support for the closure provided they will retain access to their properties. Under the proposal, no property owner would be denied access to their property. The section of State code referenced above allows the City to close a street if the one of the following conditions is met: The street is not necessary for vehicular travel. The closure is necessary to correct or mitigate injury to private or public land resources on or near the street, or The closure is necessary to mitigate unsafe conditions. Administrative staff found that this section of 200 South meets all three conditions. 200 SOUTH INDEFINITE CLOSURE PRESENTED BY Purpose •200 South Indefinite Closure •Westside Railroad Quiet Zone Project Reasons for Proposed Closure •Crossing Skew •Rail Elevations PROPOSED CLOSURE LOCATION PROPOSED CLOSURE DESIGN Impacts •Residential Properties •Industrial Properties •Utilities POTENTIAL CLOSURE IMPACTS CLOSURE AREA 200 SOUTH I-80 400 SOUTH 500 SOUTH OR A N G E S T R E E T RE D W O O D R O A D SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 03/19/2026 Date Sent to Council: 03/25/2026 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Willie, Joshua E-mail Joshua.Willie@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 03/24/2026 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 03/25/2026 Subject: 200 South Indefinite Closure Ordinance Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Adopt an ordinance to indefinitely close a portion of 200 South on the west side of the intersection with Montgomery Street. The proposed closure is part of a current city project to create a new Railroad Quiet Zone in Salt Lake City. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Public Hearing Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement. Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing The indefinite closure of 200 South along with the associated Railroad Quiet Zone project will have an impact on transportation options and quality of life of affected members of the public. Public Process According to Utah Code 72-5-105, before authorizing a roadway closure, the City shall: (A) hold a hearing on the proposed closure; (B) provide notice of the hearing by mailing a notice to UDOT; and (C) provide notice to the owners of the properties abutting the street for at least four weeks before the day of the hearing. Property owners abutting the closure area have been notified of the intended closure. However, they have not been notified of the public hearing process as that has not been scheduled yet. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker 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: The City Council is being asked to adopt an ordinance to indefinitely close a portion of 200 South at Mongomery Street (1595 W) (see Exhibit A) beginning on, or soon after, July 1, 2026. The proposed closure is part of a current city project to create a new Railroad Quiet Zone in Salt Lake City. The ordinance states that closure will take effect upon its adoption. Salt Lake City is currently working on establishing a new railroad quiet zone within city limits. This proposed quiet zone includes crossings that are not currently associated with the existing quiet zones in the city: 100 S Navajo Street (834439B); 1600 W 200 South (806740J); and 300 N Orange Street (806738H). City representatives are currently working with the railroad operators and the Federal Railroad Authority (FRA) to design the necessary safety improvements to meet federal requirements for a railroad quiet zone. During the design review process, it was found that installing the necessary safety improvements on the 200 South crossing has many difficult complications. The elevations of the existing rail lines need to be adjusted, which requires modifying the tracks over a very large distance. Also, the crossing is at a steep skew to the roadway which makes installing safety improvements difficult. The cost to adjust the rail elevations and provide the necessary safety improvements would be exorbitant compared to the overall project budget. Staff from the Transportation Division conducted a traffic analysis and found that this section of 200 South has very low traffic volumes. Additionally, this section provides access to very few private parcels and the proposed closure would not prohibit access to any of those parcels. However, due to the low volumes of traffic, minimal impact to adjacent private property access, and the challenges and expenses associated with installing required safety measures, this alternative is not recommended. Instead, it is proposed to close 200 South between approximately 1640 West and the west side of the Montgomery Street intersection (see Exhibit A). Utah Code Section 72-5-105(7) allows a municipality to indefinitely close a street if it meets one of the following conditions: (a) the street is not necessary for vehicular travel; (b) the closure is necessary to correct or mitigate injury to private or public land resources on or near street; or, (c) the closure is necessary to mitigate unsafe conditions. City staff has determined that the section of 200 South Street described above meets all three conditions outlined in Utah Code Section 72-5-105(7) because: there are low traffic volumes on this portion of 200 South Street; indefinite closure will contribute to the creation of a federal quiet zone, which will mitigate noise injuries and improve adjacent private property resources; and indefinite closure is the best method to mitigate the inherently unsafe conditions the railroad crossing presents compared to the expenses and engineering challenges associated with installing the alternative safety features. Utah Code 72-5-105 requires that any closure may not impair the rights-of-way or easements of any property owner and the franchise rights of any public utility, and that all property owners must still have reasonable access to their property. The closure will consist of physical barricades, fencing, and signage on both sides of the tracks. New curb & gutter will be installed at the intersection of Montgomery Street and will allow traffic to continue to make movements through the intersection to the south and east. Also, a 96 foot asphalt turnaround will be installed on the west side of the tracks. This will only be a physical closure, and it will not vacate the existing right-of-way. The location of the proposed closure would allow all adjacent property owners to access their properties from the right-of-way. The closure will not affect any utility franchise rights or any other easements: - Rocky Mountain Power, owner of multiple parcels within the proposed indefinite closure, will retain access to their property and has provided a letter of support for this closure (See Exhibit B); - Union Pacific Railroad, owner of railroad tracks within the proposed closure, will retain access to their property and has provided a letter of support (see Exhibit B); - Patriot Rail (Salt Lake Garfield & Western), owner of railroad tracks within the proposed closure, will retain access to their property and has provided a letter of support (see Exhibit B). PUBLIC PROCESS: According to Utah Code 72-5-105, before authorizing a roadway closure, the City shall: A. hold a hearing on the proposed closure; B. provide notice of the hearing by mailing a notice to UDOT; and C. provide notice to the owners of the properties abutting the street for at least four weeks before the day of the hearing. EXHIBITS: The following is a list of attachments/files to be included in the final transmittal via Laserfiche. A. Legal Description and Map of 200 South Closure between approximately 1640 West and the west side of the Montgomery Street intersection. B. Letters of Support from Rocky Mountain Power, Union Pacific, and Patriot Rail. C. Ordinance adopting the indefinite closure. EXHIBIT “A” Legal description and map of the portion of 200 South Street to be indefinitely closed (appears on next page) EXHIBIT “B” Letters of Support from Rocky Mountain Power, Union Pacific Railroad, and Patriot Rail (appear on following pages) June 19, 2025 Salt Lake City Corporation Department of Public Services 451 State St. #135 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 To Whom It May Concern, Rocky Mountain Power has reviewed Salt Lake City Corporation’s request to close 200 South at approximately 1460 West (east of the Redwood Road overpass). Rocky Mountain Power requires ongoing access to its facilities in the vicinity of the impacted area. It is Rocky Mountain Power’s understanding that approximately 60’ along the north side of 200 South or former 200 South road frontage between the physical closure barriers immediately west of the railroad closure and an open ditch as noted in the accompanying 200 South Street Roadway Improvements Plan remain free of any obstruction that may occur as a result of the city’s improvement plan. With the foregoing understanding, Rocky Mountain Power acknowledges the modifications proposed and depicted in the accompanying 200 South Street Roadway Improvements Plan. Sincerely, Brad Knoles Regional Business Manager (801) 220-4437 brad.knoles@rockymountainpower.net : & O X E K R X V H ' U L Y H 6 W H $ /H K L 8 7 '$7( '(6,*1%< &+(&.('%< 352- 5( 8 6 ( 2 ) ' 5 $ : , 1 * 6 7+ , 6 ' 2 & 8 0 ( 1 7 $ 1 ' 7 + ( , ' ( $ 6 + ( 5 ( , 1 $ 5 ( 7 + ( 3 5 2 3 ( 5 7 < 2 ) & , 9 , / 6& , ( 1 & ( , 1 & $ 1 ' , 6 1 2 7 7 2 % ( 5 ( 3 5 2 ' 8 & ( ' 0 2 ' , ) , ( ' 2 5 8 6 ( ' , 1 :+ 2 / ( 2 5 , 1 3 $ 5 7 ) 2 5 $ 1 < 2 7 + ( 5 3 5 2 - ( & 7 2 5 ( ; 7 ( 1 6 , 2 1 2 ) 7 + , 6 35 2 - ( & 7 ( ; & ( 3 7 % < : 5 , 7 7 ( 1 $ 8 7 + 2 5 , = $ 7 , 2 1 2 ) & , 9 , / 6 & , ( 1 & ( , 1 & 5( 9 , 6 , 2 1 %< 12 '( 6 & 5 , 3 7 , 2 1 '$ 7 ( $3 5 6+((7 2) 3/ 2 7 3 0 3$ 7 + / ? 8 7 $ + ? 3 5 2 - ( & 7 6 ? $ & 7 , 9 ( ? , ) 6 / & 5 $ , / 5 2 $ ' 4 8 , ( 7 = 2 1 ( 6 2 8 7 + ? & $ ' ? 6 + ( ( 7 B ) , / ( 6 ? & 3 ' : * 02 1 7 * 2 0 ( 5 < : ( 6 7 6287+ 5( ' : 2 2 ' 5 2 $ ' : ( 6 7 5 03+52$':$<'(6,*163((' 6((6+((7&3)25:25.72%(&203/(7('%<5$,/52$' 6((6+((7&3)256,*1,1*$1'675,3,1* &5266,1*12- 835503 835568%',9,6,21 /<11'</ 6/*:5503 6/*:5568',9,6,21 6$/7/$.( 6$/7/$.(&,7<6$/7/$.(&2817<87 1 : 52$'$&&(66725(0$,1 ,13/$&( 7,(,172(;,67,1**$7( &3 )) $00 7&9 0$< ȱ ȱ ŘŖ Ŗ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰ ȱ 5 '<1$0,&(19(/23( &216758&7,21&/($5$1&( &216758&7,21&/($5$1&( '<1$0,&(19(/23( 6/*: 5 5 83558355 /(*(1' 5(029($63+$/73$9(0(17 &21&5(7(6,'(:$/.&85% *877(5 '5,9(:$<6 $63+$/73$9(0(173*'07+,&.8175($7('$**5(*$7(7+,&. 52$':$<.(<127(6 6$:&87$63+$/73$9(0(17 7<3($&21&5(7(&85%$1'*877(5 3(5$3:$)25'(7$,/6 7<3()&21&5(7(&85%$1'*877(5 3(5$3:$3/$1)25'(7$,/6 7<3(4&21&5(7(&85%$1'*877(5 3(5$3:$3/$1 )25'(7$,/6 :$7(5:$< 3(5$3:$3/$1'(7$,/6 :$7(5:$<75$16,7,216758&785( 3(5$3:$3/$1'(7$,/6 ,1&+&21&5(7(6,'(:$/. 3(5$3:$)25'(7$,/6 3('(675,$1$&&(665$03 3(5$3:$)25'(7$,/6 '(7(&7$%/(:$51,1*685)$&( 3(58'2767'':*55$ 3$'(7$,/$)25'(7$,/6 ,1&+7+,&.&21&5(7(,6/$1' 6(('76+((7)25'(7$,/6 3/2:$%/((1'6(&7,21 3(58'2767'':**:%)25'(7$,/6 7<3(,9%$55,&$'(:,7+,17+(52$':$<5,*+72):$< 3(58355(1*,1((5,1*67'':*)25'(7$,/6 &+$,1/,1.)(1&()227 3(5$3:$3/$1 6,/7)(1&( 3(5$3:$3/$1)25'(7$,/6 5(&216758&7&85%,1/(7%2; 3(5$3:$3/$1)25'(7$,/6 5(/2&$7(32:(532/( 5(/2&$7(&20081,&$7,213('(67$/ &0367250'5$,13,3( *(1(5$/127(6 52$':$<.(<127(6 87,/,7<.(<127(6 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 650 Davis Rd Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Nathan Anderson Senior Director, Public Affairs Corporate Relations P 801-212-5415 E nanderson@up.com February 5, 2026 Salt Lake City Corporation Department of Public Services 451 State St. #135 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Subject: Letter of strong support for Salt Lake City 200 South Road Closure To Whom It May Concern, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) strongly supports the Salt Lake City Corporation’s effort to close the at-grade railroad crossing at DOT 806740J. The proposed at-grade railroad crossing closure project will be on 200 South at approximately 1620 West in Salt Lake City, on UP’s Lynndyl Subdivision, DOT 806740J, MP 782.529. The agency and UP have collaboratively undertaken the required processes to identify, review and advance this closure. Through joint efforts, both parties have progressed the matter to a stage appropriate for presentation to the council for its review and consideration. The Salt Lake City Corporation will continue to follow UP’s public projects review process to work through and meet UP’s standards through 100% project completion. UP supports the USDOT/FHWA/FRA goal of at-grade crossing reductions, both public and private, through consolidation, elimination and grade separations, to enhance Highway-Rail Grade Crossing safety. Union Pacific commends Salt Lake City Corporation for pursuing an at-grade crossing closure to improve public safety and mobility and encourages SLC City Council’s consideration for a full closure at this location. UP looks forward to continued collaboration with the Salt Lake City Corporation on this crossing closure. Sincerely, Nathan Anderson Senior Director, Public Affairs Page 1 of 1 Public Projects Department 10752 Deerwood Park Blvd, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida, 32256-4848 PublicProjects@patriotrail.com February 11, 2026 RE: Establishment of a quiet zone along the S alt Lake, Garfield and Western Railway Company tracks in Salt Lake City Dear Mayor Mendenhall and Members of the City Council, The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Train Horn Rule establishing the criteria for quiet zones became effective on June 24th, 2005 allowing communities nationwide to have a choice to consider silencing train horns at highway-rail grade crossings while reducing the risk of railroad related incidents. Salt Lake, Garfield and Western Railway Company (SLGW) supports the communit y’s right to choose where quiet zones are established provided they meet the requirement of the FRA regulations established in 49 CFR Part 222. SLGW has worked with Salt Lake City, Utah Department of Transportation, and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to have the corridor meet the requirements of the regulations to reduce the risk index to the acceptable levels of the CFR through installation and modification of Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) and Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs). The crossings at 1000W and N Orange St will include installation of 4 quadrant gates. The entrance gates will provide a visual obstruction for vehicles heading toward the crossing as well as exit gates to deter vehicles from trying to go around the entrance gates. The crossing at 200S will be closed. This closure is fully supported by SLGW . This crossing had geometric challenges including both the angle of the roadway to the tracks, sight distance issues due to the nearby overpasses in both directions along the track , and profile challenges which could require vehicles to reduce their speed while traversing the tracks. We respectfully encourage the Mayor and City Council to advance this closure as well as others when feasible. We understand that train horn noise along this corridor can be a nuisance and pursuing this quiet zone can greatly reduce the ambient noise caused by trains. With the proposed modifications along the corridor we support the City’s choice to advance this quiet zone through the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Establishment (NOE) required by the FRA. Sincerely, Derek Metts Derek Metts EXHIBIT “C” Ordinance adopting the Indefinite Closure (appears on following pages) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2026 (Indefinitely closing a portion of 200 South Street between Montgomery Street and approximately 1640 West) An ordinance indefinitely closing a portion of 200 South Street as a public right-of-way, between Montgomery Street and approximately 1640 West, pursuant Utah Code Section 72-5- 105. WHEREAS, a portion of 200 South Street near Montgomery Street includes a railroad crossing that is to be included in a new railroad quiet zone; and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 72-5-105(7) allows a municipality to indefinitely close a street if it meets one of the following conditions: • The street is not necessary for vehicular travel; • The closure is necessary to correct or mitigate injury to private or public land resources on or near street; or, • The closure is necessary to mitigate unsafe conditions. WHEREAS, the City has determined that the section of 200 South Street described above meets all three conditions outlined in Utah Code Section 72-5-105(7) because: there are low traffic volumes on this portion of 200 South Street, indefinite closure will contribute to the creation of a federal quiet zone, which will mitigate noise injuries and improve adjacent private property resources; and indefinite closure is the best method to mitigate the inherently unsafe conditions the railroad crossing presents compared to the expenses and engineering challenges associated with installing the alternative safety features; and WHEREAS, the City has partnered with the affected railroad entities as part of establishing a new quiet zone, the goals of which include addressing unsafe conditions and 2 mitigating injury to private and public land resources on or near the street at the 200 South Street railroad crossing; and WHEREAS, an indefinite closure is allowed after following the procedures specified under Utah Code Section 72-5-105(4)-(5), which requires the City to hold a public hearing on the indefinite closure and provide notice to the Utah Department of Transportation and the adjacent landowners of the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Indefinitely Closing City-Owned Right-of-Way. That, in accordance with Utah Code Section 72-5-105(7), a portion of 200 South Street between Montgomery Street and approximately 1640 West, which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is indefinitely closed as a public right-of-way. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published pursuant to Utah Code § 10-3-711 and § 10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ________ day of ________, 202_. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________________ Alejandro Puy, Council Chair ATTEST: _________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder 3 Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder Bill No. _______ of 202_. Published: __________________ Ordinance Eng.IndefiniteClosure.200South APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _March 25, 2026 By: /s/ Cameron Johnson Cameron Johnson, Senior City Attorney This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 03/20/2026 Date Sent To Council: 03/30/2026 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Kathryn Floor to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee for a 4 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the third Monday in January. Kathryn Floor currently lives in District 7. Approved:* Otto, Rachel 3/25/202610:13 Ben Wilson Ice Detention Facility Dear all on the City Council, I am reaching out to express my anger over the sale of an industrial space to ICE. These types of facilities do nothing but degrade, harm and isolate those in our community who have been arrested by ICE. ICE is a horrible group who should not be given an home in SLC. Our immigrant communities drive the industries that allow Salt Lake City to thrive. As one who works in manufacturing with immigrants on a daily basis I know that these people are here to enrich our community and improve the local culture. Allowing Ice to utilize this building will only cause death and distress in our communities. Not to mention that this facility is not intended for anything but industrial use. Please do not establish this prison that will be used to enrich the richest and damage the poorest in our community. -Ben Wilson 3/25/202610:42 Krystal Goetz ICE Center My community members and myself are appalled at the recent purchase of an ICE detention center in Salt Lake. We do not want ICE in our city at all, and we certainly reject, completely, the presence of a concentration camp in our community. There is no place in our city for a detention center. We do not support the violence, fear, suppression, racism, and cruelty of ICE. Salt Lake was founded by pioneers as a place to live safely and free from oppression. We completely reject the blatant human rights violations committed by ICE. We stand with our migrant community members and will never stop fighting to create a safe place for them to live here. 3125/202610:49 Sheridan Dastrup ICE Center I teach 6th grade in SLC and my students are terrified.12-year-olds are scared to live here. Recently, I taught about resolutions and asked if they could change anything in the world what would they change. They unanimously agreed theywould get rid of ICE. In the meetingtonight, the council agreed that all students should be able to have an education and to grow. How can we expect kids to learn when we allow a concentration camp and ICE patrols in their communities? This is a trauma thatwill not leave the people in the camps northe community as a whole. Please commit to a lawsuit against DHS so we can protect our community and make each of us safe show our youth that we care about their safety and fear. 3/25/202610:53 Anonymous Constituent ICE Center As a mother of two young men of color and a grandmother of a 6-year-old, I feel compelled to be here to speak out against a DHS detention center being located in the SL Valley. Please know that most people do not support people being separated from friends and family, and placed in detention centers in our area. Please do whatever you can to block this move by DHS, including bringing a lawsuit in conjunction with Salt Lake County. 3/25/202611:18 Crista Casper Lawsuit against DHS/ICE warehouse At a nonprofit I used to work for I befriended one of our volunteers, she was raised in the Japanese internment camp by Delta, UT. She was a senior lady by the time I met her and still traumatized. Why do we want to repeat the same mistake by building an ICE encampment? It's inhumane and demonstrates we've learned nothing from our history. Please consider filing a lawsuit against DHS. 3/25/202611:21 Anonymous Constituent ICE Facility The proposed ICE Facility is an abomination in this community. Shame on you! 3/25/202611:26 Ysabelle Stepp Rezoning 2260, 2270, and 2290 E As a resident in the neighborhood, I think rezoning is a horrible idea. The traffic in the area is already horribly 1300 south congested and kids walk on that road. Adding condo's and townhomes would significantly congest the already congested area filling already crowded street parking. Because of it's proximity to the U, the new condo's and townhomes would fill with college kids and disrupt the family homes in the area. 3/25/202611:29 Wyatt Stewart Rezoning 2260, 2270, and 2290 E I oppose this zoning change largely because I just moved into a house being rented there and was uninformed that 1300 south this would be happening. I also have the experience of Heavy traffic on that street and a family neighborhood that would be largely altered by having that many units brought in. . Openedhl',Tie Subject Description 3/25/202611:37 Anonymous Constituent Rezoning 2260, 2270, and 2290 E I am worried about the taking away of homes in foothill to build townhomes, to which only 4 will be affordable 1300 south income housing. J developments has too many properties in Salt Lake that people already cannot afford and there already too many vacant properties in Utah. The surrounding traffic and overflow this would cause is also highly concerning. 3/25/202611:41 Lynn Dankonski ICE Detention center Salt Lake City/County should not be party to the DHS/Federal government's immoral, unethical, and illegal warehousing of humans. It's our duty as citizens and local government at the very least to applythe same regulations to DHS for environmental, safety, and health concerns as we would to any other entity proposing such a grand plan. especially given the track record of DHS operating these detention facilities traumatizing, killing, abusing, etc. SLC Please stand up! 3/25/202611:44 Erika Marken ICE Detention center These ICE detention centers meet the definition of concentration camps.1. Target specific population activists who resist the administration 2. Prisoners are held in filthy, unsafe conditions without their due process rights 3. Prisoners are dying at an unprecedented rate. This is all documented by established trusted sources, including the NYT, WSJ, Guardian, and SLCtrib. Utah has already hosted topaz, no to repeating history, no to ICE detention centers. 3/25/202611:46 Emilee Thomas ICE out of Utah Hello City Council Members, My name is Emilee Thomas. I live in West Jordan, UT - 84084. 1 am emailing you today to encourage the complete removal of ICE in our state of Utah. The immigration detention centers in other states have been rife with physical and sexual abuse, unsafe conditions, and food shortages. Citizens, lawful residents, and non -citizens across the US have been taken and held without due process. Over 130 American citizens have been physically harmed, illegally detained and racially profiled by ICE agents in other communities. I work at an elementary school filled with people from all different backgrounds. It is a great environment with learning and kindness all around. When there are threats of ICE in the area/in Utah, I see families terrified thatthey might be taken away from their children illegally - without due process. Watchingthese wonderful families be scared for their lives is a horrible sight to see and a horrible thing to experience. This isn't about left or right, conservative or Liberal. This is about protecting humans equally because we care for all humans. Utah can be a state filled with goodness and justice. Compassion notjust for certain people, but for all. Myself, myfriends, and my family are all involved in this issue and we're really hoping we can put our trust into people like you. We are watching closely and hoping that our public servers really do serve the public and listen to our concerns. I may not be the most eloquent of writers, but I hope my message came across well. Thank you for your time, Emilee Thomas 3/25/202611:49 Heather Nyman Sugarhouse Hotel Hi! My name is Heather Nyman. I live at REDACTED here in Salt Lake City, which is close to Sugarhouse Park. And I wanted to register my, concern ahead of the meeting tonight that I am opposed to putting a multistory building on the corner of 20, 2100 East, and, and 1300 East right there on the Krause Park. I I support a one to two story building, but I just cannot understand how that area could support the traffic. And, also, it would be an eyesore for an otherwise really beautiful place in Salt Lake City. So, again, I'm a citizen in Salt Lake City and opposed to a multistory building at no location. Thanks. Bye. 3/25/202611:52 Nicole Bearman Sugarhouse Hotel Hello. I'm calling in opposition to the development proposed for the 21st And 13th East Corner of the Old Sizzler Building location of the proposed five to seven story hotel motel mixed use development. I'm in the area, and I do not want that taller building in the community particularly right on that intersection and close to the park. It'd be detract a detraction and potentially, cause some harm environmentally, and I oppose it. And I'd like to voice my opinion on that. Thank you. This is Nicole Bearman. My address is REDACTED. Thank you. Bye bye. 3/25/202612:01 Brendan O'Leary New ICE Detention Facility Do not allowthis detention facility to move forward. Do literally everything in your powerto stop this from happening. Utah does NOT need this horrific black stain on our state's legacy. This administration will not be in power forever, but the shame of allowing this horrific thing to take place will lastfor generations. I.C.E. has proved themselves to be rapacious, unlawful thugs. The entire agency should be abolished - there's no reforming it whatsoever. RESIST their influence by any means necessary. Do NOTALLOW THEM TO OPERATE THEIR CONCENTRATION CAMP IN SALT LAKE. Brendan O'Leary Lantern Light Media 3/25/202612:03 Courtney Nebeker Sugarhouse Hotel Hello. My name is Courtney Nebeker, and I live near Sugarhouse Park. And I can't attend the meeting tonight, but am very opposed to a hotel being built on the corner of 2100 South and 1300 East, and just wanted to make my opinion. Thank you. Bye. 3/25/202612:05 Anonymous Constituent Sugarhouse Hotel Hello. I'm callingto voice opposition to the Sugar House Hotel. I understand that it's been approved, and I'm not exactly sure what is going to be discussed in the hearingtoday. It's too large, byfar too large, and itwill disrupt traffic and increase traffic significantly. It's too high and it skews, and it makes the whole area of that size of the park much less aesthetically pleasing. It's just a disgrace that this has even been considered. It needs to be cut way down in height. Thank you. 3125/202612:08 Jenny McCullough Sugarhouse Hotel Hi. My name is Jenny McCullough. I am a local resident here in the Sugarhouse area, and I'm callingto protest the idea of having this new building put in right where the old used to be. The last thingwe need in the community is another huge building, and so I am just callingto let my voice be known that I really think it's not a good idea and hope theyvote against it. Thankyou. 3125/202612:15 Anita Gordon No DHS! Dear Council, I am writingto formally request that a lawsuit be filed to preserve the honor of the state of Utah. The current situation is unacceptable to the citizens of our state. Thank you for yourtime and for addressing this matter. Sincerely, Rev. Anita Gordon 3/25/202612:22 John Metz Take action against unlawful ICE I'm tremendously concerned with the unconstitutional actions of ICE in Utah and Salt Lake City. I urge the council actions to take strong and decisive action against ICE imposing unlawful detentions, hiding their identity and opening facilities that are unsafe, unhealthy and allow holding people without their constitutional rights. Please stand for upholding the constitution in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, John Metz John Metz --�—'rne Opened Description 3/25/202612:26 Lynn Pershing ICE detention center in SLC Council representatives I write today to strongly urge you to VOTE NO on the dubious purchase of a warehouse in SLC by Federal government for use of an ICE detainee center. Further, to protect our civil liberties and human rights by bringing a lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is infringing on the local control of municipalities and counties. There is precedent for this type of legal action as we've seen from lawsuits like Minneapolis„ Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Ashland Virginia, Elkridge Maryland, and other cities in Mississippi, Arizona,Texas and Pennsylvania. DHS has not conducted proper environmental assessments on the impact to the Great Salt Lake, asked for public comment, or considered viable alternatives. The immigration detention centers in other states have been rife with physical and sexual abuse, food shortages and unsafe conditions. Citizens, lawful residents, and non -citizens across the US have been taken and held without due process. Over 130 American citizens have been physically harmed, illegally detained, and racially profiled by ICE agents in other communities. This activity is NOTwhat our City or Country stand for or represent the "rule of law" our great democracy. I urge you to stand UP for local City control in this matter Respectfully Lynn K. Pershing, Ph.D. District 6 3/25/202612:53 Sylvia Wilcox Sugar House hotel rezone Hello, I live in SLC, just south of the Sugar House park. Looking at the renderings of this building, I am in disbelief that the project has gotten this far. It is way too tall and too big for that small lot. It takes away from views of the park and mountains; it overpowers the park because of its height. The congestion that will be caused by entering and exiting the building is unacceptable. It is too close to the sidewalk. There is no green space. We have enough - too many- tall buildings in and around Sugar House that have already almost ruined the charm of that part of the city. It's truly a shame. This hotel should be half the height if it is approved. And if it is approved it will be a crying shame. I don't need a response to this email. Thank you, Sylvia Wilcox 3/25/202612:57 Richard Skola Petition PLNPCM2025-00883 A home at REDACTED, owned by a family trust has a four car garage. All four stalls can be accessed from the alley that enters from Sherman, Ave. Only one stall can exit and enterfrom Fifth E. I considered having the alley access to be a serious safety feature as opposed to entering and exiting onto Fifth East during heavy traffic. I occupied that home for 24 years. My son is now living in that home. It was I who had that large garage built. I would like to see the alley open, and usable, from Sherman to Browning Avenues for the convenience and safety of residents who may see fit to use it in the future. I oppose the vacating pof any part of this alley. Richard C. Skola 3/25/202613:00 Kerry Doane 1/2 Comment for: Petition Number: Dear Brooke, I received a flyer of notification forthe referenced petition. There is a public hearing tonight but I PLNPCM2025-00558 - Rezone of 3 thought I'd send you my notes as official comment. I live four properties north of the development on Laird Way. properties on 1300s at 2260, 2270, First of all there is confusion in the materials about whether this is a 26 or 28 unit development but that really 2290E doesn't change any of my comments. I'd like to start by saying that I'm not opposed to increased density as a principle. I may have a child who would want to buy one of these units. However, I find the application lacking in ways that make it hard for me to support the development unless these questions are answered and mitigations made to reduce the impact to my property. I did not see any reference to square footage per unit, parking stalls per unit, number of bedrooms or amenities for children. The type of buyers will dictate the needs, travel patterns, and impact to the neighborhood. Currently 12 people - max 12 cars, although I haven't seen that many. Future could be (16+(10x2)+10)= 46-56 adults (I assumed some single and some double occupancy) - max 56 cars. Or if we assume the smaller number of people and that —1/3 of the people share a car it's still 30 cars. How many parking stalls are being provided? Are visitors allowed to park in the Hash Kitchen lot? My suspicion is that people will park on Laird Way and there is no sidewalk on the east side and no marked crosswalk across 1300S at Laird. I worry about cars left parked on Laird for long periods of time without my being able determine whether they should be there. I've had neighbors call in cars that remain on the street. Will there be children walking to Indian Hills elementary? Regardless of the presence of children, there is likely to be increased pedestrian traffic. I'd like to see marked crosswalks across 2300E and 1300S at Laird. I saw the the traffic analysis. I have the following technical concerns regarding the analysis: 1. Traffic Counts were performed in October 2020 - clearly NOT a time of normal travel. The UU was hybrid and many downtown offices were still remote working. I was remote working. Also, the applicant seems to be piggybacking on an analysis for a different development. I would want more recent and specific counts for the suspected trips taken by the presumed population of buyers. 2. It's based on an outdated site plan and number of units. 3. There's no estimate of turning movements in and off Foothill which would be uncontrolled in all possible movements and many during peak hours. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 3/25/202613:00 Kerry Doane 2/2 CONTINUED!! Comment for: Petition 4. The traffic analysis did not address increase in traffic on Laird Way, the most direct route from UU to Number: PLNPCM2025-00558 - development. It states quite clearly that trips are either using 1300S or Foothill with a minor mention of 2300 E. This Rezone of 3 properties on 1300s at demonstrates a real lack of understanding of what is really happening even today. Traffic control through Laird Way 2260, 2270, 2290E today includes a sign that is doing absolutely nothingto deter cut -through peak hour traffic right now. 5. No mention of cycling in analysis.1300 south is a frequent corridorfor cyclists wanting to ride on Wasatch Blvd to points south orto Emigration canyon. Downhill cyclists are often travelling very fast. There is a concern for sight lines of cars exitingthe development on 1300S. 6. Is it still under review? How can we approve a zone change if the entire concept relies on a traffic pattern that has not been futlyvetted? The applicant claimed that the demolished rental unit displacement rules did not apply because the units would be sold to individual buyers -what's to keep those buyers from using it as a rental property? Any rules regarding short term rental use? Water/Sewer issues in the area: recent extensive reconstruction does not seem to have fixed the teak in some street water way under the east corner of Laird and 1300S; and Wendy's sewer has had lots of problems frequently which they have repeatedly addressed but I wonder what the root cause is? How will 25 additional water and sewer users stress the local system? This petition requests changing to a Mixed Use zone but there really is no benefit of commercial to existing neighbors. Why notjust call it multi -family? Thanks for taking my comment. Sincerely, Kerry Doane 3/25/202613:04 Amanda MacKay ICE Detention Facility To whom it may concern, I am a citizen of the Liberty Wells area and am reaching out to express my concern regarding the recent DHS purchase of a facility they intend to use as a ICE detention facility. I am strongly opposed to an ICE detention facility operating in Salt Lake City (or anywhere, really) and urge the members of the City Council to do whatever is in their power to stop this facility from opening. There is a lot of evidence of existing facilities across the country treating human beings extremely inhumanely, and I believe that regardless of one's citizenship or immigration status, all human beings deserve humane treatment and due process. I believe that no human being is illegal for simply existing within arbitrary geographical lines, and that no human is illegal on land that was brutally taken from indigenous peoples. I hope that the council takes my concerns and the ones of my fellow Salt Lake City citizens into consideration when deciding what action they wilt take. I appreciate your time and service on this council and hope you will represent my opinions as a constituent during ongoing discussions. Warm regards, Amanda MacKay 3/25/202613:36 Chris Shapard Stand up to immoral ICE detention Dear Council Members, I'm reaching out as a resident of Salt Lake City to urge you to oppose the ICE detention center center and bring a lawsuitto the Department of Homeland Security. Having a detention center in our city stands against everything our city values including compassion for all people regardless of their status. Not onlythat, but DHS is infringing on local control by operating this facility. As we have seen in other cities, these detention centers come with horrendous consequences for the people who are detailed and the communities they reside in. There is precedent forthis type of legal action as we've seen from lawsuits like the one in Maryland. DHS has not conducted proper environmental assessments on the impact to the Great Salt Lake, asked for public comment, or considered viable alternatives. Thank you for all you do to stand up for our communities and protect our neighbors. Sincerely, Chris Shapard - Salt Lake City 3/25/202613:39 Meghan Boyd No to hotel Please vote no to the 7-9 story hotel. It will mar the view of the mountains and increase traffic in an already congested area. We, the people, who live in this community would like to keep this area as an enjoyable, uncongested place. Please vote no. Sincerely, Meghan Boyd Wasatch Hollow 3/25/202613:41 Gabe Davis ICE I am deeply concerned about the facilities we have in this country incarcerating illegal immigrants, as well as ICE's influence in the communities where they have been deployed. They have been given unprecedented amounts of power, and our country is day by day slipping closer toward authoritarianism, if we aren't there already. Do your duty to your community and do all you can to prevent their presence here. Immigration enforcement is a necessary part of maintaining a modern country, but the cruelty and wanton recklessness with which these people operate is beyond the pale. I wonder sometimes what is happening to the people in these facilities. The reports I've seen suggest it is disgusting and inhumane. If you do not act to deter ICE in its current form in this community, I will not support any of you come re-election time, and I will be very vocal about encouraging others to do the same. Gabe Davis 3/25/202613:44 Jamie Wuthrich ICE Here's a short, accurate SLC-specific version based on what's actually happening right now: City Council should pursue legal action against ICE regarding the recently purchased warehouse on the west side of Salt Lake City, which federal officials have indicated will be used as an immigration detention facility. The scale and use of this site raise serious concerns about zoning, infrastructure capacity, and lack of local oversight. Local leadership has already stated the facility may violate city resources and land use standards. The City has a responsibility to challenge this action and protectthe community. 3/25/202613:49 Chiao-ih HUI ICE Detention Center Hello Chris, I hope you've been well. Thankyou for serving on the City Council on our behalf. As I'm sure you are aware, detention centers elsewhere have been marked by reports of abuse, inadequate or spoiled food, denying medical care and dangerous conditions. People across the country, including citizens and lawful residents, have been detained without due process. We are specifically writing to askyou to do what you can to stop/remove/impede all -the -things with regards to the ICE Facility that DHS has purchased in Salt Lake City. This includes cutting water and sewage rendering the building useless against anything but used as a warehouse as it was intended. Separately, I am asking you to bring a lawsuit against the DHS to help stop this once and for all. Sending you our best and gratitude for this fight, Chris. Chiao-ih Hui 3/25/202613:52 Craig Provost Hotel at corner of 2100 S 1300 E Building a 7-9 story hotel on the Southeast corner of 2100S and 1300 E is a horrible idea. Please do not vote to approve such a plan. Craig Provost 800 E 18th Avenue SLC Description 3/25/202613:57 Kaylee Bradford City Funding Our Future Housing Hi City Council, My name is Kaylee Bradford and I am the Senior Program Manager at the International Rescue Program Recommendations Committee. I was in attendance in today's city council meeting prepared to comment on funding recommendations but was unable to stay due to family obligations. I wanted to still submit my comments to you in regard to the Funding our Future Housing Program Recommendations. First, I wanted to thank the Mayor and you all for recommending the funding proposal for expanding our New American Rental Assistance Program. Our city's refugee and immigrant families are extremely vulnerable to housing instability with extreme barriers to accessing community resources including language barriers and limited rental history. Even highly motivated families who are working, learning English, and doing everythingthey can to rebuild their lives are still struggling to meet increasing housing and living costs. Furthermore, newfederal policies are leading these families to lose access to food assistance, and future changes to Medicaid eligibility are expected to create even more financial strain in the months ahead. We are seeing our families already stretched thin now, having to make harder choices between feeding their families and staying housed. This is exactly why our program matters and aligns directly with SLC housing goals. This program would provide emergency rental assistance for new American households within Salt Lake City. This financial assistance is paired with culturally and linguistically accessible case management and affordable housing counseling. This approach is unique in the valley and allows these families to not only receive stabilizing financial support, but the tools they need to secure long-term housing stability. With over 30 years of experience and strong relationships with landlords and housing partners, making us uniquely positioned to help these households stay housed and move toward self-sufficiency. This is a targeted, preventative investment of city dollars that will advance housing equity, inclusion, and long-term stability for some of our city's most vulnerable residents. I respectfully askforyour life -changing support. Thanks for all you do! Best, Kaylee Bradford I Senior Program Manager 3/25/202613:59 Ed Feller ICE Detention Center Please, no ice facilities in the Salt Lake area or in Utah for that matter. It seems ridiculous to me. You're betting on Losing horse cause in two years. You will have a regime change. In the way it's going it could be soonerthan that. —,ine Opened Contact 3/25/202614:00 Jonathan Spira _Eject Description ICE Detention Center Dear Council Member Wharton, I am writing as a Salt Lake City resident to urge you to take action tonight to protect our community's civil liberties and human rights by bringing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. I have witnessed firsthand the fear that ICE operations have created in our city. Neighbors are afraid to leave their homes, parents are keeping children home from school, and community members who have built lives here— contributingto our economy, our schools, and our neighborhoods —are living in a state of constant anxiety. This fear has real, measurable consequences for the fabric of our city. The legal grounds for this action are substantive: DHS is infringing on the local control of municipalities and counties in ways that directly affect Salt Lake City's ability to govern and serve its residents. DHS has not conducted proper environmental assessments of the impact to the Great Salt Lake, has not sought public comment, and has not considered viable alternatives —a significant procedural failure with local consequences. Across the country, over 130 American citizens have been physically harmed, illegally detained, and racially profiled by ICE agents. Citizens, lawful permanent residents, and non -citizens alike have been held without due process. Immigration detention facilities in other states have documented records of physical and sexual abuse, food shortages, and unsafe conditions. There is legal precedent for exactlythis type of municipal action, as demonstrated by the lawsuit brought in Maryland. Salt Lake City has always been a place that values community, human dignity, and the rule of law. I am asking you to stand up for those values tonight by directing the city to pursue legal action against DHS. Thankyou foryour service to our city and foryour consideration of this urgent request. Respectfully, Jonathan Spira 3/25/202614:04 Kaleb Cox ICE Detention Center Hi Chris, I would like to ask you and the rest of the city council to bring a lawsuit against the DHS in order to prevent the development of an ICE detention center in Utah. These facilities are ripe for abuse, both physical and sexual, are often lacking in food and basic resources for those inside, and are largely tools to harass and intimidate Latino communities. Please, I urge you to do the right thing and stand up forthose in your city who are most vulnerable at this time. A concerned constituent, Kaleb Cox 1 3/25/202614:10 3/25/202614:15 osh Summerhays Barbara Hirsch Dawn & dave Curtis Description No ICE detention in SLC I am currently out of town forwork, or I would have come to the city council meeting in person to voice my anger at this potential ICE facility. As a city, we need to do everything possible to prevent ICE from turningthis warehouse into a detention center. We should be trying to legislate ways to keep ICE out of our county, if not the state, not allowing them to warehouse people here. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this. We should have learned the lessons of Topaz Mountain, not repeating the mistake of making people illegal for who they are and not something that they've done. I'm disgusted with the fascist takeover occurring on the federal level, and our collaboration on the Utah state level. State leadership is compromised, cowardly, and/or too willing to go along with these celarly racist MAGA diversionary tactics. State level politicians are demonstrating that they cannot to be trusted to be decent, caring ethical people. As one of the only pockets of sanity and decency in this state, it is up to us in Salt Lake to resist the rise of bigoted Christo-Fascism and ethnonationalism that is driving Trump and his personality cult members. As a city, we must fight back. If we can prevent this facility from opening in the first place, it will be a victory for people over politics. If ICE is allowed to develop this building, the citizens of Salt Lake will be in the same sort of danger that we've seen in Minneapolis and other palces around the country. Protesting as a city will prevent us having to protest as individuals. Engaging on a legal level as a governmental body will prevent us citizens from having to risk our actual physical bodies to protect the humanity of the people that ICE is so inhumanely targeting. Please, help protect our citizens and help make ICE's terrible job more difficult. PLEASE SAY NO TO ICE! NO ICE DETENTION CENTERS IN SLC! NO ICE COLLABORATION IN SALT LAKE!!!!! Impact statement: ICE in Salt Lake Hello. I am a constituent of district 6. Dan Dugan is my council member. I would like to submit commentary on my City fears about the presence of ICE and a detention center in SLC. My fear and desire for us to distance SLC from ICE comes directly from personally knowing a U.S. citizen who was fiercely assaulted by ICE in another city because theywere in the wrong place at the wrong time. Upon hearing their story, and others like it, my feeling of vulnerability, fear and betrayal has been immense. I continue to feel shock, fear and bewilderment that ICE can act without humanity on behalf of a country I love, and would like to keep it out of a state I love. I no longer knowwho is protected. I've lost trust in the process, and join others in askingyou to act in alignment with your mission of quality of life and equity for residents, and take legal action against ICE. Sincerely, Barbara Hirsch Sugar House Hotel— Master Plan As 60- year residents of the Sugarhouse area, I want to express our grave concerns about the hotel development Amendment & Zoning Map being proposed at 21st South and 13th East. That wonderful neighborhood has already undergone drastic changes, Amendment at 2111 S 1300 S some of which have driven out and replaced longtime residents and small businesses, and brought strangling traffic congestion, annoying and obstructive concrete islands and a serious lack of adequate parking. Sadly, this eclectic neighborhood has become a much less welcoming place as urban sprawl has taken a toll. Must we destroythe last vestiges of the area's charm by walling off the view of our beautiful mountains and the greenspace and waterway that is Sugarhouse Park? Must we urbanize every area of our city with seven- or eight- story buildings such as you purpose with this hotel development? Please value and protect the unique areas that remain in our beautiful city. Please do not approve the rezoning and the accompanying water demands, pollution, traffic congestion and urbanization being proposed. Dawn and David Curtis 3/25/202614:18 Madison Adams Sugarhouse park zoning for hotel Hello, I am writing to express my concerns for building a 7-9 story hotel at sugarhouse park. Building this hotelwill take away the neighborhood communityfeel. The area is much too small for such a large build. There is already so much traffic on the intersection especially on 1300 e. In a community, it is important to fill each corner of the intersection with things that bring the neighborhood together such as grocery store, market, gyms, coffee shops etc. Water issues Obstructing views This is not what the community wants. I ask as a loving mother of this community who enjoys taking her children to enjoy sugarhouse park, please refrain from billing a hotel. Thank you, Madison Adams 3/25/202614:21 Pat Richards ICE Detention Center Chris, PLEASE do all you can to stop the proposed ICE detention facility. It has been suggested that the city sue to stop it —I support that action. Thank you. Patricia A. Richards 3/25/202614:23 Caryl Brown Sugar House Hotel Rezone Hello members of the Council, My name is Caryl and I have lived in the Sugarhouse area for most of my adult life. I LOVE living here and close to the parkwe all adore. What I DON'T like is the thought of even more traffic and a high rise hotel there. I would like to propose a cafe that backs out onto the park and people there get a world class view while enjoyingtheir food or drinks. I think we need to rememberthis is a neighborhood, and keep hotels in OTHER places where they are more appropriate. Caryl A. Brown 3/25/202614:26 Anthony Brickhouse Fit To Recover Impact My name is Anthony Brickhouse. Before any specifics, I just want to say that the space and community FTR holds,keeps my recovery from substances possible. I heard about FTR in jail, but began attending twice a week while in residential treatment. Just that exposure was enough to know I wanted fitness to be a part of staying sober. Upon graduating treatment, they offer a scholarship that I took full advantage of. I had a ton of free time and no real newfriendships forged in sobriety. FTR was a safe place to be, full of people that understand the struggles Id had, and met me with wide open arms. Several of the staff from the residential treatment I went to, with long term sobriety, are regular attendees. I came every day. The class atmosphere and structure of the class encourage the new comer and connection among members. Afterjust a few months I felt like I truly had sober friends, and a community of understanding people wanting the best for each other. I loved it so much that when a job opportunity presented itself, I put every intention and effort to make sure I was the best candidate. And now that I work here, I get to see the same light turn on in others early in recovery as the find this community. I've been able to branch out from fitness and rediscover musical talents through our creative arts pillar. We get to give back to the community through our service pillar. I got to go to the areas I used to be homeless in and give out warm clothes on Christmas day. This is the safest, most encouraging community to be not just sober, but healthy, and full of acceptance and understanding. And probably the biggest benefit aside from having it available in jail and treatment, was the scholarship for me. I'd been chronically homeless for 2 decades, and coming out of residential into sober living on the voucher, I had no money for anything. Them opening their doors to me to participate in their community with the scholarship allowed to me to stay and become more connected with a sober community I now call family. And now that I work here, I get to be the person here to offer that same encouragement to everyone that comes in our door. Being still early in recovery myself (a year), seeing people I know from the streets come through treatment here, then come through the door after treatment for scholarship because FTR has lit the light inside of them again is a truly magical interaction. Thanks. 3/25/202616:04 3/25/202616:09 3/26/202614:37 v 3/26/202614:45 3/26/202615:10 Jim Jenkin Bill Nichols JillJohnson R Demal R Demal D1/ Deny Sugar House Hotel Proposal Dear Councilperson, This Council has wisely required a public benefit to justify a rezoning. I respectfully submit that there is no net public benefit for eitherthe proposed rezone orthe high rise project that would eventuallyfill it. My understanding is that the developer has suggested that theywill provide reduced cost retail and meeting space for community members and organizations in their building. The provision of reduced cost retail space is a two- edged sword at best, in that it will serve to draw established neighborhood businesses, in search of tourist dollars. On the other hand, Park users will be damaged by the physical overshadowing of the parkwith a high-rise building, inconsistent with the development pattern. The public's enjoyment of Park activities will be lessened by luxury hotel patrons looking down on them; and hotel patrons will be provided a de facto private entrance to a public park. Sugarhouse Park comprises a unique city-wide resource and a character defining element forthe City. The precedent that would be set for other Parks, and the damage to this one, cannot be undone once approved. I submit that the Proposal damages the Public interest and benefits primarilythe developer, their patrons, and that the zoning should stay height compatible with other buildings around the Park. Thankyou. Jim Jenkin D2/ ICE FACILITY Sugar House Hotel Developer Request Zoning ICE 3/26/202615:24 Michele Tagger Sugarhouse Hotel 3/26/202615:25 Mark Greer No to hotel at Sizzler site. 3/26/202615:27 Lindsey Broud Push back against ICE facility in Utah Please urge the City Council to take every means available to stop the detention facility. Itviolates all Utah values and bring backthe uncomfortable truth of Topaz. We do not need that association with Utah. Further, I do not believe the economic benefits that are being claimed. This is a lose -lose for Utah and Salt Lake City. Bill Nichols Hello, If zoning is approved forthe proposed hotel, I have one demand: If long-time residents and taxpayers are going to give developers this permission, we expect them to deliver a well -crafted, high -quality buildingthat rises above current design trends. If they want to build this extra tall building, they must submit a design that expands the character of our neighborhood and makes us proud to see. No cost -saving, standard hotel design that we could identify in any city. You (the developers) are in our city and you owe us your respect as you make this huge change. Jill Johnson WeWe don't need a 9 to 7 story building in Sugar House. ' Hello, I really have to say I do not agree with buying the ice detention center because it's an illegal program because it ignores the 14th amendment of due process Hi Judi, I'm sorry I could not make it to last night's meeting. I did read the Sugarhouse Community comments regarding it. It sounds like the majority of comments were in opposition to the development for a variety of issues, all which I share. Also, those in favor (mainly members of the development team) did not, from what I could tell, address the traffic flow as I mentioned in my email to you, but it was raised at the meeting by those opposed. I certainly hope the council does not sweep these concerns under the rug and will press the developers to come up with a sound plan. It is of no minor concern and not the kind of issue that can be easily changed after the fact. Thanks for nassina my issues on to the council... Michele Tagger No extra hotel floors and hopefully no hotel at all there. Just make it green space ! Sugarhouse is weary of all the non stop construction and road tinkering. Just give it a rest. Mark Greer Hello SLC Council, I am asking you to protect our civil liberties and human rights by bringing a lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security regarding an ICE facility in Utah. This is morally wrong and degrades the character of who Utah is as a state. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best, Lindsey Broud SLC Resident Zip Code 84108 3/26/202615:28 Thomas Taylor "Proposed zoning change and hotel on Hello, I am a longtime resident of Utah. I oppose the proposed zoning change on 2100S. And 1300E. I travel 2100 S and 1300 E" through this area regularly and feel that the proposed hotel plans would have a negative impact on traffic and on the neighborhood. Thankyou, Thomas Taylor 3126/202615:44 Dave ILTIS SLC Mayor and Council: Please Dear Mayor Mendenhall and the Salt Lake City Council, With the controversy surrounding Cesar Chavez, now is an Rename Charles Lindbergh Drive too appropriate time to also look at renaming two other streets, one because we should not have a street named after a Nazi sympathizer, and one that would be named after a prominent African American cyclist from the early 1900s. Salt Lake City needs to rename Charles Lindbergh Drive in the International Center. We don't need his name given prominence. He was a Nazi sympathizer and anti-semite: https://www. pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/lind bergh-fallen-hero/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/cha rLes-Lindbergh-and-the-rise-of-1940s-nazi-s/ https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31482451/charies-Lindbergh-nazi-ties-explai ned-the-plot-against- america-true-story/ Many other cities in the US have removed his name from public places. My suggestion would be to honor the Tuskeegee Airmen by changing the name to: Tuskegee Airmen Drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen "The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of primarily African American military pilots (fighter and bomber) and airmen who fought in World War II." They are a much better choice to have a street named after than a Nazi sympathizer and anti-semite. This also fits well with the International Center's street naming convention of naming streets after aviators. Orto Bessie Coleman Drive: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/bessie-coLeman "Due to discrimination in the United States, however, she went to France to attend an aviation school to become a pilot. In 1921, she became the first American woman to obtain an international pilot's license." Also: create MajorTayLor Street: Another street renamingthat would be appropriate would be for a block of 200 S or W. Temple is to honor MajorTayLor, the black world champion track cyclist, who competed at the Salt Palace in the early 1900's when the Salt Palace was a bike racing track. This would honor both Major Taylor and the origins of the Salt Palace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Taylor "Perhaps the most internationally famous cyclist to race in Salt Lake City was Marshall "Major" Taylor." https://issuu.com/utahlO/docs/uhq_volume79_2011_number4/s/10370553 Marshall "Major" Taylor, at the Salt Palace Bicycle Race Track on July 21,1910. SHIPLER COLLECTION, UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY Please Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, Dave Iltis Salt Lake City 3/26/202616:29 Charles Johnson No to ICE facility Please use a lawsuit or any other available means to discourage or block an ICE detention center being sited in Salt Lake City. I work as a substance use counselor, and we're seeing clients afraid to attend court dates and mandated treatment, even when they are legal residents or even citizens. What's more, my Latinx co-workers are spending time and attention thinking about where they can be safe and how to protect themselves if they are swept up. These facilities have a terrible reputation nationally, and I wouldn't want one connected to my home. Thanks, Charlie Johnson, Central City resident 3/26/202616:36 Mark Greer Sugarhouse Hotel Yes. Just, about the seven or nine story hotel. We don't want one there at all. We don't want any more construction on, that area. We're weary of construction and, it's just too big. And it would cause, all kinds of extra traffic therefor a very Longtime. Oh, absolutely no no change to, zoningthere at all. Thankyou very much. This is Mark Greer. I'm in Holiday, Utah. Wejust don't want the any more hotels, construction, or anything on that corner. Thankyou. 3/27/202612:53 Jesse Malman D7/ Sugarhouse Park Development Hello- I'm reaching out about the proposed 7-story boutique hotel in Sugar House atthe lot where the old Sizzler was on 1300 E and 2100 S. This project benefits developers and wealthy people, not the surrounding community. It is too tall, too large, will cause a traffic and parking nightmare, and does not at all align with the character of Sugarhouse Park. It's an eye sore at the "gateway" to the park near both the main vehicle and main bike entry points. It will block the view for many living NW of the park and it's just the wrong type of development for this space. I live 6 blocks west of the park and spend a lot of time there. My 7yr old son I both worry about the detriment that this develop will have to the area. Please don't approve this development. Thankyou, Jesse Malman 3/27/202612:57 Jim Catano D3/ Bicycle Use Through Temple Road I do hope that bicycles will be able to be ridden or pushed through the closure area next year. 3/27/202614:01 Moka Best D4/ Request to Light Up Salt Lake City Hello! I'm reaching out as a Salt Lake based advocate and speaker to request the opportunity to illuminate the Salt County Building for EDS Awareness Lake City -County Building, for one week starting on May 4th, in recognition of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) (May 2026) Awareness Month this May. EDS is a group of rare connective tissue disorders that impact thousands of individuals in Utah, yet remains widely under -recognized. Awareness plays a critical role in earlier diagnosis, better care, and improved quality of life. As part of a national "Light It Up" campaign, cities across the country are lighting prominent buildings in orange to stand in support of this community. I am also in the process of coordinating with other potential participating landmarks across Utah, including outreach to the State Capitol, as part of a broader statewide effort. I would LOVE for Salt Lake City to be part of this movement. In addition to submittingthis request, I am actively coordinating a broader Utah -based awareness initiative and would amplify the city's participation through local media outreach, social campaigns, and community storytelling. Thank you for considering this meaningful opportunity to support residents livingwith rare and invisible illnesses. Please let me know if you have any questions, and whatthe next steps entail to coordinate this effort with you. Thank you, Moka Best 3/27/202617:33 Anonymous Constituent Arena pricing I'm a season ticket holderforthe Mammoth. Was at a game last nightwith my daughter and started really noticing how ridiculously priced everything is in that Arena. I've been in the restaurant and bar industryfor over 25 years and doing the quick math in my head of the food and beverage markups was wild. Almost $20 for a beer that costs $2.50, ice cream for $17? How can the average family even afford to go to a game? I found an interesting article discussing "street pricing" in publicly funded venues. What do you think the odds of something like this happening in Salt Lake? https://groundworkcollaborative.org/work/street-pricing/ 3/29/202615:06 Edwin Frederick Sugar House Hotel Rezoning Please REJECT any re -zoning requestfrom any developer of the Sugar House Park corner parcel that they want to develop. They know exactly what the bought and with what zoning. Land speculators should absolutely not be assisted with parlaying their money into higher profits with the assistance of city government as the expense of city residents. The public could and should own that piece, but developers bid it up. SAY NO. Thank you. 3/30/202610:37 Susan Finlayson Cesar Chavez Councilmember Dugan, Hello! I'm a constituent of yours in District 6.1 wanted to letyou know I support the idea of 3/30/202613:15 Kathy Adams No ICE Facility 3/30/202613:17 Cj Powers NO ICE FACILITY changing the name of Cesar Chavez (stretch of 500 S) in light of new information about his history of abusing women and girls. I think it would be appropriate to identify another name for this stretch of street, in consultation with Latino -led civil rights organizations in SLC. One potential resource in this effort could be Better Days 2020, who work in depth with local community -based organizations to memorialize important women in Utah history. I'd be happy to put you in touch with them, if you're not already connected. Best regards, Susan Finlayson No ICE Facility I am your constituent and object to the recent purchase and development of an immigration detention facility in Salt Lake City. Kathy Adams Dear Council Member Dugan, My name is CJ Powers and I am your constituent (and neighbor) residing in St Mary's, Salt Lake City, 84108.1 am writing to strongly urge you to protect our civil liberties and human rights by bringing a Lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. The detention of individuals is inhumane, costly, and dangerous. Reports demonstrate that many facilities have inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and violate basic human rights. The new ICE detention center in SLC will, I'm sure, be no different. The reason I'm contacting you is because DHS is infringing on the local control of municipalities and counties by proceeding with this detention center. There is precedent for this type of legal action, as we've seen from lawsuits in other states such as Maryland. DHS has not conducted proper environmental assessments on the impact to the Great Salt Lake, asked for public comment, or considered viable alternatives. The immigration detention centers in other states have been rife with physical and sexual abuse, food shortages, and unsafe conditions and citizens, lawful residents, and non -citizens across the US have been taken and held without due process. Over 130 American citizens have been physically harmed, illegally detained, and racially profiled by ICE agents in other communities. Thankyou for standing up for our community by opposing ICE, and please workwith your colleagues to stop the proceedings of this new detention center! I'm sorry I can't be there in person at the City Council meeting tonight. Sincerely. CJ Powers 3/30/202613:19 Lynn Kilpatrick Two pressing issues Hello. I am writing to convey my opinion about two ii I INUI Laia`iasues facing our city. I am against the establishment of an ICE facility, and I wanted to add my voice to the many Salt Lake County residents who find ICE's activities reprehensible. I support a lawsuit against DHS on behalf of the citizens of Salt Lake City. I also have many, many concerns about the potential hotel on the corner of 1300 E and 2100 South. While I recognize that something needs to go there, it doesn't have to be a hotelwhich will make the traffic even more of a nightmare than it already is. As a resident of District 6,1 am sure you know how difficult navigating 1300 East is at most times of the day. I cannot imagine (well, I can, and it's not good) howterrible traffic will be if this hotel is allowed. Why not a local restaurant? I feel like enough bad development has happened in Sugarhouse. We need to intervene to prevent this hotel from becoming a reality. Thank you for reading this email. Thank you for representing us! Lynn Kilpatrick •� Description •� 3/30/202613:21 Lynn Dankowski DHS Detention Center . Hi Dan, I'm in the 6th district. I'm writing to encourage the City Council to take legal action against DHS over its purchase and plans for to operate the warehouse on the westside as a detention center. As you probably know, DHS has a horrible track record already, in operating these facilities. DHS is traumatizing generations of young people, disrespecting hard working people who contribute to our communities. Our City will end up with a mess to clean up sooner or later. Most importantly, allowing the federal government to trample our local regulations and jurisdiction is dangerous, especially in light of this government's overreach in so many areas. Humans should not be warehoused. Salt Lake City should not be party to this endeavor. Action is required. Thank you. Lynn 3/30/202613:24 Suzanne Dailey No to ICE Detention Center Councilman Dugan, Please do all that you can to prevent ICE from running a detention facility in our city. This is NOT what Utah is about despite what our governor or legislature believe. Once it is here it will never go away and we will have to spend tax dollars to maintain it and keep it running. This is a gross violation of our immigration system. If we are going to spend moneyto solve the immigration problem we face, do it by hiring morejudges so cases can be processed in a timely manner. Due process is paramount. Thankyou for representing us. Suzanne Dailey 3/30/202613:27 Wendy Sicard Please stop ICE in Utah! Having an ice building in Utah, is exactly like the concentration camps from WW2!!!!! This is absolutely outrageous and we alreadyfought and won that war. DHS needs to be held accountable for their deplorable actions of atrocities. We the people need to sue DHS. This administration of lying sycophants occupying the White House are breaking the lawfaster than the speed of light and ignoring our constitution not recognizing the rule of law. NOT to mention, the diversion from the horrid Epstein files that need to come out with the truth about the participation with children from this administration. Utah must stand up against child pornography, the lies and abusing the first amendment and human rights. Wendy sicard 3/30/202613:31 Luanne E Schmidt No ICE Detention Center in SLC Councilman Dugan, Please do not approve/support/encourage/enable any ICE Detention Center in Salt Lake City. The reasons forthis include: -Our education from the history of mistakes with Topaz -This goes against ourvalues - We have seen what ICE has done and continues to do in Minnesota —we want none of those nightmares. But we would hope to respond with conviction, compassion and marvelous organization like Minnesotans have modeled. - We as citizens should not pay forthe infrastructure improvement/damage that this oversized, illegal warehousing of humans "requires"; it's use is outside current zoning for the area. -You know better; we all know better. It is just jaw dropping how every official is ready to do what "King Trump" and "Prince Cox" ask. Represent us. We elected you. Not them. Thanks, Luanne E Schmidt o Description 3/30/202613:34 Jonathan Spira Tonight's Meeting: Please Take Legal Dear Council Member Dugan, I am writing as a Salt Lake City resident to urge you to take action tonight to protect Action to Protect Salt Lake City our community's civil liberties and human rights by bringing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Residents Security. I have witnessed firsthand the fearthat ICE operations have created in our city. Neighbors are afraid to leave their homes, parents are keeping children home from school, and community members who have built lives here— contributingto our economy, our schools, and our neighborhoods —are living in a state of constant anxiety. This fear has real, measurable consequences for the fabric of our city. The legal grounds for this action are substantive: DHS is infringing on the local control of municipalities and counties in ways that directly affect Salt Lake City's ability to govern and serve its residents. DHS has not conducted proper environmental assessments of the impact to the Great Salt Lake, has not sought public comment, and has not considered viable alternatives — a significant procedural failure with local consequences. Across the country, over 130 American citizens have been physically harmed, illegally detained, and racially profiled by ICE agents. Citizens, lawful permanent residents, and non -citizens alike have been held without due process. Immigration detention facilities in other states have documented records of physical and sexual abuse, food shortages, and unsafe conditions. There is legal precedent for exactlythis type of municipal action, as demonstrated by the lawsuit brought in Maryland. Salt Lake City has always been a place that values community, human dignity, and the rule of law. I am asking you to stand up for those values tonight by directing the city to pursue legal action against DHS. Thankyou foryour service to our city and foryour consideration of this urgent request. Respectfully, Jonathan Spira 3/30/202613:36 Mia Crisostomo Constituent of Salt Lake City that is in Dugan, I am unable to attend the City Council meetingthat is occurring this evening due to having to work, but I opposition to the ICE Detention Center wanted to contact you as a constituent of Salt Lake City to let you know that I strongly oppose the purchase of the warehouse by DHS to create an inhumane detention center in our city. Not only is ICE grossly inhumane and part of what I believe to be a fake police force terrorizing peaceful members of our community, but the location of the building will also put wetlands that we depend on directly for water purification at risk. It is against the best interest of Salt Lake City residents on so many levels. The proposed benefits don't make any sense, and quite frankly I'm tired of hearing that possible profits are worth the degradation of human life, and the lake that is our city's namesake. Thankyou foryour consideration. Mia Crisostomo 3/30/202614:01 Richard Barnes In -Person - Renaming of 500 So. from 500 South in SLC is currently named Caesar Chavez Blvd. There are 2 premier SLC hotels "The Little America" and Caesar Chavez Blvd. "The Grand America" located on the same street. If 500 South is to be renamed, let's rename it as "American Way". Other alternatives could be: SLC Blvd. (Air, bus, rail code), Salt Lake Blvd., Salt Lake City Blvd., Sego Lilly Drive, or Airport Blvd. Thank you, Richard D.M. Barnes 3/31/202616:45 Kavish Choudhary Former Sizzler Site To whom it may concern: I am writing to oppose the construction of a hotel on the old Sizzler site near Sugar House park. Traffic is already chaotic in the area, specifically coming off 1-80 heading north on 1300 E. Thank you for the opportunity to chime in. Kavish 3/31/202616:47 Heidi Justice Public Hearing CDBG Comments for Dear City Council Members, I attended the city council meeting on 3/24/26 but had to leave before I was able to THRIVE Center for Survivors of Torture speak about our funding proposal. Our program "Integrated Services for Torture Survivors" was recommended for funding ($50,000), for which we are very grateful. I wanted to highlight a couple of things for the council as they make their final recommendations. Approximately 20% of the clients in our program live in Salt Lake City boundaries, while our request is only 3% of our total budget. Salt Lake City CDBG funds have allowed us to continue to serve an extremely vulnerable population, who has nowhere else to go for free, integrated, cultural and linguistically appropriate services. THRIVE is the only program who serves refugees after 5 years of resettlement, this year 60% of our clients had been in the U.S. for longer than 5 years. The majority of our clients are uninsured, and we expect that number to increase in 2027 with changes to Medicaid eligibility as outlined in HR1. Additionally, we expect the need for services to continue to increase as other changes to other benefit programs change our target population. More and more clients are comingto us unhouse, or in a housing crisis. They are losing SNAP, Medicaid, and the ability the apply for green cards and citizenship. With the increased amount of fundingfor FY26- 27, THRIVE will be able to serve 30 clients, which is about 25% of ourtotal Salt Lake City caseload. We thank the City fortheir ongoing support of our program and belief in our clients and our mission. Best Regards, Heidi Heidi h ictira 3/31/202616:52 Sandy Patterson Idaho finally removed the Pride flag I see from your website you still use the combination of flags, 1 is Pride, and 2 are transgender. You tried to be from their capitol building today (or tricky, but basically abnormal is being represented. I would like that Salt Flag replaced with one that is inclusive 2K/day fines) and not offensive to your majority. (I've lived back and forth in Utah and Idaho half each of my 68 years) 3/31/202616:54 Lolly Steele Voicemailto City Council Hello. My name is Lolly Steele. And I just wanted to call and give my support for the proposed, emergency conditional permit required for ice detention facilities in Salt Lake City, thus making them, you know, up to the city on if they get to build them. Typically, it's to create protections so that we don't have to build them. So, again, I I support the proposal for an emergency conditional permit requirement for the building of any ice detention facilities in Salt Lake City. Thank you so much. 4/1/202611:06 Granary District Alliance Granary District Letter of Support - Dear Mayor Mendenhall, City Council Members and Mr. Walz, We at the Granary District Alliance (GDA) as well as Pickle Building many community members, are deeply saddened bythe loss of the historic Pickle Co Building which has been an iconic and important historic structure in our community. As mentioned in our previous letter, The GDA endorsed the original plan in 2023 as itwas an adaptive reuse for the building, preserving a portion of the front facade and retrofitting the rest of the building preserving its original character. We understand that Blaser Ventures was within their rights to demolish the building as a revised demolition permit was issued by Salt Lake City building services. The developer has expressed regret and apologized for the lack of transparency with the GDA board with the change in plans and the demolition carried out last week. After discussions with the Blaser team and witnessing their development of the site, we applaud the new building that is currently being built with similar architectural elements (namely the arched windows and parapet), constructed reusing the bricks from the original Pickle building, and believe it is the best path forward for the site. This revised development also includes publicly accessible open space in the form of a pocket square behind the rebuilt building.This revised plan dovetails with the developer's plans for the Kilby development parcels east of the site. This will create a walkable, connected space with existing buildings that maintain the original character of the Granary district, something the GDA highly values. Our formal recommendation, as voted on and approved unanimously by our board on May 28th, 2025, and again on March 23, 2026 is to support the new concept of the Blaser Pickle Building rebuild including the proposed open space. We encourage the City Council and CRA to follow through with their agreement with the developer to issue the $6M in tax increment reimbursement funding previously allocated to the project. We also support including a stipulation in this agreement to ensure that the public open space or pocket square in the current plan gets constructed as a condition of the agreement for public benefit. We understand that these funds are required for the project's financing and future feasibility. As a board, we would like to see the site thrive. We believe it is the best solution moving forward to avoid blight to the neighborhood that such a stalled or abandoned project would cause. We encourage the CRA and City Council to support this new vision of the Pickle Co building and issue the CRA funding agreement. This funding will facilitate the reconstruction of the building and the proposed public space as the best case scenario for this site. Please reach out if you have any questions or would like to engage in additional discussions on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, The Granary District Alliance Board Annastasia Kaessner, Granary District Alliance, Chair 2026 4/1/202612:25 John Whittaker Sugarhouse Hotel I hopeyou are planningto vote againstthe proposed hotel. ItwilL add significantlyto the the traffic problems in both the intersection of 21st and 1300 E and traffic within the park. Sugarhouse traffic is alreadyterrible. Michigan Ave Resident 4/1/202616:42 Lindsay Parkerson STR Ordinance Review Salt Lake City Corporation Civil Enforcement Division Department of Community and Neighborhoods To Whom It May Concern, I am writingto formally object to and request reconsideration of the ordinance restricting homeowners from renting a portion of their primary residence on a short-term basis within Salt Lake City. This ordinance imposes disproportionate economic and property -use burdens on owner -occupied residences while failing to adequately account for the practical realities faced by individual homeowners. For many residents, short- term rentals are not commercial enterprises, but rather a reasonable and lawful means of maintaining financial stability, preserving homeownership, and responsibly managing property. In contrast, the long-term rental framework required under current regulations creates financial and operational barriers. These include recurring licensingfees, landlord education costs, and ongoing compliance requirements that disproportionately affect small, individual property owners. Additionally, long-term lease obligations significantly limit homeowners' ability to maintain control overtheir property. Fixed lease terms restrict scheduling of renovations, maintenance, or personal occupancy. Rental pricing is also constrained, preventing homeowners from adapting to inflation, market fluctuations, or rising operating costs. The ordinance further fails to address the increased legal and financial risks associated with long-term tenancy, including prolonged eviction proceedings, delayed detection of property damage, and increased wear and tear resulting from continuous occupancy, all while generating comparatively lower income potential. Collectively, these impacts effectively deprive homeowners of a reasonable and economically viable use of their property. I respectfully urge the City to reconsider or amend this ordinance to allow reasonable exemptions or accommodations for owner -occupied short-term rentals. A balanced regulatory framework can protect neighborhood integrity while preserving property rights and economic sustainability. Respectfully, Lindsay Parkerson 4/1/202616:43 Jared West 1/2 Strong Opposition to Proposed Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Council and Planning Commission, I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed Amendment— Definition of Family amendment to the definition of "family" under Petition No. PLNPCM2026-00244. I am a property owner and also a landlord of (PLNPCM2026-00244) multiple properties in Salt Lake City. While the intent of increasing housing flexibility and affordability is understandable, this proposal —by removing occupancy limits for unrelated individuals —will have serious and far-reaching negative consequences for our neighborhoods, residents, and housing market as a whole. As outlined in the City's materials, the proposal seeks to eliminate relationship -based occupancy limits and instead rely on enforcement of impacts such as noise, parking, and property maintenance. However, this approach shifts the City from preventative policyto reactive enforcement, which is both ineffective and unsustainable. From a responsible landlord perspective, we are actually losing good, responsible tenants because of the overcrowding, loud parties, parking, etc., already currently happening; this will just exacerbate the issue, not to mention the issues as a homeowner we are also experiencing. First, this amendment will significantly worsen nuisance conditions. By allowing an unlimited number of unrelated individuals to occupy a single dwelling, the City will inevitably increase the very issues it seeks to control —unruly gatherings, noise disturbances, excessive trash, and disruptive behavior. In our neighborhood, we have already experienced years of escalating nuisance activity, including vandalism and harassment. This proposal will only amplify those conditions and undo the progress residents have worked tirelessly to achieve. This pattern is not theoretical —it has been seen in other cities. In Boulder, where occupancy restrictions were relaxed in student -heavy neighborhoods, the result was increased overcrowding, elevated nuisance complaints, and a surge in party -related disruptions. The city ultimately had to reintroduce stricter enforcement measures and occupancy controls after significant neighborhood pushback. Second, the proposal creates an immediate and unmanageable parking crisis. The ordinance removes enforceable household definitions tied to parking standards. Without clear occupancy limits, there is no practical way to regulate the number of vehicles associated with a property. In areas near the University and other dense neighborhoods, parking is already at capacity. This change will push it beyond a functional breaking point, impacting accessibility, safety, and emergency response. Third, this amendment incentivizes exploitative rental practices. Rather than improving affordability, it will encourage landlords to maximize profit by increasing occupant density —often charging per person rather than per unit. We have already seen homes with eight to ten individuals occupying spaces not designed for that level of use, including non -bedroom areas such as living rooms and kitchens. This proposal effectively legitimizes and accelerates that model, benefiting profit -driven landlordswhile degrading living conditions for tenants. Similar dynamics have been documented in Tucson, particularly in neighborhoods surrounding the University of Arizona. There, the proliferation of "mini -dorm" style housing led to overcrowding, excessive parking demand, and increased complaints from long-term residents as single-family homes were converted into high -density rental properties. Fourth, it will displace families and long-term residents. Single-family homes will increasingly be converted into high -density rental properties, eroding neighborhood stability and community cohesion. 4/1/202616:43 Jared West 2/2 CONTINUED!! Strong Opposition to We have already seen families and longtime residents leave due to ongoing nuisance issues. This amendment will accelerate Proposed Amendment— Definition of that trend and fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhoods. Fifth, this proposal will increase home prices and reduce Family (PLNPCM2026-00244) ownership accessibility. By enabling higher rental income per property, investors will be incentivized to purchase more single- family homes, driving up prices and making homeownership less attainable foryoung professionals, families, and first-time buyers. A comparable outcome has been observed in Minneapolis following zoning reforms intended to increase housing flexibility. While well-intentioned, these changes led to increased investor activity and limited affordability gains in practice, raising concerns about displacement and neighborhood impacts rather than delivering the intended relief. Sixth, there are serious safety concerns. Over -occupancy increases the risk of fire hazards, overcrowding, blocked egress, and strain on building systems. Existing safety codes are not designed to accommodate informal high -density living arrangements within single-family homes. Finally, the justification that the current ordinance is "difficult to enforce" is not sufficient grounds for removing it altogether. Enforcement challenges should be addressed through better tools and resources —not by eliminating the very standards that protect residents and neighborhoods. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent. Once implemented, the resulting changes to housing patterns, investor behavior, and neighborhood dynamics will be extremely difficult —if not impossible —to reverse. We urge the City to consider more balanced alternatives that address housing flexibility while preserving livability, including: • 1.Tie occupancy to the physical capacity of the home Establish maximum occupancy based on: o Number of legal bedrooms o Square footage This ensures homes are used safely and as intended. 2. Implement a parking - based standard Limit occupancy based on available off-street parking to prevent overflow into surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Require rental licensing and occupancy disclosure Mandate that landlords: o Register the number of occupants o Disclose vehicle counts o Be subject to penalties for violations 4. Prohibit non -bedroom sleeping arrangements in single-family homes Clearly define and enforce what constitutes a legal sleeping space to prevent overcrowding and unsafe living conditions. 5. Strengthen accountability for property owners Ensure that repeated nuisance violations are tied directlyto property owners, with escalating penalties for non-compliance. 6. Preserve enforcement tools while improving them Instead of removing standards, invest in: o Clearer enforcement mechanisms o Faster response systems o Stronger penalties for violations Salt Lake City is a vibrant and growing community, but growth must be managed responsibly. This proposal, as written, removes critical guardrails without providing adequate replacement protections. We respectfully urge you to reject or significantly revise this amendment to ensure that it supports both housing needs and the long-term health, safety, and stability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, kned Contact Name ject Description 4/2/202616:10 Collette Mitchell Sugar House Park/Sizzler I don't knowwhat the best solution to that corner is, but putting in a tall building is not it. A hotel may be a nice commodity in the area, but it will take away from the piece of nature we have in an ever growing area. As a longtime resident (I have lived in Sugar House for nearly 23 years, in SLC for 27), I have seen many changes that growth has brought. We made itthrough the hole that sat foryears and all the changes that have happened in the shopping area. We do not need more congestion at that intersection. As a runner that uses both the inner and outer loop of the park, having to navigate around more cars that would be crossing the sidewalk to get to the hotel or would use the park as their access point could increase safety issues. I don't have any very strong arguments, other than it would just make me sad. I want the park to stay as a place to go on a Sunday afternoon and fly a kite, to go for an evening walk, to go where I can eat lunch by the pond and not have a big dumb building looming by. Please don't take away anymore of the quaintness. Sure, Sizzler was not quaint, but it was a place for families to gather for a meal and it wasn't obstruction the western sky. A nice diner or something along the lines of The Dodo would be great. A little shop to rent bikes (not e-bikes) or something that elevates the park and its use, not something that elevates into the air. Thank you for your time, Collette 4/2/202616:14 Eryn Hanson Support for Wasatch Community Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is Eryn Hanson, and I'm your constituent living in the Fairpark neighborhood Gardens' CDBG Funding Request of Salt Lake City. I'm writingto request your support for Wasatch Community Gardens' (WCG's) application for $50,000 in CDBG funds to support its farm -based Job Training Program's Green Team forwomen facing or experiencing homelessness. This program provides paid employment, job training, and mentorship at WCG's new City Farm on 1300 South, helping participants secure stable housing and jobs. Green Team members are challenged to learn, grow, and rediscover their strengths, even as they navigate difficult circumstances. A key part of the program's success is WCG's onsite Case Manager, who maintains a realistic caseload to support Green Team members while also assisting overworked shelter and outreach case managers. Over 100 Green Team graduates have transitioned to independent living, with 80% securing housing and employment within six months. The impact of this program extends far beyond individual participants. Green Team members play a critical role in ensuring thousands of individuals and families have access to fresh, nutritious food. All produce grown at City Farm is donated to low-income community members through WCG's partner organizations, distributing $100,000 worth of healthy food annually. In any given year, more than 40% of the Utah population served in shelters has received food grown by the Green Team at WCG's farm. With 12% of Utahns experiencing food insecurity and grocery prices rising, sustainable, local food sources are more critical than ever. WCG is the only broad -scale, garden -to -mouth nonprofit in Salt Lake City, providing growing space, food education, and distribution to shelters and community partners. Without CDBG support, Salt Lake City compromises this vital resource that not only feeds our community but also helps women reclaim stability in their lives. Please prioritize WCG's Job Training Program's Green Team for CDBG funding. I have worked personally at the new City Farm and other sites around the city and feel thatthe work WCG is profound for all members of our community, but especially forthose in the Job Training Program. Thankyou, Eryn Hanson Date/Time _ Description 4/2/202616:46 Bernadette Doykos Supporting Wasatch Community Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is Bernadette Doykos, and I'm your constituent living at REDACTED in Salt Garden Lake City. I'm writing to requestyour support for Wasatch Community Gardens' (WCG's) application for $50,000 in CDBG funds to support its farm -based Job Training Program's Green Team for women facing or experiencing homelessness. This program provides paid employment, job training, and mentorship at WCG's new City Farm on 1300 South, helping participants secure stable housing and jobs. Green Team members are challenged to learn, grow, and rediscover their strengths, even as they navigate difficult circumstances. A key part of the program's success is WCG's onsite Case Manager, who maintains a realistic caseload to support Green Team members while also assisting overworked shelter and outreach case managers. Over 100 Green Team graduates have transitioned to independent living, with 80% securing housing and employment within six months. The outcomes of this program are amazing, and will generate a return on the initial investment that far exceeds the $50,000. The impact of this program extends far beyond individual participants. Green Team members play a critical role in ensuring thousands of individuals and families have access to fresh, nutritious food. All produce grown at City Farm is donated to low-income community members through WCG's partner organizations, distributing $100,000 worth of healthy food annually. In any given year, more than 40% of the Utah population served in shelters has received food grown by the Green Team at WCG's farm. With 12% of Utahns experiencing food insecurity and grocery prices rising, sustainable, local food sources are more critical than ever. WCG is the only broad -scale, garden -to -mouth nonprofit in Salt Lake City, providing growing space, food education, and distribution to shelters and community partners. Without CDBG support, Salt Lake City compromises this vital resource that not only feeds our community but also helps women reclaim stability in their lives. Please prioritize WCG's Job Training Program's Green Team for CDBG funding. Thank you, Bernadette Doykos -- Bernadette Doykos, Ph.D. 4/2/202616:52 Ruby Hocker Support Wasatch Community Garden Dear Salt Lake City Councilmember Carlsen, My name is Ruby Hacker, and I'm your constituent living in Liberty Wells, writing to requestyour support for Wasatch Community Gardens' application for $50,000 in CDBG funds to support its farm -based Job Training Program's Green Team for women facing or experiencing homelessness. This program provides paid employment, job training, and mentorship at City Farm on 1300 South. A key part of the program's success is WCG's onsite Case Manager, who maintains a realistic caseload to support Green Team members while also assisting overworked shelter and outreach case managers. The impact of this program extends far beyond individual participants. Green Team members play a critical role in ensuring thousands of individuals and families have access to fresh, nutritious food. All produce grown at City Farm is donated to low- income community members through WCG's partner organizations. Please prioritize WCG's Job Training Program's Green Team for CDBG funding. Thank vou. Rubv 4/3/202614:24 Walter 0 Haas $1.9 Million Dollar Sale Greetings: My observation is thatthe lack of affordable housing is due mostly to profit maximizing by investors. In the last 20 or so years five infill houses have been built within a few hundred feet of my home in the Avenues. This area is zoned for duplex, but all five of these new homes was built as a high -end single family residence. In the case of the most recent new home, I actually talked to the developer as he was planning what to build, and I told him he could build a duplex. He replied "Nope, I'll build a single family." He did build a VERY nice single family, check it out. It sold for $1,900,000. This is on a 40x100 foot lot. The price is roughly twice the next most expensive house on the block. So changing zoning would have no effect on creating more affordable housing. -- Walt 4/3/202615:14 Anna Johnson Voicemail to City Council Hi there. Myna me is Anna Johnson. I'm a resident of Sugar House. I actually live right across the street from Sugar House Park. And I'm just calling with a comment regarding the potential change of zoning for that lot on the Northwest Side Of Sugarhouse Park from an m three to an m eight zone. My main concern around property and the potential change in zoning is in regards to the traffic situation at that intersection. Even with the changes that were made with all of the construction on 2100 South in the past couple of years, during rush hours, so between about 8AM until about 10:30 and starting at about 03:30 or four until really about 7PM. That intersection backs up in all four directions with folks going to and from work. It's up for several blocks, particularly on the 1300 South Road, especially, at SPM. I drive that intersection every single day to go home, and I routinely sit through five or six light cycles, trying to make a left turn on the 1300 South. My concern is that with the change to an m eight zone to allow for a large scale hotel to be built on that land, that there are significant concerns around cars coming in and out of that parking lot and it creating additional congestion in that already very heavilytrafficked area and also being a safety concern, particularly with the high school so closely adjacent to that area. When I drive home from work and I turn left on 2100 South on the thirteenth, people routinely turn into the wrong lane and cut each other off in that section just due to the high volume of traffic going south bound on 1300 East. It is very difficult to make that turn, and it would be the intersection blocking all crosswalk access for folks. It's also very difficult to get in and out of parking lots in that area. I'm sure the Chevron across the street, has has similar issues that I fear we would see if that was to be changed to allow for a large hotel with lots of guests. In addition to the traffic and safety concerns that I see with that zoning change, I also know that there's a hotel immediately adjacent to that property, in the same parking lot as the Wendy's in that area. And so I don't necessarily see the need for additional hotel space in that specific property with the safety concerns and the availability of alternative options for hotels in the area. I do not support that zoning change, and I ordered the city council to consider what alternatives could be made to allow for that to be a more community centered space that would prevent additional congestion in the area. Thank you. -Contact Narq& Subject 4/3/202615:18 Christopher Knoles Proposed Zoning Change for Sugar Salt Lake City Council Members re: Proposed Zoning Change for Sugar House Park parcel Dear Council Members, House Park parcel I'm a resident of Salt Lake City and live near the proposed hotel site. I am against the proposal to accommodate the hotel's request for a taller structure. I support commercial enterprise and believe the hotel design needs to comply with the existing zoning height ordinance. I have a 20+year career background in commercial construction and architecture along the Wasatch Front and it's from this perspective that I have two key issues with the proposed zoning change. BUILDING HEIGHTThe intent of the original master plan and zoning designation should be honored. This variance will place a massive structure in an area where tall buildings should not exist. Worse, due to the topography of the surrounding land, the height of this structure will appear even taller, as it's uphill from any other commercial building. Sitting high on the bench it will be among the tallest buildings in the valleywhen viewed from the 1-15 corridor. It will certainly set a new height precedent for future structures to match, further eroding the intent of the master plan and original zoning. The developer is circulating renderings of the proposed structure which are inaccurate and deliberately deceiving. The height of the proposed structure is significantly tallerthan what is illustrated. PARKING The proposed business can't operate without infringing on Sugar House Park and will place an unfair burden on the Park operators. Regardless of what the developer claims, parking for this hotel will creep into Sugar House Park, requiring the park road to be open 24/7. The Park and surrounding community benefitfrom the nightly, gated closure of the park from 10PM-7AM. Having a 110-acre park accessible 24/7 will bring a substantial amount of crime, noise, and RVs. By limiting the hotel height to be compliant with existing zoning will ensure that the hotel's self-contained parking structure can serve the hotel guests and employees; and prevent Sugar House Park from being used for parking. Thankyou for considering these points. Chris Knoles 4/3/202615:20 Julianne Skrivan Hotel in Sugarhouse Please, please please please please please, do not put a hotel here. It's a PARK with a VIEW that could only exist in SALT LAKE CITY! Let's put something there that will last for generations, that won't sit at a below 50% occupancy rate, that will make way more money and sense than a hotel in an area that is already surrounded by other hotels. Thanks! 4/3/202615:29 AngieTrumbo Comments on Proposed Rezoning Dear Sugar House City Council, Thankyou fortakingthe time to consider our concerns regardingthe proposed zoning change for the lot at the corner of Sugar House Park (2100 S and 1300 E). Our concerns stem from the potential bird -window collision mortalities that would result from this change. Window collisions are a leading cause of mortality for birds, with an estimated 365 to 988 million birds killed in collisions annually in the U.S. (Loss et al., 2014). Since 2017, Tracy Aviary has been conducting bird -window collision surveys in Salt Lake City and our analyses have shown that building height and percentage of window coverage are associated with increased likelihood of bird collisions (Tracy Aviary, unpublished data). Other research has shown that exposed habitat surrounding buildings also has a significant impact on the occurrence of bird -window collisions (Cusa et at., 2015). The proposed rezoning of that corner lot to an MU-8 for a 7-story hotel raises concerns for bird safety for all of these reasons: the increased building height and window coverage, as well as its immediate proximity to the 110 acres of open park habitat. Sugar House Park provides habitat and important resources for over 140 species of birds, including species that have been identified as regular window strike victims in our Salt Lake Avian Collision Surveys (Ruby -crowned Kinglets, Dark -eyed Juncos, Mourning Doves, Brewer's Sparrows, Cedar Waxwings, Western Tanagers, and Lazuli Buntings to name a few). To protect our native bird species, we recommend rejecting the proposed rezoning. If a structure is to be built in that space, we strongly recommend utilzing bird -safe design features. Implementing bird -safe principles at the design stage of a building will be much more cost-effective than mitigating bird strikes after the fact. Resources for bird -safe designs and products can be found here: Bird Safe Design I Bird Collision Prevention Alliance I would be more than happy to talk with your team and planners further if you have questions or if you would like to discuss bird -friendly options for the space in the future. Thank you again for your time, [References: Cusa, M., Jackson, D. A., & Mesure, M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: Urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems, 18(4), 1427-1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/sll252-015-0459-3 Loss, S. R., Will, T., Loss, S. S., Marra P. P. 2014. Bird —building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor,116(1), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.11-- Angie Trumbo (she/her) Director of Conservation TRACY AVIARY in Liberty Park 589 East 1300 South, SLC UT, 84105, tracyaviary.org 4/3/202615:37 Mark Baer Probably'water under the bridge' or To Council, Allowing a visually obstructing, vehicle intensive hotel on the empty lot formerly occupied by the Sizzlei more precisely: more, much more adjacent to Sugarhouse Park is a stunningly poor and problematic decision given that that property could be used congestion already approved to: (1) enlarge the park (2) put in public facilities such as benches, picnic tables, etc (3) add foliage that would help offset the ever increasing heat island effects of SLC(ty) (4) allowfor a venue for performances or food trucks (non- permanent uses) (5) notfurther degrade the ability of people who live and work there to get around. The decisions made/about to be made to, apparently allowfor a hotel are unfortunate and a failure of vision. - Mark Mark Baer, SLC Utah 4/3/202615:41 Kevin Hunter Fwd: Quiet Zone for 2nd South and Montgomery Street 4/4/20261:33 Anonymous Constituent If I get a single city memo fining me for Landscaping, brown dead grass, or weeds, I am going to riot Sill waiting 14+ years now for this to be addressed. I am not going to stop complaining or hounding until this is taken care of. Enough is enough. Stop making excuses and do something for God's sake! What the fuck is wrong with you people? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Quiet Zone for 2nd South and Montgomery Street Date: Mon, 24 Nov 202513:19:17 -07001 have pretty much done all I can within my authority as a private citizen. City officials have the ball. After this, I just give up. I have already been looking for a new home somewhere in Bountiful, but the interest rates are stilltoo high, and the cost of a comparable home are astronomical. I just feel so trapped and frustrated beyond belief. I guess we will see how many more years this bull shitwill continue. I have no choice at this point. Kevin HOW DARE YOU simply raise rates and limit consumption as a council? Do you not know water right history'? We are coming for you 4/5/202614:00 Anonymous Constituent Nuisance Property I have been reportingthis property to you, Civil, and the Mayorforyears and it continues to get out of control with nothing done to address the issues. My dog is scared to be in the backyard and sometimes the house because of all the noise and people coming and going to this property. They run a generator all night, burn who knows what and cause an overall disturbance. 4/6/202610:28 Mary Anderson Sugar house park rezoning Hello who this might concern, Please consider not rezoning the corner of Sugar house park from MU-3 to MU-8. That intersection is already an incredibly busy area and adding that much capacity there will not help. The best thingforthat area would to bring a restaurant back but not a large multi story building. Thank you for your time and consideration, Mary Anderson 4/6/202610:32 Jessica Baynes Temple Parking issue example Good morning, I'm reaching outto share as a resident of a unit on Center Street that during a single LDS Church event today I had to park six blocks from my home after running an errand. In preparation for the road closure you've permitted nextyear, what steps will be taken to ensure residents have access to park at our apartments and homes? It is sustainable for Easter Weekend to have to walk six blocks to and from my house each time I leave, double parkingfor any deliveries, but it will not be sustainable for six months. Why can the city not enforce resident only parking during church events? Why can the church not ensure their members park in appropriate locations? Thankyou for attention to this before it becomes a significant issue, JB 4/6/2026 12:23 4/6/202613:01 4/6/2026 14:08 Rosy He Mary beth Whittaker Jen Colby Sugar House Hotel Rezone & Master Hi, I am writing to express my thoughts on the adoption of rezoning an area in Sugar House. I strongly urge the Plan Amendment Council District 7 Council to not approve the change to an MU-8 zone. While the report indicates that rezoning could add to the currently vacant lot, there is no guarantee that the proposed benefits will even come to fruition. There are already multiple hotels right next to Sugar House Park (Springhill Suites Marriott and Extended Stay Suites) that have open availability and do not indicate a need for an additional 145-room hotel. I understand the draw for visitors to be immersed in local areas. However, Salt Lake City has plenty of existing options for doing so. Sugar House Park is a beloved public space, and I believe thatvisitors better appreciate its current environment. I also worry that visitors may not appreciate its special existence as a large green space in the middle of a growing city if there is a large building directly on the edge of the park. Just because current zoning allows for buildings up to 40 feet tall does not mean that the proposed property will not impede on mountain views. As the Sugar House neighborhood grows, there needs to be a further push for affordable housing for current residents and prioritizing what is present there right now, instead of adding to our city's congestion with a building that will not be full for most of the time. I, as well as other residents, enjoy coming to a space with less building coverage and more open sky space. This city is built on outdoor access; why encroach on what we currently have with more building development? There are better ways to improve our communitiesH I hope the decision from the Council will preserve the beauty of our Sugar House neighborhood. Best, Rosy He proposed Sugarhouse Park hotel Dear Council Members of Salt Lake City, As a member of the Great Salt Lake Audubon Bird Safe Utah Network, I am very concerned about the proposed hotel in Sugarhouse Park. I understand that the current proposed design does not yet consider bird safe practices, such as windows treated to prevent collisions and building design that prevents collisions. Over one billion birds per year are estimated to die by collisions with buildings in the United States. Salt Lake City could reflect its commitment to the environment by reevaluating this plan. I strongly support looking at more bird -friendly options, especially with the large pond that often hosts migratory birds in the spring and fall. A smaller building, a nature center with a bird -viewing deck, or other options that the community could enjoy would be an enhancement to the area. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Beth Whittaker D3/ Recommending E-Bikes for Dear Council Member Wharton, At the hearing last night regarding the "Temporary Street Closures for 2027 Temple Commutes During Large Closures Reopening Celebration" proposal, you pointed out the "sacrifices" we residents would be required to make -which I think can be greatly reduced - see my general comments at the hearing and earlier email. I was particularly saddened to hearyou say that your 8-block car commute from your home in D3 to work downtown would be disrupted and that it would make sense to loop around on the interstate. Eight blocks is perfectly walkable or bikeable. It is a great and efficient way to get recommended daily activity. I am surprised you don't already bicycle for some or all of yourtrips - perhaps you do in season. If not, I can highly recommend electric bicycles, especially e-cargo bikes - I have one of each, plus all my regular (analog lot) bicycles. Here is a good article about the benefits of a -cargo bikes - including transporting children. https://momentummag.com/the-top-reasons-people-are- choosing-cargo-bikes-over-cars/ There are a lot of excellent models atvarious price points. Given the growing climate catastrophe, air quality issues, and constant complaints about car traffic in SLC, our elected leaders setting a positive example can make a big difference. Best, Jen Colby 4/6/202616:06 4/7/2026 8:56 Jonathan Boxer Anonymous Constituent D3/ Any Mitigation to the effects of t Well I have to say thanks for nothing. From what I have read the council approved the Church's request to close road closures on Residents? multiple streets for multiple months nextyear. While I read lots of justifications for this action, eg, safety, security, need to accommodate visitors and the Church, I saw nothing mentioned about what will probably be significant delays and inconvenience to residents and employees in the lower Avenues. I certainly saw nothing about any plans to mitigation the effects of these closings on affected residents and employees. Are there any? Maybe the visitors willvote foryou next time, but unless there are effective mitigation plans, I doubt thatyour constituents Proposed Sugar House park hotel zoning chsnge 4/7/202610:35 Sydney Myers Corner of 1300 and 2100 public comment _ will. _ Just say NO.... Keep the space open - or a 1-2 story development. Sugar house is already ruined with the corporate buildings, overpriced rental apartments and overrated pricey restaurants and awful automobile traffic. STOP the mega-magnus maddness faux "good for the community" marketing ploy.. don't make sugarhouse worse and do the right thing council members and vote NO. Hello, My name is Sydney, and I am a Salt Lake City resident. I've loved Sugarhouse Park for the past 5 years, and make an effort to visit the park at least a few times per week. I try to uphold the community standards of the park, participating in comments and events about Sugarhouse Park and the surrounding area. I would like to submit a comment about how I disagree with that lot being open to hotels and tall buildings. As there are already several hotels in the area surrounding the park, and plenty of gas stations, etc. I would like to propose something else. All the time, I see park visitors with food and picnics, snacks, coffee cups, and similar items. We like to walk around the park with friends after getting coffee, or having lunch with friends on the grass. It would be very community - minded and economically prosperous to have a cute little cafe with breakfast and lunch options, or a boulangerie- style cafe with several snack and fresh food options. I'm aware of the coffee shop Urban Sailor across the street from the park, but the problem with that is they aren't open past 3 or 4pm. It would be lovely to have a cafe or something similar in the empty lot, as this would drive traffic to the park, boosting a healthy community and giving that space the opportunity to be a pleasant and considerate gathering spot for all ages. If you've never been to Loki Coffee around 9th and 9th, that is the vibe we need in this empty lot. There are always tons of people hanging out and building community at Loki Coffee, and it drives traffic to the surrounding businesses and area. People are so Loyal to that cafe because of how adorable and practical it is. That's what we need at Sugarhouse Park. Not a hotel or a gas station. We need a community space that serves our local economy and makes people happy. And also one that doesn't compromise the beautifulview of the mountains. Please take my comments into consideration, as all I want for our city is a healthier, cleaner, and more abundant place to live. Thank you so much! Sydney Myers 4/ 7/2026 10:36 Dominic Furano Strong Opposition to Sugar House Dear Salt Lake City Councn Members, I am a longtime resident who Lives right next to Sugar House Park. I use the Hotel Rezone & Master Plan park multiple times perweek for walking, exercise, and family time. I strongly urge you to reject the proposed Amendment— PLNPCM2025-00622 & rezoning from MU-3 to MU-8 and the related amendment to the Sugar House Master Plan for the property at 2111 S. PLNPCM2025-00624 1300 E. I support redeveloping the long vacant lot, but this particular proposal does not fit with the character of Sugar House Park or our neighborhood. Here are my main concerns: 1. Scale and Visual Impact: A 90-foot building, roughly seven stories tall, would tower overthe northwest corner of the park. Itwould permanently blockthe beautiful sunsets that are currently visible from large areas of the park. The existing MU-3 zoning, which allows a maximum of about 40 feet, is much more appropriate for this sensitive location next to the park. 2. Traffic and Congestion: 1300 East and 2100 South are already busy roads that struggle with heavy traffic. Adding a hotel will bring more cars, delivery trucks, and visitors, making congestion, safety problems, and air quality even worse in an area that serves so many park users. 3. Incompatibility with the Park and Master Plan: The current Sugar House Master Plan calls for lower intensity mixed -use on this site. Extendingthe higher intensity business district across 1300 East toward the park sets a bad precedent and treats this important gateway to the park like just another commercial area. Most people who spoke at the March 24 hearing opposed this project. Many of us believe there are better options that would redevelop the site without harming the park experience. I respectfully ask the City Council to deny both the zoning change and the Master Plan amendment. Please protect the long-term character and beauty of Sugar House Park. Thank you for considering my comments. I am happy to discuss this further if needed. Sincerely, Dominic Furano 4/7/202610:39 Jim Jenkin Ordinance: Sugar House Hotel Master Dear Council Members, I recommend voting against this for all the reasons elaborated in the public hearing. I Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at would also like to note that Hotels are bigwater users and it's probably time to start prioritizing where we want to Approximately 2111 South 1300 East create new water rights. Thanks foryour efforts, Jim Jim Jenkin 4/7/202612:46 4/7/202613:36 Phillip Hare 4/7/202616:20 Martin Diaz 256 E 300 S - Proposed Rezoning Hello, I am a resident of Broadway Towers on 300 South that would be impacted bythe proposed rezoning at 256 E 300 S. I am writingto respectfully express my opposition. I have chosen to live in this area because of its balance between proximity to downtown and its more residential, livable scale. As someone who experiences this street on a daily basis, I am concerned about how a development of this size would directly impact my quality of life —particularly in terms of increased traffic, views, noise, and the overall change to the character of the neighborhood. I understand and support thoughtful, well -planned growth in Salt Lake City. However, this proposal represents a significant departure from the current zoning and the existing character of the neighborhood. The requested change to D-1 would allow for a level of height and density that is not consistent with the surrounding area. This part of 300 South functions as a mixed -use residential corridor ratherthan an extension of the downtown core. A development of this scale raises concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, including impacts to livability, infrastructure, and overall character. Additionally, approving a rezoning of this magnitude for a single parcel sets a meaningful precedent. It effectively shifts development expectations in the area without a broader, coordinated planning process or sufficient community alignment. I am not opposed to development on this site. I would strongly support a project that aligns with the current zoning and reflects the scale and intent of the neighborhood. Forthese reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny the requested rezoning. Sincerely, Marisa Mills Statement of Opposition to D1 Upzone Good afternoon Councilwoman Lopez Chavez, Please find attached a statement from the Broadway Tower HOA **Attachment 1- 2 pages Board regarding the proposed upzone of 256 E 300 S. Thank you foryour consideration and support. - Phillip Hare Secretary, Broadway Tower HOA Board Rezone on 300 South Dear City Council Member, I am a resident of Broadway Towers condominium which is next to the proposed zoning change. The change would lead to a hotel being built on the property. This would change the nature of the neighborhood. I am strongly opposed to the change. I bought my condominium only a year ago. One of the attractive features is that it is close to the center of downtown but has a neighborhood feel about it. There are local businesses in the neighborhood. My suggestion for the property in question is a three story parking garage. Parking is one reason people do not come downtown. A parking garage that provided a space for significantly less than the going rate a few blocks away would be a money maker. Lots of people would pay less and walk a few blocks to the restaurant or othervenue. Martin Diaz Attachment 1 - Page 1 TO: Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez, Salt Lake City Council FROM: Broadway Tower HOA Board DATE: April 6, 2026 SUBJECT. Statement of Opposition to D-1 Rezone at 256 E 300 S The Broadway Tower Condominium HOA Board, representing the residents of 93 units, emphatically opposes the proposed rezone of the Wade property from MU-8 to D-1. A transition to D-1 zoning, characterized by unlimited height and zero setback requirements, is fundamentally incompatible with the established character of the 300 South (Broadway) corridor. Alignment with Planning Commission and Council Sentiment The Board strongly supports the Salt Lake City Planning Commission's November 2024 recommendation for denial of this rezoning request. We reiterate the Commission's findings that: • A D-1 rezone destroys the vital urban transition between the high -intensity Downtown core and the adjacent residential neighborhoods; • A luxury hotel of this scale conflicts with the historic and residential fabric of the block; and • The proposed community benefit is not proportional to the request. We applaud Council Member Lopez Chavez's recent assertions from the March 10 work session that she cannot endorse this upzone, specifically her concerns regarding: • Lack of residential facilities, with the hotel largely catering to transient visitors; • The applicant's claim that MU-8 cannot attract investment is demonstrably false. Within the last four years, several successful residential projects have been developed nearby under MU-8 constraints, including Karve on Broadway (325 E 300 S), Aqui355, and 343 Apartments. These prove that small or odd -shaped lots can be successfully developed without D-1 density. Concerns Regarding Height and Transparency The Board is concerned by the applicant's inconsistent messaging regarding building height. While the application cites a maximum height of 180 feet, the Wade family stated during the March 10 work session that they "feel sure they can maintain it under 225 feet." This is a 45-foot discrepancy. Given that D-1 zoning permits unlimited height and that no development agreement is currently in place, the residents have no protection against a much larger structure. In 2024, the applicant's architect justified a lack of design detail by claiming the family was "rushing" to secure approval. It is now 2026, and the applicant has provided no further clarification, design renderings, or architectural commitments. This persistent lack of transparency suggests a speculative approach to development that disregards the surrounding community's right to good urban planning. Attachment 1 - Page 2 We urge the City Council to uphold the integrity of the MU-8 zoning and deny the request for D-1 designation. The negative impacts of unlimited height and zero setbacks are too great a risk for our neighborhood. 1. Opened ContactL. - Description 4/7/202617:07 Dennis Lawrence The hotel proposal for 1300 E and The hotel proposal for 1300 E and 2100S. Listen to the community, they did not want a gas station on this site and 2100 S now they do not want a hotel either. Regardless of approval by the zoning commission, (who do not live nearby) and agreements mitigatingthe issue, the community has rejected this proposal. The simple facts are that this is a real estate deal gone bad. Kum & Go was turned down in attemptingto place a gas station there. Then in 2023 Maverick acquired Kum & Go. They inherited a lease on this ground in the acquisition. Crystal Call, (who owns Maverick also owns the Crystal Inns nationwide), needs to make this real estate deal profitable, therefore the number of hotel rooms proposed is do so. This adds the height and traffic that over uses the site for numerous reasons. Let's think outside of the box on both sides of this issue. With the underground tunnel and the development on the east end, this site can become the corner stone for greeting the visitor to the park. Picture a building with sufficient height and nearly all glass, that allows a view of the mountains and the park and lake. That offers the park visitor what they come to the park for, namely food, recreation, and ecology. Some of the park may need to be added to the site to do this. This thinking could provide many benefits. There could be small or large food concessions, (including Maverick), bike, blade and scooter rentals, and a science center (with the help of institutions in our community) where the mountains are in full view and identified, where all can lookthrough telescopes and identify the birds on the lake, where plants and trees can be viewed and identified. But most important, Maverick could advertise this as a change in their "First Adventure" theme to be more environmentally conscious. This "BOX" requires both the City and Maverickto come togetherfor the benefit of the park. D.G. Lawrence 4/7/202617:52 Julie Terry 2100 S 1300 E The proposed hotel on the corner of 2100 S and 1300 E is an absolute NOT A GOOD IDEA. That corner is so congested as it is. Putting a 90 ft hotel in that space is absurd. I try and avoid that intersection when planning my route to work or to visitthe Sugarhouse area. It is a cluster **** Im not sorry of my last rude remark. Because it already is a nighmare!